GeorgeWashington
06-07-2006, 05:47 PM
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/06/FBI-Has-No-Evidence.html
When I first read the article by Ed Haas (http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html) claiming that the FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”, I took it with a grain of salt. It frankly seemed incredible that the FBI's spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity, would say “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.”
But then I found an article from Wired magazine dated September 27, 2001 (http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,47109,00.html) stating:
"There's going to be a considerable amount of time before anyone associated with the attacks is actually charged," said Rex Tomb, who is head of the FBI's chief fugitive publicity unit and helps decide which fugitives appear on the list. "To be charged with a crime, this means we have found evidence to confirm our suspicions, and a prosecutor has said we will pursue this case in court."
. . .
President Bush promises to reveal evidence linking bin Laden to the suicide hijackers who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Bin Laden has applauded the attacks but denies direct involvement.
Because the list is used to attract the public's attention to a fugitive, careful consideration must take place before a decision is made, Tomb said. The FBI evaluates if publicity will help or hinder the search for a suspect."
So Ed Haas' article is more credible than it might have looked. And everyone in the world knows who Bin Laden is and what he looks like, so there doesn't seem to be a concern for publicity hindering the search for Bin Laden.
So the question remains: If there's still no hard evidence linking Bin Laden and 9/11, why is the government still blaming Bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks?
When I first read the article by Ed Haas (http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html) claiming that the FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”, I took it with a grain of salt. It frankly seemed incredible that the FBI's spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity, would say “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.”
But then I found an article from Wired magazine dated September 27, 2001 (http://www.wired.com/news/conflict/0,2100,47109,00.html) stating:
"There's going to be a considerable amount of time before anyone associated with the attacks is actually charged," said Rex Tomb, who is head of the FBI's chief fugitive publicity unit and helps decide which fugitives appear on the list. "To be charged with a crime, this means we have found evidence to confirm our suspicions, and a prosecutor has said we will pursue this case in court."
. . .
President Bush promises to reveal evidence linking bin Laden to the suicide hijackers who attacked the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Bin Laden has applauded the attacks but denies direct involvement.
Because the list is used to attract the public's attention to a fugitive, careful consideration must take place before a decision is made, Tomb said. The FBI evaluates if publicity will help or hinder the search for a suspect."
So Ed Haas' article is more credible than it might have looked. And everyone in the world knows who Bin Laden is and what he looks like, so there doesn't seem to be a concern for publicity hindering the search for Bin Laden.
So the question remains: If there's still no hard evidence linking Bin Laden and 9/11, why is the government still blaming Bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks?