Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

Under the prevailing theory elusive renegade Osama bin Laden directed angry fellow bellicose believers into furious action from a cave in Afghanistan, armed with his trusty laptop computer and cell phone.  If you dare question this theory, which has never come close to being proven in a court of law or anywhere else, then George W. Bush has a simple and blunt message for you.  

"You are either with us or against us!" proclaims the man who insists he directly receives his advice from the highest possible source, namely God.  

During those days immediately following 9/11, when some Americans and world citizens scratched their heads and wondered whether this simplistic Osama on the prowl explanation was too pat to be real, the message came forth from Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Ashcroft, playing off of the "you're either with us or against us" Bush position, warned that to question the Administration's judgment and analysis of 9/11 at such a pivotal moment of history plays directly into the hands of the terrorists who plotted and executed the 9/11 tragedies.  If you dare ask "why" then you have in effect become a fellow traveler and are playing directly into the hands of killers!

The ruling establishment then applied what it hoped would be a final clinching argument.  If one even for investigation's sake attempted to look into the minds of Osama bin Laden or anyone else to be hypothesized as involved in such a dire plot, then they were also playing into the hands of the enemy.  "You must remember that the problem lies with the terrorists" was the statement applied as the final clincher.

For the stubborn and vigilant who refused to accept the expectantly clinching dogma of those presently in authority in Washington, the reemergence of Pakistan's ISI on the scene, this time as a provider of information relative to the thwarting of 9/11 II, prompts a basic question to be asked once more.

In mid-October of 2001, not long after the World Trade Center tragedies, an announcement was made that General Mahmud Ahmad, Pakistan's secret service director, had been dismissed.  This came on the heels of an earlier disturbing report that under an ISI directive $100,000 was transferred from two Pakistani banks to Florida accounts set up by none other than alleged 9/11 ringleader and terrorist pilot Mohammed Atta.

Joshi Manoj of the Times of India in his report provided an important link between the payments and a cold-blooded murder that sent shock waves around the world.  The payments to Atta were made on behalf of Ahmad Umar Sheikh, a British national and top agent of General Ahmad.  

Where was General Mahmud Ahmad at the time of the 9/11 attacks?  Interestingly enough, he was in Washington.  After his "very unexpected" dismissal from ISI, Umar Sheikh vanished from the media limelight with lightning speed after being arrested in Pakistan for the abduction and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

The same vigilant mainstream media that provided reams of copy on Monica Lewinsky's dress stain shied away from what should have been an important story with potentially grave international ramifications.  

Here was a link between an individual paying out a significant six-figure amount of money to Mohammed Atta who was later found guilty in the brutal murder of an American journalist investigating the nether world of international terrorism, drugs, and the international intelligence establishment.

Why was this not a major story?  Why is it not being made into a major story?  Why is the mainstream media so silent?