Anwar al-Awlaki
Joseph Cannon at “Cannonfire” has re-opened a nasty wound that has proven troubling to the Obama administration: Was Anwar al-Awlaki a U.S. deep-cover agent? Or was he possibly killed in a drone strike as a “mop-up operation”, burying evidence related to 911?
Or Both?
Here he describes the cover story:
“Anwar al-Awlaki was an American civil engineer who became an Imam, an Al Qaeda propagandist, an associate of terrorists (including the 9/11 attackers and the underwear bomber), and an alleged operational agent of the world’s most notorious terror organization. Despite his American citizenship, Awlaki made this administration’s “kill” list; a drone took him out in Yemen in September, 2011. Two weeks later, his 16 year old son (also an American) was also killed by a drone.”
Now, the drone strike program has been Obama’s Achilles Heel on his political left, with evidence of lots of civilian deaths due to such robotic attacks. Add to that the revelations of Obama’s kill list that supposedly included American-born al-Awlaki and the constitutional issues of killing an American citizen.
But as Cannon points out, supported by further research, there is no evidence that al-Awlaki was ever killed.
Cannon’s theory is that al-Awlaki was a deep-cover U.S. agent, and that he and his son may still be alive:
“After the 9/11 attacks, Awlaki was interviewed by the FBI due to his undeniable ties to three of the hijackers. Nevertheless, on February 5, 2002, al-Awlaki was invited to speak at a formal Pentagon lunch.
Who invited him? Who cleared him? Those questions have never been properly answered. More disturbingly: Why has the western press been so reticent to discuss Awlaki’s Pentagon ties?”
(snip)
“Given his clear connections to the San Diego team members, you would presume that Al-Awlaki would have scooted out of the country — as he had announced he would do. But no. Naturally, he was interviewed by the FBI after the terror attack. And with unnatural ease, he sailed right through their questioning — even though he clearly seems to have lied about his relationship with the hijackers, since his story contradicted the evidence of his cell phone records.”
So we have al-Awlaki in direct contact with three of the 911 hijackers. The underwear bomber. The Fort Hood shooter.
Yet in the wake of 911 he was recognized as the face of “friendly Islam”, even giving a speech at the pentagon.
The website “Antifascist-calling” has perhaps the best round-up of the story, with an alternative possibility:
“While the government and media continue to cover-up the role played by the CIA and other secret state agencies in alleged intelligence “failures” leading up to the 9/11 attacks, evidence suggests that the Awlaki killing, as with last May’s murder of former bête noire and on-again, off-again ally, Osama Bin Laden, may have been a “clean-up” operation designed to remove inconvenient witnesses with knowledge of Agency involvement in the plot.”
For deep information on the case refer again to this link for “Antifascist Calling”
And as a wrap-up, how ever could the Obama administration explain the double-bind corner they are painted into on this one: Either al-Awlaki was deep cover and was never killed but went underground, or his close ties to many of the terrorists would have exposed U.S. Intel knowledge that was somehow complicit in the 911 attacks?
Or we believe the cover story that he simply became further radicalized after his nice lunch speech at the Pentagon, and he was eliminated as reported.
Read the links and decide.
