Monday, March 31, 2008

Bush Oligarch Self-Regulation Plan for Wall Street

The Bush plan for regulation of financial services is the oligarchs regulating the oligarchs.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Questions Milton Friedman might have answered

Questions Friedman might have answered:

1. Was Koopmans a communist or spy?

2. Was there plagiarism involving Andrew D. Roy a victim in 1952 at U Chicago. Was Roy work being given to Markowitz?

3. Was Milton Friedman the one who told Alfred Cowles this was happening?

4. Is that why Cowles had the Managing Editor of Econmetrica resign and move the editorial office to Northwestern?

5. Was pressure used by the Soviets on plagiarism to get nominations for Kantorovich and Koopmans for the 1975 Nobel Prize 1 year ahead of Friedman.

6. Why did Friedman have a feud with Koopmans that he was still writing about in his 1998 autobio.

7. This was written about in a recent book by Martin J. Beckmann who was at Cowles Commission around 1952.

8. Stanley Fischer was hired at UChicago in 1969 from MIT. Did they think he had plagiarized Nils Hakansson?

9. Did Richard Posner as a U Chicago prof know of this in the 1970's?

10. Was Eric Posner given tenure at U Chicago in 1998 as an attempt to influence Judge Posner not to tell this to the FBI or USAO Mass? (speculation of course)

11. Did Russia use pressure to get IMF loans in the 1990's based on this?

12. Was this info passed to the US Supreme Court during Bush v. Gore to influence the vote against Gore? (this would be hearsay from Friedman)

13. Did they know in the 1950's that Russia had used plagiarism to help get Klaus Fuchs into Los Alamos and to pressure Niels Bohr to try to influence Churchill and Roosevelt to give the bomb secret to the Soviets?

Above is speculation not assertions.


Washington Post

Chicago Tribune



New York Times

The Chicago Blog

Brad DeLong


These are questions, speculation, hypotheses or opinion. All other disclaimers apply.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Friday, October 20, 2006

George Allen Insider Legislating Options H1B Skil Bill?

Senator George Felix Allen has reported that he failed to disclose substantial holdings in options in the company Commonwealth Biotechnologies Inc. See their statement on Allen.

The Washington Post has reported that Allen has asked the Senate Ethics Committee to look into this. Is this a possible case of insider legislating because Allen's support of H1B and the Skil Bill gave him an undisclosed interest in legislation that the Post article didn't realize was an issue?

Does this company Commonwealth Biotechnologies hire H1B workers? Would they benefit from the Skil Bill that Allen has cosponsored with Senator Cornyn?

Has this company or its officers or major investors given money to Allen or Cornyn or other Senators who support H1B or Skil Bill? Who are their institutional investors? Anything like the Carlyle Group? Have they given money to lobbyists or trade groups that lobby for H1B? Did any of those groups give money to Senator Allen or Senator Cornyn? Do Cornyn or other Senators have these types of ownership interests?

John McCain routinely, in private it appears, calls those who oppose immigration bigots. Does John McCain have such business interests? What about his wife's family who are rich? Is McCain calling those who oppose his personal business interests, bigots? Is this a new definition of bigot, getting in the way of a Senator and his prey?

Allen has supported harsh mandatory minimums and the sentencing guidelines. Allen has done something similar to insider trading. Either he should face the same penalties, or he is benefiting from allowing people to go to prison for insider trading for long sentences to maintain his reputation for harshness. The latter is actually worse than the former.

This post is opinion, speculation or hypotheses. All other disclaimers apply.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

US v. Harvard Tom Delay Jack Abramoff Alberto Gonzales

Has Attorney General Gonzales withheld information from the investigation of Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay? Does AG Gonzales know that Russia had possibly embarassing info on possibly Stanley Fischer and possibly Larry Summers? Did Delay obtain funding for the IMF in 1998 for Russian oligarchs to convert loans to Russia to personal use? That may include a 4.8 USD billion loan in July 1998. Has Gonzales withheld that info from the investigation? Have President Bush and Vice President Cheney?

Has AG Gonzales and Deputy AG Paul J. McNulty withheld information from the DOJ and FBI investigation of Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay? Have they withheld information about Russia using information about profs to help try to pressure IMF loans? What about Johnny Sutton, Jay Bybee, John Yoo, Michael Chertoff, and others?

Did the oligarchs use this process to obtain funds? Were they paying Delay in 1998 to obtain help to get more IMF funding? Was this withheld from Congress in the investigation of the Fed bailout of LTCM which had traded Russian government bonds in August 1998?

Did PNAC use this to get the Iraq Liberation Act in October 1998 during these hearings including the Clinton Impeachment hearings? Did John Yoo pass this information to Senator Orrin Hatch or Judge Silberman who then passed it to Antonin Scalia during Bush v. Gore to influence the court? Was it used to get Gore not to contest this in the Senate and to go away quietly?

Was this concealed from USAO Mass investigation of Harvard from spring 1997 to Aug 2005? Was this known to Marc Rich or Libby and passed to Israel to help get Israel's support for Rich's pardon? Was this concealed from USAO SDNY investigation of Marc Rich pardon? From Special Counsel Fitzgerald's investigation in Plame Leak case?

Did Pakistan know this on 9-11? Did Pakistan use this as leverage in the 9-13 2001 meeting of Richard Armitage and General Ahmed of the Pakistan ISI? Did Armitage threaten Pakistan not because of Pakistan incubating the Taliban and al Qaeda, or even its own complicity in 9-11, but because Mahmood Ahmed threatened to expose Armitage, who signed the PNAC letter in 1998, or the Bush team including part of its legal team?

Bill Moyers "Capital Crimes"

-----------Exile Ru Mark Ames Article

"Mr. DeLay Goes to Moscow
Excerpts from the secret "DeLay Diaries""
Mark Ames

By Mark Ames (




Konstantin Kagalovsky

-----------PBS Moyers Show

From PBS Moyers we saw McCain questioning witnesses in his usual self indignant way. Was McCain himself withholding information related to IMF loans to Russia? Did McCain know that Russia had potentially embarassing information on profs, including possibly Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers?

Did McCain know that Paul Wolfowitz knew this in 1998 when the Iraq Liberation Act was obtained?


search IMF "Tom Delay" Abramoff

----Washington Post IMF article

Washington Post 1998 IMF and Tom Delay.

The DeLay-Abramoff Money Trail
Nonprofit Group Linked to Lawmaker Was Funded Mostly by Clients of Lobbyist
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 31, 2005; A01

----Larry Summers Resignation

Did Larry Summers resign as president of Harvard because of the Jack Abramoff heading towards Russia and IMF loans in early 2006?

"On February 21, 2006, Summers announced his intention to step down at the end of the school year effective June 30, 2006." From wiki.

From Boston Globe
"Abramoff ties to Russians probedUS inquiry widens to energy concerns"
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff February 23, 2006


Ralph Reed

Grover Norquist

----- Profs
Nils Hakansson, possible victim of duplication by MIT profs in 1969.

---- MIT 1969 Profs ====
these are potential witnesses, no allegation of wrong doing is made by listing here.

Fischer Black Deceased.

Stanley Fischer MIT, University of Chicago

Paul Samuelson MIT

Myron Scholes Ph.D. from UChicago in 1969? Arrived MIT in 1969?

Andrei Shleifer Harvard

Larry Summers Harvard

Merton and Scholes shared the Nobel Prize in economics in 1998. Merton's NP auto bio
contains a statement that Hakansson was a grad student c. 1968, when in fact Hakansson got his Ph.D. in 1966.

---- Russian Profs

Valery Makarov At Warsaw 1972 Meeting where pressure may have been made on US profs for nominations of Kantorovich of USSR for 1975 Nobel Prize in economics. Now President of the New Economic School in Moscow.

Albert Shiryaev Moscow State University Department of Mathematics and Mechanics.

----Universities with possible Witnesses






New York University






---Think Tanks with possible witnesses

American Enterprise Institute




---Countries that may be involved








South Korea

North Korea




---Background Checks

Information may have been withheld from the FBI or Congress in the following cases.

Los Alamos National Laboratory WWII

Administrations from Roosevelt to Bush Sr.

Clinton administration

Bush Jr. Administration


Bush v. Gore,

Oppenheimer Security Clearance Hearings

US v. Harvard, Shleifer and Hay

US v. Microsoft

--- Commissions

9-11 Commission

Robb Silberman

---Congressional Hearings

1998 IMF funding for loans to Russia

1998 Loans to Russia

1998 Fed bailout of LTCM

1998 Iraq Liberation Act

1998 Clinton Impeachment

---- Investigations

Jack Abramoff and Tom Delay

Klaus Fuchs

Robert P. Hanssen

J. Robert Oppenheimer

USAO Mass investigation of Harvard

USAO SDNY investigations:

Bank of New York

Marc Rich

--- Companies

Goldman Sachs

Long Term Capital Management


-- Law firms
No implication of wrongdoing by being listed here.

Abramoff joined Greenberg Traurig Jan 8, 2001.

Jonathan Hay Cleary Gottlieb

----Members of Congress
Possible witnesses

Jon Corzine

Tom Delay

Orrin Hatch


Central Intelligence Agency

Council of Economic Advisers


DHS Michael Chertoff

DOJ AG Gonzales, DAG McNulty, Johnny Sutton etc.

Federal Reserve



SEC Christopher Cox

US Treasury



World Bank

---Ref pages

-------------US v. Harvard Related Posts---------

  1. Issues: US v. Harvard, Bush v. Gore, Russia's files on plagiarism.
  2. The Necessity of Unitary Executive Theory?
  3. Do Iran and Pakistan have info on Bush? From the 90's on Clinton?
  4. Jamie Gorelick Wall Memo and NSA Briefings
  5. The "This is what X would do" type of argument
  6. Chertoff on Information Sharing in Government
  7. Chertoff's Information Hiding?
  8. All disclaimers apply to all articles.
This is opinion, hypothesis and speculation. All statements in the positive should be restated as hypotheses. All other disclaimers apply. This is part of the petition to Congress which is detailed elsewhere to investigate US v. Harvard, Shleifer and Hay, Bush v. Gore, etc.

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Deer Head Mailbox George Allen or Severed Heads with McCain?

George Allen is said to have put a deer head in a mailbox in a prank some 30 years ago while a football player at University of Virginia, UVA. Recently there was a report of severed human heads being dumped in a bar in Mexico.

The Republican nomination is a choice of

George Allen, a deer head in every mail box, v. McCain severed human heads dumped in bars in Mexico coming here.
Republican voters don't want severed heads dumped in bars today. That means ignoring a youthful prank, if it happened. McCain wants to legalize crime gangs that dump severed heads in bars. Americans don't want to live in the country John McCain wants to put us in with his S. 2611. McCain thinks Americans are bigots who deserve to lose their country. He is the morally superior man to take it away from us. The MSM agree as do the Democrats and the Left. The Nation and the SPLC are a cheering section for viewing Allen and those who vote for him as bigots.

The government has reduced us to not caring if we are offended, we have to survive. Allen helps us survive, it doesn't matter if we are offended or not, we no longer have the luxury of being offended. The MSM took away our dignity and economic security with immigration, and now we have to get back our economic security.

They wanted to reduce us to having the same fear as immigrants for our survival. Our pensions, ER's, job security, education opportunities in science and math have been taken from us by Skil Bill, H1B, mass immigration, etc. Allen is guilty of some of that, but less than McCain. McCain never saw an American job he didn't want to give to someone else.

McCain thinks we owe him loyalty and he owes us nothing. McCain thinks we owe him. McCain thinks we are bigots and he is superior to us. McCain doesn't feel loyalty to us. McCain feel entitled. McCain showed that in the Keating 5 case where he helped S & L tycoon Keating. McCain doesn't feel Americans deserve to have their country and wants to take it from them.

We may have to make deerhead soup of our alternatives. McCain has set out to reduce our dignity to the point that we can no longer afford to be offended by his Keating 5 cheating scandal. He has succeeded. So now we have to vote for Allen to keep McCain from reducing our dignity further. Its McCain who offends us by taking away our dignity completely so that we can't be offended by his cheating.

The MSM have taken away our dignity by their immigration. The MSM celebrated that there was no profiling on 9-11. On 9-11, Peter Jennings attacked Americans as bigots for wanting
to stop the immigration of the 19 immigrants who had killed them. The MSM in effect called Americans bigots who deserved not to be saved by profiling or stopping immigration. They have taken away our dignity with H1B and immigration.

We can't afford to be offended anymore at work. That is what the MSM wanted. They want us too fearful to be offended. That is what the CEO's and B-schools want. If we can't afford to be offended at work, how can we afford to be offended in the way we vote? We have to vote for our survival.

Allen is a big H1B and Skil Bill booster, and he voted for amendments to S. 2611 to make it worse knowing it would pass. Nonetheless, McCain voted for the final version, at least Allen pretended to be for us by voting against it. So we have to choose Allen over McCain. McCain makes it clear he thinks we are bigots who don't deserve to keep our country. At least Allen pretends not to think that.

------------------Barnes and Balz on Allen

The Post article is '08 Scrutiny Shines Unkind Light on Allen'

By Robert Barnes and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, October 1, 2006; Page A01

Some comments by Old Atlantic are:

Allen has cosponsored the Skil Bill to vastly increase H1B visas and undermine economic securit for young adults so they lack the 25 year window they need of job security to plan for children. The result of Allens Skil Bill and H1B votes is that young adults wont have children, but will devote the love they would have had to kids in a stable marriage to their employer instead.


Allen was against S. 2611 but for amendments that made immigration worse if it passed. He knew it would pass. Is this a character issue? Nonetheless, McCain was for S. 2611 in its final version. Although the MSM and Democrats want McCain as nominee for the Republicans, Republicans dont. Republicans want the fence, no legalization and to lower legal immigration. Allen is better on these issues than any other candidate for the nomination. The voters got the fence passed against the oppostion of the Post, Democrats, McCain, etc. So Allen may very well be the next president. The MSM will deny immigration is the reason any candidate wins, even as it happens in this 2006 election.

----------Severed Heads in Mexican Bar

The BBC reports that in a Mexican bar, 5 human heads were dumped. This happened in Uruapan city, Michoacan state. This is drug traffickers. "Authorities have found 13 decapitated bodies in Michoacan this year."

Is this why people leave Mexico? That is what Kondracke's Hypothesis said. They leave because Mexico is bad. Mexico is bad because of the people. Kondracke gave this as a reason we should want immigration from Mexico. That is what we termed, Kondracke's Fallacy. The alternative is that population makes conditions bad. People do this because increasing population makes conditions worse. That also implies we should not want immigration. Whichever hypothesis is true, Kondracke or Population, it implies the reasons that make people want to come here are reasons we don't want them to. Either they are bad, or just more people makes a place worse to live in. See Kondracke's Fallacy on Immigration.

Whether its the people in Mexico are bad, and that is why this event happened, or increasing population makes conditions worse, and they are pushed to do this, implies that we should not want immigration from Mexico.

Buchanan has been attacked using all the usual words and epithets that are applied to him. Once a person is marked for that treatment, they are open season. But his book continues to sell on Amazon and get mostly favorable reviews. The staff of Vdare helped him with it. This event is what Buchanan was saying we don't want to become the norm in America. America is renorming itself to Mexico's norms. This type of event is what happens in Mexico, even though, obviously, most Mexicans don't do this themselves, their country produces it as a whole.

This may be simply because increasing population makes Mexico worse. In that case, we don't want immigration since it would make our population higher, and therefore our country worse. The immigration advocates can't deal with this logic. Insteady they scream nativist, and complain about Pat Buchanan and invent names about him.

Buchanan State of Emergency Links Pro and Con

"Immigrants Blindsiding U.S. Public Schools" By Edwin S. Rubenstein

The Rubinstein article covers that school enrollments are unexpectedly large, indicating it is from illegals. This is harming schools ability to deliver education to those here legally. Even legal immigration does this. The result of immigration, legal and illegal, on schools is that they can't teach those here, legal or illegal. Thus the schools fail. The result of this is that Americans don't learn math and science, and don't get technical skills. Then Senators like Cornyn and Allen want to take jobs away from Americans who do have technical skills and give them to others from outside the US. This takes away from the expectations of future jobs in those fields that had let some people overcome the US educational system and learn those skills or who were taught before it became so bad.

This post represents opinion. All other disclaimers apply.

Sunday, September 24, 2006

George Allen: Much ado about nothing

The attacks on Senator George Allen heat up. The Weekly Standard under William Kristol which favors massive immigration, legalization, the war in Iraq, letting Pakistan off for 9-11, terrorism and selling nuclear weapons now decides that it has to stop George Allen from being the Republican candidate for President. If that happened, the neocons would lose their hold on the Republican party. That might lead to investigations whether Allen is elected or the Democratic candidate.

"George Allen Monkeys Around
Forget the presidential campaign. Can he still win his Senate race?
by Matthew Continetti
10/02/2006, Volume 012, Issue 03 Weekly Standard"

The headline says it all, they are worried about Allen as Republican nominee for President. They are worried about investigations of the Bush administration and the neocons and their think tanks like PNAC and American Enterprise Institute. Paul Wolfowitz signed the PNAC letter in January 1998. It was Jacob Wolfowitz who knew about the 1969 incidents at MIT involving Stanley Fischer, Paul Samuelson, Robert C. Merton and others. (As in other posts, we take no position on exactly what happened and on whether this was duplication without prior knowledge or plagiarism or duplication with prior knowledge and not plagiarism.)

Jacob Wolfowitz was in a position to hear back about any use by Russia of this during the 1972 Warsaw Conference. Paul Wolfowitz was appointed head of the World Bank to keep this quiet. Pakistan may have used this to get away with 9-11. Musharraf's comments on 60 Minutes about Armitage and bombing back to the stone age may reflect such an exchange with General Ahmed of the Pakistan ISI.

The Weekly Standard may be afraid of investigations of neocon activity. This may include the neocons knowing in 1998 that Russia was possibly trying to pressure low interest rate loans from US profs Stanley Fischer and Larry Summers based on academic kompromat. The neocons may have used this to pressure the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 and then to influence the Supreme Court during Bush v. Gore through John Yoo to Silberman and Hatch and then Scalia and then to make Gore go away.

If Allen is the nominee, then if he is elected, he has no involvement with this past. He can let an independent investigation expose it. Aside from this, he can allow out all the things Bush has tried to hide, including 9-11 issues.

The neocons are desperate to get a Republican candidate whom they have kompromat on, or who is involved already in their activity. They can't afford an independent like Allen. They call him an oaf or buffoon because he is not a sophisticated kompromater. They are unloading their kompromat on Allen to stop him being the Republican candidate for president. They are terrified of his appointing a law and order Attorney General of the United States who will go after the neocons and appoint independent counsels. They have used judges to block the Sibel Edmonds case. But a judge can't block a case if the DOJ wants to pursue it. That includes the USAO Mass investigating the cover up in US v. Harvard by both parties and both the Clinton and Bush administrations. It includes use of that by Russia, China, India, Pakistan, the neocons, Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc.

Allen Macaca remark. The sound he made is not the same as the sound that is slur in North Africa.

Allen's grandparents. This is not a major issue. Yes, he was not smooth on this, but so what? He's being attacked to excess, and he was a little defensive.

Allen locker room talk from earlier era. This is hearsay. This may be distasteful, but who knows what locker rooms in those times sounded like? Much of what is directed at him is far more mean spirited. Moreover, those who hate Allen today are in the present, as opposed to Allen's locker room talk from a different era. This is being dredged up not because others in that era didn't say those things, but to get Allen. Moreover, no group of people is free from discrimination against others in their history or the present. Whenever the finger of racism is pointed, 3 fingers point back. Its a suicide bomb.

The question is what George Allen will do for America, not refighting the battles of the past. America is in a world that is very dangerous. Many of the Left's self-deceptions about immigration are now bringing terrorism to our own country. Allen is for H1-B or H1B. Allen is for Skil Bill. Allen voted against the S. 2611, but after voting for amendments that were harmful to us on immigration. Allen knew that S. 2611 would pass, so by voting for the amendments, Allen intended to harm us.

On the other hand, Jim Webb is for a path to citizenship and welfare. Webb took anti-H1B votes, but never said if he was against H1B. There is a blog on Webb's campaign site against H1B. Is this Webb's position?

"Fact #47: Allen’s Magic Trick: I Will Make All Your Jobs Disappear! Poof!
Submitted by Lowell on 21 September, 2006 - 4:09pm." This is Lowell's position on Allen. What is Webb's position on Webb's position on H1B?

"Teammates: Allen used "N-word" in college"

"Three members of Sen. George Allen's college football team remember a man with racist attitudes at ease using racial slurs."

By Michael Scherer of

Daily Kos " This should end Allen's bid for Senate and his presidential aspirations." Its hearsay.

Its interesting to compare the alleged Allen incident and they hypothetical MIT 1969 incident. Allen is supposed to have said words in the early 1970's to whites and not directly harmed others by them and the more extreme allegation is the deer head in the mail box, which seems more doubtful. In comparison the 1969 incident was not a one time thing. Nils Hakansson has been subject to a business conspiracy from 1969 to present by Harvard, MIT, AEA, Econometric Society, etc. as legal entities. Stanley Fischer in his 1989 MIT published textbook says it was Robert Merton and Paul Samuelson who did this.

Harry Markowitz won the 1990 Nobel Prize for the one period portfolio problem. Hakansson extended this to n periods. He gets little credit. In fact, it was Andrew D. Roy who published the formulas for the one period portfolio selection problem as Markowitz himself said in his own textbook in 1987. The 1990 Nobel Prize citation for Markowitz said for formulas of "algebraic simplicity" and "wide acclaim" which apply to the Roy formulas as Markowitz himself said in his textbook before the Nobel Prize was awarded.

Why then did the Press Release give the credit to Markowitz? Don't they read the winners own book to see what he says? It was the US institutions that were part of a business conspiracy since 1952. They were the ones who arranged Nobel Prize nominations for Soviet prof Kantorovich. Because of this, Fischer didn't Hakansson in 1989, is a hypothetical inference. So Hakansson is subject to a lifelong conspiracy as is A. D. Roy. Roy doesn't get the credit in textbooks or courses for formulas widely taught to MBA's.

Even though Markowitz says Roy did it, the establishment had committed itself to a business conspiracy of saying Markowitz did. They were in this because the Soviet were using it to pressure them is a possible inference. Russia then had this to use in the 1990's to get billions of low interest rate loans. The USAO Mass started investigating Shleifer in 1997. Harvard tells them nothing, nor do profs in the US government.

The neocon profs use this perhaps to get the Iraq Liberation Act. Then its used perhaps by Bush during Bush v. Gore to influence the Supreme Court and then Gore to give up and go away. Then perhaps Pakistan uses it to attack the US through al Qaeda to get over 3 billion dollars and uses this to keep Bush or the Clinton team from exposing them. Both sides hush this up from the USAO Mass as the case drags on to 2005. Profs are appointed to office from Harvard or other schools. Jamie Gorelick is Harvard overseer and 9-11 Commissioner. Her Wall Memo helped Harvard cover this up while she was Harvard Overseer.

In comparison to all this, what Allen did is minor. He isn't giving Russia billions of dollars not to tell about his youthful activity with a deer head. He isn't letting Pakistan attack us on 9-11 and then giving them 3 billion dollars and letting them put nukes on subs in the next couple of years. The Weekly Standard attacks Allen possibly because if he becomes president, he may not be involved. That is, the Weekly Standard is attacking Allen for these incidents because he is not involved in the big ones from 1969 that foreign nations including China are using against us. Maybe the Weekly Standard should take the nuclear warheads out of Pakistan before taking the hide out of Allen.

This post is opinion. All statements in the positive should be restated as hypotheses or speculation or questions. This is part of the petition to Congress on US v. Harvard where applicable. All other disclaimers apply.

Saturday, September 23, 2006

Armitage Bush Musharraf Pakistan ISI 9-11 Stone Age

The US had enough info before 9-11, to tell President Bush on August 6, 2001 that bin Laden was determined to attack in the US. Did Pakistan know as much by that date? Pakistan created the Taliban in 1993 or 1994. (see BBC on Taliban) The Taliban with Pakistan's support took control of Afghanistan in 1996. bin Laden moved to Afghanistan in 1996. Pakistan, UAE and Saudi Arabia were the only 3 countries to recognize the Taliban. All of them have been reported in one way or another since 9-11 to have known or assisted in 9-11.

Pakistan exploded its nuke in May 1998. Al Qaeda attacked the US embassies in August 98 and the USS Cole in 2000. George Tenet of the US CIA met in Pakistan in May 2001. So did Porter Goss and Bob Graham in August 2001. This was presumably an attempt to get Pakistan's support against al Qaeda. So Pakistan was being told by the US that the US had information something was up and the US wanted Pakistan to stop bin Laden and al Qaeda. Pakistan likely wanted money but also said that its people wouldn't be able to understand it doing that.

If the US had enough information before 9-11 to figure the plot out, but lacked the motivation to combine its information, and if Pakistan had the same or more info, but did have the motivation, then Pakistan knew about 9-11 beforehand. Pakistan did have more motivation, it created the Taliban and its linked into their society. They have more general awareness, e.g. language skills, family relationships, personal relationships, etc. That leaves specific info. If one studies the history of al Qaeda, the Taliban and the Pakistan ISI, it seems a reasonable hypothesis that the Pakistan ISI would have more info on al Qaeda operations than the US government.

The information motivation box. The horizontal axis is information possessed by a government or spy agency like CIA or ISI. The vertical axis is motivation. High information and high motivation leads to success in determining what is going on. The US before 9-11 had medium information let's call it. But the US had the Jamie Gorelick Wall Memo and other indicators of low motivation to combine the information that we now know it had. Moreover, it had more information that we haven't been told about. Pakistan only needed to know what the US government has revealed it knew to have been able to figure out what was going on.

Pakistan's ISI never gave the US a warning, even though other countries did. See the Complete 9-11 Timeline under warnings. The UAE and Saudi Arabia also didn't give the US warnings.

When 9-11 came, the head of the Pakistan ISI, General Mahmood Ahmed was meeting in DC with the heads of the intelligence committees in Congress, Porter Goss, later appointed by Bush to head CIA and Senator Bob Graham. Graham later said that the evidence of foreign government involvement was strong.

The US's people likely realized very quickly the information motivation box and that this meant that Pakistan's ISI likely knew. They likely guessed right away on 9-11 that Ahmed knew and was there to negotiate money from the US to fight al Qaeda. Graham and Goss had been in Pakistan in August 2001 to meet with Ahmed and discuss what it would take to get Pakistan's ISI to support a fight against al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda had already attacked the US in August 1998 at the US embassies in Africa and in 2000 against the USS Cole in Yemen. Clinton had gotten the agreement of the government in Pakistan before Musharraf's coup in October 1998 to support the fight against bin Laden and try to capture him.

The new government under Musharraf had abandoned this cooperative attitude. They were angy at the US over the US dropping aid to Pakistan after the Soviets left Afghanistan c. 1990. They were resentful, and this included Musharraf and Ahmed who led the coup in 1999. It also included former Pakistan ISI director General Gul. Gul was working closely with bin Laden as an adviser. Gul blamed 9-11 on Israel's Mossad in an interview with Arnaud de Borchgrave.

-------Burden of Proof is on Musharraf to show he didn't know---

Musharraf was head of Pakistan. The ISI reported to him. The Director of the ISI, General Mahmud Ahmed reported to Musharraf and put Musharraf in power in the October 12, 1999 coup. The Pakistan ISI created the Taliban in 1993/94 and put them in power in Afghanistan in 1996. Bin Laden then came from Sudan to Afghanistan to join the Taliban and Omar. Omar was Pakistan's man. Omar is in Pakistan under ISI protection.

Omar we know approved 9-11. But Omar would not have done so without Pakistan ISI approval. When Ahmed went to see Omar after 9-11 to get him to give up bin Laden at US demand, the delegation actually encouraged Omar to fight, see Hassan Abbas comments below. The presumption is that the subordinates were acting in accordance with the orders of their superiors until shown otherwise.

So the presumption that Musharraf has the burden to rebut is that Musharraf knew and authorized 9-11. Omar wouldn't approve it without his knowing that General Amed Director of the ISI approved it. Why? Because the ISI put Omar in power and was funding him and supplying him with arms. Why? Because Omar hoped to go to Pakistan and be sheltered if the Americans attacked Afghanistan, which is what happened, Pakistan shelters Omar to this day along with bin Laden.

Nothing that has happened since 9-11 has tended towards showing Musharraf was not involved. Every event since 9-11 is consistent with Musharraf being involved. So "Mush knew, end of story" as a rediff blog says.

======================Stone Age===========================

60 Minutes

"Musharraf: U.S. Threatened Pakistan
Also Speaks About Country's Leaked Nuclear Secrets
Sept. 21, 2006"

Steve Kroft will ask questions like, "Is our supposed ally in the war on terrorism really playing both sides of the street? Kroft questions Pakistan's leader about the sales of nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea, and also about the Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists using his country as a base. "

After viewing Musharraf on 60 minutes.

Mush was asked if he knew about A Q Khan before 2003 when he was shown Pakistan centrifuge blue prints by the US. Over 18 tons of material was shipped by Khan to Libya and Iran. Mush said that Khan might have taken it in his car. Mush said he was insulted by Armitage. What about us? Mush said he was disappointed that Pakistanis born in the UK had dual citizenship and came back to Pakistan to get authorization to carry out their missions.

Kroft didn't ask Mush about the funding of 9-11 or knowledge of it. Mush's answers completely lacked credibility. Mush thinks we are children to believe him. Kroft almost said as much about Bush believing him. We need to get Pakistan to give up its nuclear weapons, which it plans to put on subs.


Musharraf statement:


---quote from AFP link below--------------------
US threatened to bomb Pakistan 'back to stone age' after 9/11: Musharraf

The Pakistani leader said the comments were delivered to his intelligence director, according to selected transcripts of the interview with CBS television's "60 Minutes" investigative news programme due to be broadcast Sunday.

"The intelligence director told me that (Armitage) said, 'Be prepared to be bombed. Be prepared to go back to the stone age'," Musharraf said.

"I think it was a very rude remark," Musharraf says in the interview. "One has to think and take actions in the interests of the nation, and that's what I did."

--------end of quote-------------------------------------,,3-2369505,00.html

We'll bomb you to Stone Age, US told Pakistan
FromTim Reid in Washington
Musharraf reveals post-9/11 threat in book serialised by The Times

President Musharraf of Pakistan

PERVEZ MUSHARRAF, the President of Pakistan, claimed last night that the Bush Administration threatened to bomb his country “into the Stone Age” if it did not co-operate with the US after 9/11

Bush denies he knew

Voice of America

Armitage denies Stone Age comment

On Friday Sep 22, 2006, Armitage gave an extended interview on MSNBC denying that he made the "stone age" remark, but iterating other remarks he did make to Lt. Gen Mahmood Ahmed, whom Armitage referred to as Gen Mahmood.

"US Pakistan relationship getting shaky"

Discussion of Musharraf statement.

"Bush, Armitage, Musharraf, and bombing Pakistan 'back to stone age'"

Maureen Dowd: Axis of Sketchy Allies - Is Musharraf One of "Us"?

9/11 Inside Job Unravels: Pakistan Threatened by Bush

The Inside Job unravel post at Xenophilia discussed Pakistan in detail.

-------------------------Hassan Abbas Comments--------

Hassan Abbas author of "Pakistan's Drift Into Extremism" comments.

"In the afternoon (of Sep 12, 2001), Mahmood (Ahmed) was invited to CIA headquarters at Langley, Virginia, where he told George Tenet, the CIA director, that in his view Mullah Omar, the Taliban chief, was a religious man with humanitarian instincts and not a man of violence!"

So Ahmd was lying right on Sep 12, 2001. That is consistent with him being in on 9-11.

Interestingly Mahmood on his return from the US also informed Musharraf about his visit to Pentagon after the tragedy and argued that there were no traces of any commercial plane having hit the Pentagon. He also made a case that in his assessment, the attacks were an inside job!" Hamid Gul was blaming Israel in an interview with Arnaud de Borchgrave.

search Hamid Gul Arnaud de Borchgrave.
"Gulled by Gul" Nov 29, 2004
"Know your enemy" 2005

Hassan Abbas tells us:

"On September 16, 2001, Musharraf sent a delegation to the Taliban with the mission to convince them to hand over Osama bin Laden. It included Lieutenant General Mahmood, and a group of religious figures known to have good relations with Taliban. The mission failed, but more worrisome was the revelation that Mufti Shamzai, instead of conveying the official message, encouraged Mullah Omar to start a jihad against the United States if it attacked Afghanistan."

Hassan Abbas says that General Ahmed and Pakistan were not involved in 9-11 beforehand.
"Abbas is a former Pakistani government official who served in the administrations of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto (1995–1996) and President Pervez Musharraf (1999–2000)." (from his web page at Harvard KSG.) It appears that Abbas is really saying that Ahmed was in on 9-11, but that Musharraf was not. The whole Abbas article is to try to show that Mahmood Ahmed was arrogant and head strong and that he was the one responsible, not Musharraf. Abbas paints Musharraf as an innocent naif, who is forced to remove Ahmed for arrogance.

In reality, Musharraf has admitted he was deeply involved in starting the India Pakistan war in Kargil in 1999 before the 1999 coup.

Hassan Abbas is employed at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government as a Research Fellow.

Hassan Abbas Harvard KSG.

Very good review of Abbas's book on Pakistan. "An inside look at the changes in Pakistan"
By Farah Stockman, Globe Staff. November 17, 2004 "Pakistan’s Drift Into Extremism: Allah, the Army, and America’s War on Terror", By Hassan Abbas, M. E. Sharpe, 267 pp., paperback, $25.95

Fareed Zakaria got his Ph.D. at Harvard's KSG.

Discussion of Kargil incident
-------------------Pakistan related blogs

Glass House: Hot Time for Musharraf in the US?

Pakistaniat "Who said what to whom, did what, when and why?"

Brangelina (Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt for search engines) film on Daniel Pearl's murder.

Dissecting 'The Musharraf Letter'

Conspiracy type theory related to Pope's quoting Manuel II

Tariq Ali on Pope.

----------------India news or blogs -----

B Raman "The Guilty Men of 9/11" September 10, 2003. Outstanding discussion board of Pakistan's likely involvement follows this article.

"Nawaz Sharif and Ziauddin had not kept Musharraf and Aziz in the picture. On discovering�Ziauddin's�secret visit to Kandahar, Musharraf sent Aziz to Mullah Omar�to tell him that he should not obey any�instructions issued by�Ziauddin. Sharif�found out�about this, and this was one�factor which contributed�to his decision to sack Musharraf on October 12, 1999, which in turn led to his overthrow and the general�assuming power."

During his interrogation by the Karachi police, Omar Sheikh,�principal accused in�the�Daniel Pearl murder case,�was reported to have�stated that during a visit to Kandahar in�mid-2001 he had discovered�Al Qaeda's�plans for the terrorist strikes in the US and had conveyed this to Ehsanul Haq at Peshawar on his return�from Kandahar.�Haq is a close personal friend of Musharraf and it is very unlikely that he would�not have immediately informed Musharraf about it. Thus, definitely�Haq and most probably�Musharraf himself, were aware of�Al Qaeda's plans for the terrorist strikes in the US, but for reasons�not clear, they chose not to alert the US about it."

-------------Selig Harrison Friend or Foe ---

"Pakistan: Friend or Foe?"
"The U.S. shouldn't prop up President Musharraf's military regime."
By Selig S. Harrison
September 5, 2006


A whole discussion on whether Musharraf (Mush) knew:

"Mush knew"

Time for honesty.
Mush knew. End of story.

also, the following is brusque, I quote from same page,

Pervez Musharraf (Author)

a different view: (have not read it)

London Times. Mush says that Sheikh Omad who is said to have paid the 9-11 hijackers was a British agent.

"The President outlines the role played by a former London public schoolboy, Omar Sheikh, in the kidnap and murder of Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter, in February 2002.

General Musharraf says that Sheikh, who orchestrated the abduction, was recruited by MI6 while he was studying at the London School of Economics and sent to the Balkans to take part in jihad operations there. He alleges that Sheikh later double-crossed British intelligence. “At some point he probably became a rogue or double agent,” General Musharraf says."

This is a standard KGB/SVR trick. You say that an agent who has blown up was CIA. Putin said that Andrei Shleifer was a CIA agent to try to deflect attention if it becomes widely known that Russia may have used academic kompromat to try to pressure low interest rate loans from Harvard prof Larry Summers and MIT econ prof Stanley Fischer during the 1990's when they were at US Treasury and IMF. (This is a hypothesis. See other posts for disclaimers.)

Discussion of Mush book:

"Mush admits his men were behind Kargil, claims gain"

Musharraf lied about Kargil he is in effect admitting. Musharraf is also now claiming India started it. This is another "gasp" as the Times of India points out. Musharraf is appearing to be a pathological liar. He is also responsible for the Kargil war in 1999, before the coup in October 1999. Covering up the Kargil war may be part of the reason of the coup in October 1999. It appears that Musharraf uses terrorism, lies, violence, etc. to further his own interest. He is not in the least bothered to lie or to kill 3000 or more, if it advances his interests. Musharraf admits he was behind killing many Indians and Pakistanis in the Kargill war, so why not that he was behind the 9-11 killings?

Pakistan's ISI uses torture. That is known. Musharraf condones and uses torture, like Bush. They both are in the torture after 9-11. General Ahmed was part of using torture at the ISI. Why should we not believe that Musharraf was behind 9-11? The torture of the ISI is already a crime against humanity and a violation of international law and the rights of man. Kargil appears to be a war crime? Why not add 9-11 to his crimes of torture and unprovoked aggression against India in 1999? Then he was part of a coup as a cover up of his involvement? At what level of crimes, torture, harboring terrorists, supporting the Taliban do we add making false statements?

Musharraf manuscript says he suspected A. Q. Khan much earlier than he has admitted?

"In early 1999, I started seeing the first signs of some suspicious activities by Dr AQ Khan.

I was concerned that Dr Khan might have been involved in illicit activities prior to March 2001, but I strongly believe that we have now ensured that he could not get away with anything more, and that once he was removed, the problem would stop. I was wrong.

Our investigations revealed that AQ Khan had started his activities as far back as 1987 primarily with Iran. In 1994-95, Dr AQ Khan had ordered the manufacture of 200 P-1 centrifuges that had been discarded by Pakistan in the mid 80s.

These had been dispatched to Dubai for onward distribution. Dr Khan was running a very personalised underground network of technology transfers around the world with his base in Dubai.

The irony is that the Dubai-based network had employed several Indians, some of whom have since vanished. There is strong probability that the genesis of the Indian uranium enrichment programme may also have its roots in the Dubai-based network and could be a copy of the Pakistani centrifuge design.

This has also been recently alluded to by an eminent US non-proliferation analyst."

Above quotes manuscript. The article then says, "This is, however, just the manuscript and the final edition that hits the markets could be different. " So he may have multiple versions about A. Q. Khan between his manuscript, his book, 60 minutes, what he told George Tenet of the CIA when confronted with the evidence of Khan's activities in 2003, etc. Is he not a mushy liar? Mush lies we should call them?

The Musharraf Factor : Leading Pakistan to Inevitable Demise (Paperback)
by Abid Ullah Jan (Author)

21st Century Pakistan Sourcebook: President Pervez Musharraf, Devastating Earthquake, Pakistan-India Nuclear Confrontation (Two CD-ROM Set) (CD-ROM)
by U.S. Government

129186 pages. You can't lie consistenly in that many pages. But you can keep people from reading it by the nightly blather.


General Mahmood Ahmed Director of Pakistan ISI

ISI Pakistan's spy agency

Senator Bob Graham.

search Bob Graham 9-11 Pakistan

Cover-up accusation in 2003 against Bush administration.


SEN. BOB GRAHAM: Yes, going back to your question about what was the greatest surprise. 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.

GWEN IFILL: Are you suggesting that you are convinced that there was a state sponsor behind 9/11?

SEN. BOB GRAHAM: I think there is very compelling evidence that at least some of the terrorists were assisted not just in financing -- although that was part of it -- by a sovereign foreign government and that we have been derelict in our duty to track that down, make the further case, or find the evidence that would indicate that that is not true and we can look for other reasons why the terrorists were able to function so effectively in the United States."


"SEN. BOB GRAHAM: I do not believe we got the full cooperation that we needed. As an example, as of today there are 13 requests outstanding with the FBI alone for additional information which would help us follow the trail -- including the trail of foreign government involvement."

Colin Powell. Powell was the one assigned to coverup the My Lai massacre in Viet Nam, which he did.

Six months later, a 21-year-old soldier of the 11th Light Infantry named Tom Glen wrote a letter accusing the Americal Division (and other entire units of the U.S. military, not just individuals) of routine brutality against Vietnamese civilians; the letter was detailed, its allegations horrifying, and its contents echoed complaints received from other soldiers. Colin Powell, then a young US Army Major, was charged with investigating the letter, which did not specifically reference My Lai (Glen had no knowledge of the events there). Powell wrote: "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." Later, Powell's refutation would be called an act of "white-washing" the news of My Lai, and questions would continue to remain undisclosed to the public. On May 4, 2004, Powell, then United States Secretary of State, said to Larry King, "I mean, I was in a unit that was responsible for My Lai. I got there after My Lai happened. So, in war, these sorts of horrible things happen every now and again, but they are still to be deplored."[5]

The carnage at My Lai might have gone unknown to history if not for another soldier, Ron Ridenhour, who, independent of Glen, sent a letter to President Nixon, the Pentagon, the State Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and numerous members of Congress. The copies of this letter were sent in March 1969, a full year after the event. Most recipients of Ridenhour's letter ignored it, with the notable exception of Rep. Morris Udall. Ridenhour learned about the events at My Lai secondhand, by talking to members of Charlie Company while he was still enlisted.

The anthrax letters coming just after 9-11 reduced the ability of potential 9-11 whistleblowers in or out of government to send letters to Congress or the media with their concerns. One of the interesting points from Colin Powell's role in trying to cover up My Lai is how important sending letters from low level people in government to Congress is.

After 9-11, the Anthrax letters substantially reduced that form of communication. Anthrax letters were sent to the media and to Congress. This made receivers and thus senders averse to letters. The general view now is that the anthrax letters were likely sent by someone else unconnected with 9-11. So this effect would just be coincidence. We now know there were whistleblowers before and after 9-11 who were trying to be heard. They include Sibel Edmonds, Coleen Rowley of the FBI, Robert Wright of the FBI, and others. Robert Wright statement that FBI protecting terrorists.

Joint Inquiry Report


28 pages of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence
Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks
of September 2001. Senate motion failed to declassify 28 pages of Joint Inquiry report on Oct 28, 2003.

The 28 pages are redacted except for the introduction in the report. Start of this section is:

[Page 415]
20. Finding: [Through its investigation, the Joint Inquiry developed information
suggesting specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States. The Joint Inquiry’s review confirmed that the Intelligence Community also has information, much of which has yet to be independently verified, concerning these potential sources of support. In their testimony, neither CIA nor FBI officials were able to address definitively the extent of such support for the hijackers globally or within the United States or the extent to which such support, if it exists, is knowing or inadvertent in nature. Only recently, and at least in part due to the Joint Inquiry’s focus on this issue, did the FBI and CIA strengthen their efforts to address these issues. In the view of the Joint Inquiry, this gap in U.S. intelligence coverage is unacceptable, given the magnitude and immediacy of the potential risk to U.S. national security. The Intelligence Community needs to address this area of concern as aggressively
and as quickly as possible].

Discussion: [The Joint Inquiry reviewed information in FBI and CIA documents
suggesting specific potential sources of foreign support for the September 11 hijackers. While the Joint Inquiry uncovered this material during the course of its review of FBI and CIA documents, it did not attempt to investigate and assess the accuracy and significance of this information independently, recognizing that such a task would be beyond the scope of the Joint [page 416] Inquiry. Instead, the Joint Inquiry referred a detailed compilation of information it had uncovered in documents and interviews to the FBI and CIA for further investigation by the Intelligence Community and, if appropriate, law enforcement agencies. A detailed summary of
the available information pertaining to this issue is included in the classified version of the Joint Inquiry final report].

[It should be clear that this Joint Inquiry has made no final determinations as to the reliability or sufficiency of the information regarding these issues that was found contained in FBI and CIA documents. It was not the task of this Joint Inquiry to conduct the kind of extensive investigation that would be required to determine the true significance of such alleged support to the hijackers. On the one hand, it is possible that these kinds of connections could suggest, as indicated in a CIA memorandum, “incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists [---------------------------].” On the other hand, it is also possible that further
investigation of these allegations could reveal legitimate, and innocent, explanations for these associations].
[Given the serious national security implications of this information, however, the
leadership of the Joint Inquiry is referring the Joint Inquiry Staff’s compilation of relevant information to both the FBI and the CIA for investigative review and appropriate investigative and intelligence action].

....end of report section with redacted parts: -----------------

In the October 10, 2002 closed hearing, FBI Director Mueller acknowledged that he
became aware of some of the facts regarding this issue only as a result of the investigative work of the Joint Inquiry Staff: I’m saying the sequence of events here, I think the staff probed and, as a result of the probing, some facts came to light here and to me, frankly, that had not come to light before, and perhaps would not have come to light had the staff not probed.

That’s what I’m telling you. So I’m agreeing with you that the staff probing
brought out facts that may not have come to this Committee.

Senator DeWine: But what you’re also saying, though, is that that probing then
brought facts to your attention.

Director Mueller: Yes.


search 9-11 report Saudi Arabia "country X"


9-11 Commission Report

Cambone notes Sep-11 2001.

-----------Asia Times "Smoking Gun" Pakistan -------------
The following are very good summaries of the case for Pakistan's involvement in 9-11.

Part 1: 'Independent' commission
By Pepe Escobar
April 7, 2004

This reviews material as of 2004 to show Pakistan was likely involved in 9-11.

Part 2: A real smoking gun
By Pepe Escobar
April 8, 2004


Misc other sources

Additional 9-11 Staff Report from Feb 10, 2005 on 52 prior warnings to FAA.

Other Articles from Old Atlantic on this topic

  1. Was 9/11 a Pakistan ISI Extortion Plot?

  2. Christina Lambs spots the Pakistan Connection

  3. Do Iran and Pakistan have info on Bush? From the 90's on Clinton?

  4. Bush: Iraq no 9-11 ties, WMD. Pakistan does?

  5. Terrorism Series

This post represents opinion. All other disclaimers apply.