CIA Nominee's Dubious Links To The Terror Network

Following George Tenet's resignation as Director of Central Intelligence at the CIA, the Bush administration immediately pointed to Rep. Porter Goss, as its handpicked nominee.

Porter Goss, a Florida Republican and former CIA spy, is chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. He also chaired, together with Senator Bob Graham, the Joint Senate House Committee, on the September 11 attacks.

According to the White House, "the rush to name a replacement" was driven by "worries" of a possible terrorist attack on America in the wake of Tenet's untimely departure.

Yet if the real objective is to to make "America safer", why then did President Bush nominate an individual who is known and acknowledged to have dubious links to the Islamic terror network?

Amply documented, Porter Goss had a close personal relationship to the Head of Pakistan Military Intelligence (ISI), General Mahmoud Ahmad, who according to the Washington Post "ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban" (Washington Post, 18 May 2002). According to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the ISI has over the years supported a number of Islamic terrorist organizations, while maintaining close links to the CIA. (See Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) at http://www.cfrterrorism.org/coalition/pakistan2.html ).

Moreover, according to intelligence sources and the FBI, General Mahmoud Ahmad played an undercover role in channeling financial support to the 9/11 hijackers.

Yet this same individual, General Ahmad, was on an official visit to Washington from the 4th to the 13th of September 2001, meeting his counterpart George Tenet as well as key members of the administration and the US Congress including Rep Porter Goss.

In late August 2001, barely a couple of weeks before September 11, Representative Porter Goss together with Senator Bob Graham and Senator Jon Kyl were on a top level intelligence mission in Islamabad, which was barely mentioned by the US media.

Meetings were held with President Pervez Musharraf and with Pakistan's military and intelligence brass including the head of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) General Mahmoud Ahmad.

The ISI headed by General Ahmad was allegedly also involved in ordering the assassination of the leader of the northern Alliance, General Shah Massood. ( http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO309B.html ).

And at the time of the assassination of Shah Massood (9/9, two days before 9/11), General Ahmad was on an "red carpet" official visit to Washington. (4-13 September 2004)

The Pak. General's host on Capitol Hill during his official visit to Washington was Rep. Porter Goss, Bush's nominee for the position of Director of Central Intelligence.

In fact, on the morning of September 11, Porter Goss was hosting a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill in honor of General Ahmad, the alleged "money-man" (to use the FBI expression) behind the 9/11 hijackers.

The meeting was described by one press report as a "follow-up meeting" to that held with Porter Goss and Bob Graham with General Ahmad in Pakistan in late August 2001, barely two weeks before 9/11. '

Rep Porter Goss could have pleaded ignorance on the morning of 9/11: "I did not know about the General."

But the "Pakistani ISI connection" and the role played by its former head, General Mahmoud Ahmad have since then /11 been well documented.

Why then did Porter Goss and Bob Graham choose to exclude an examination of the role of the ISI from the Joint Inquiry's 858 page Report?

While hinting to "Saudi support and involvement" in 9/11, the Joint Committee Report fails to mention that the Pakistani government, its military and intelligence apparatus (ISI), have actively supported and financed a number of terrorist organizations, with the support of Washington.

Was it "an intelligence failure" to seek the cooperation of the Pakistani government in the "war on terrorism" in an agreement brokered by the head of the ISI, a spy agency, which is known to support the Islamic brigades?

This support by Pakistan's ISI to various "Islamic terrorist" organizations was pursued prior as well as in the wake of 9/11, despite the commitment of the Pakistani government to "cooperate" with Washington.

And on September 13th 2001, General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged moneyman behind the 9/11 hijackers was meeting Colin Powell at the State Department to discuss the terms of Pakistan's cooperation in the war on terrorism.

With regard to Porter Goss' nomination to the CIA, are we dealing with a "conflict of interest"? Or are we dealing with something far more serious?

It is worth mentioning that one of the recommendations of the Joint Senate House Report on the 9/11 attacks chaired by Goss and Graham, was a massive reorganization of the intelligence apparatus which would put the CIA in control of 70 percent of the agency's 40 billion budget (as opposed to 12% under the current arrangement).

In anticipation of his nomination to the helm of the agency, Porter Goss, has carefully set the stage. He has introduced a bill in the House which follows through on the Joint Senate House Report. The legislation if adopted would "significantly expand the CIA director's executive and management authority over the whole intelligence community".

To read the complete article click: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO407A.html

Michel Chossudovsky' is the author of War and Globalization the Truth behind September 11, Centre for Research on Globalization, September 2002, http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html

© Scoop Media