Wayne Barrett

Giuliani’s Ties to KSM and Osama’s Friend

[audio:http://wiredispatch.com/scott/07_12_06_barrett.mp3]

Village Voice senior editor Wayne Barrett discusses Rudolph Guliani’s business dealings with the Interior Ministry of Qatar, whose chief, Abdallah bin Khalid al-Thani, helped 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohamed escape the clutches of the FBI in 1996, Rudy’s company’s helping to provide security for the leaders of Iran, Syria and Hamas while they were in Qatar during the Asian Games last year and the role of al Qaeda and al-Thani in the Khobar Towers attack of 1996.

MP3 here. (27:18)

Wayne Barrett, senior editor at the Village Voice and teacher at the Journalism School at Columbia University. In addition to covering city and state government and politics at the Voice for 28 years, Barrett has written three books: City for Sale; Trump: the Deals and the Downfall; and Rudy! An Investigative Biography and Grand Illusion: The Untold Story of Rudy Giuliani and 9/11.

Author: Scott Horton

Scott Horton is editorial director of Antiwar.com, director of the Libertarian Institute, host of Antiwar Radio on Pacifica, 90.7 FM KPFK in Los Angeles, California and podcasts the Scott Horton Show from ScottHorton.org. He’s the author of the 2017 book, Fool’s Errand: Time to End the War in Afghanistan and editor of The Great Ron Paul: The Scott Horton Show Interviews 2004–2019. He’s conducted more than 5,000 interviews since 2003. Scott lives in Austin, Texas with his wife, investigative reporter Larisa Alexandrovna Horton. He is a fan of, but no relation to the lawyer from Harper’s. Scott’s Twitter, YouTube, Patreon.

25 thoughts on “Wayne Barrett”

  1. Mr Barrett says Rudy has these ties with these extremists, the untold story of 9/11,…so why even talk about Rudy having these ties and tying the ties to 911?

    Good information, but really Wayne, wtf?? Why not just call it the hypocrisy of Rudy that has nothing to do with 911??

    1. I agree, he acted like a dick. He ties Rudy to the mastermind of 9/11 and then act like that when Scott makes an observation.

  2. If you walk into a room of libertarians and say, “FDR knew Pearl Harbor would happen,” it’s not a controversial statement at all. It seems to be generally accepted.

    But if you walk into a room of libertarians and suggest that the WTC was some type of “inside job,” it’s controversial and not even considered by some. What makes it different?

    I’m convinced that it was allowed to happen on purpose. But I’m still open on debating the specifics?

    1. I am glad to hear someone say this. I’ve thought the same thing for some time but have not known exactly how to articulate it. Would, for lack of better words, “libertarians,” 60 years ago have ostracized and lampooned all naysayers relative to Pearl Harbor? Will it take another 60 years for “libertarians” to even entertain the remote possibility that there is something afoul in Denmark whereas 9/11 is concerned? I think Scott Horton and Antiwar.com are the best things going; however, as much as I hate to say it, I often find a subtle, underlying elitism and Scott some times throws around argumentum ad hominems in the way Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and other such sycophants do. Surely, libertarians wouldn’t put the assertion(s) of complicity and/or compliancy relative to 9/11 beyond the Federal Government? If so, I’m confused as to why PEARL HARBOR, Oklahoma City, and other dark goings on in our nation’s history are on the table but 9/11 is not. That’s not to say there are a great many ‘conspiracy” theories out there that CAN be easily enough dismissed. But, conversely, there are a great many questions still remaining and the fact that is it off the table for discussion is troubling. And granted there are a lot of kooks out there which have done a good job of stigmatizing the whole issue of 9/11. But I don’t necessarily see these “conspiracy” theories as being any more egregious or far-fetched than: “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” I hope libertarians are not whistling past the grave with 9/11 because they are afraid of not being taken seriously. If this is the case, I’d say this makes them somewhat analogous to a democratic congress that is more concerned with politics than principal and, accordingly, is doing nothing to stop the war in Iraq.

  3. Well, I have direct information that contradicts what Barrett is claiming, and I graduated from the school where Barrett teaches.

    What I know directly is the following: Sadat’s bodyguard, a member of the Egyptian military was asked by the FBI to participate in US-sponsored terrorism exercise because of his language, nationality, skin color, and anonymity. He was flown to the US on the gov’s dime. While in Manhattan he met and married a blond New Yorker, a fragile thing who was the best friend of a dear friend of mine. Meantime, he was preparing for and participating in the year-long sting EXERCISE.

    The Feb 1993 WTC bombing happened. My dear friend became evasive. I couldn’t visit. Finally, I was let in on the reason. My dear friend was harboring the wife of “Sadat’s bodyguard” because her life was in danger and so was her husband’s. I was told the story, vaguely, and sworn to secrecy.

    I was there in the apartment when Sadat’s bodyguard showed up to see his wife. She hadn’t been out of the apartment for four months. That was the deal. My dear friend didn’t mind harboring her but he didnt want to be implicated or harmed himself. She needed stress medication; she was a mess. My dear friend would get it for her.

    Sadat’s bodyguard showed up while I was visiting. Explaining me took an hour. He calmed down. He was as white as a sheet, and shaking. He had stashed several of his belongings there, and was repacking them. He was preparing to return to Egypt and had come to make final preparations to get his wife out as soon as he was in a safe place, arranging plans to have her fly here and there in the US for onward-forwarding to Egypt. She was absolutely distraught that her husband might be harmed. They were newlyweds. The bodyguard spoke freely to my dear friend. I picked up the scent of all this even with the meager explanation I was given initially.

    So while he was packing, I slipped into the room of this huge apartment and asked the bodyguard if what I’d been told was true. He asked what I’d been told; I told him; then I told him what I perceived in addition. He admitted he helped place the bombs in the basement of the WTC. But he insisted over and over and over again that he was told the bombs were dummies, that it was supposed to be an exercise to smoke out real terrorists in the US, an exercise he was proud to engage in because of the Sadat/Carter relationship. He told me the FBI gave him the supposed dummy bombs to place in the basement. What the bodyguard was so upset about is that real people were harmed, and that he’d been tricked into a sting that was actually real as opposed to what his military command told him was the case initially. He knew his life wasn’t worth a plugged nickel, and he did not know at that time whether he would ever make it back to Egypt. He feared being offed before he could get to JFK. He was worried about his wife, who had the stamina of a broken leaf. Her face was purple from crying and fear. He acted like a man on the verge of losing it himself.

    He kept repeating people died because of what he did. He was a military man, but this upset him. He said he was used. What was shocking him was that the FBI had lied.

    Readers may doubt whether I am capable of judging genuine fear and betrayal. So be it. I am not given to hyperbole. What I saw and heard that day in early summer 1993 is seared into me. I watched a man enter an apartment where his newlywed wife was stashed. I watched the drama between them, and the conversations with the wife-protector that picked up from when they last spoke. I watched and listened to the interrogations about me. Lastly, I had the conversation I had with him.

    Wayne Barrett does not have the entire story; frankly, I’m unimpressed. It sounds like Mossad-inspired gobbledegook to me, ‘clapping seal’ smoke-screen nonsense.

        1. You’re correct, Scott. That’s what we were told. That is not, however, what he said to me. If the truck bomb is accurate, then maybe he put the bombs in the car, van, or truck. Who knows. It’s not what he said to me.

  4. Yeah… good reporting, bad personality Mr Barrett. The cognitive dissonance of considering that 9-11 could have had elements of an inside job is very painful for some people… it will eventually overturn some very large apple carts if it’s true. I don’t know what happened any more than any other Joe, but apparently 1/3 of Americans put credence into the “inside job” theory, credentialed experts among them. It’s time for people like Mr. Barrett to grow up… to stop acting like a child when someone criticizes their father when someone mentions the “inside job” theory. In a democracy, when 1/3 of the people (depending on the poll- some higher, some lower) have a concern, it’s a valid concern, period. That’s how a liberal democracy works. Acting like 1/3 of Americans are monkeys whose opinions and concerns don’t count undermines democracy. If there are reasonable explanations for the discrepancies, for God’s sakes, let’s hear them. We have a right to that, don’t we?

  5. What an arrogant ungrateful douche. He gets on your show with the opportunity for free publicity for his books and then berates the host.

  6. The “been there” statement sure is a breath of fresh air. Is it airwick??? That one should ask shows the extent of the intrigue that surrounds these “terrorist” incidents. Oh how terrible that anyone would DARE ask THAT question about 911……After all didn’t the POTS put that renowned investigator Henry (killed perhaps a million people) Kissinger in charge…to find what did in fact occur on 911. 0nly 3000 died, so this is, would be, small latkes to the great man Kissinger. After the resounding outrage the Kissinger appointment caused, Mssrs.”Kean/Hamilton” took the reins……and of course an administration insider (Philip Zakilow) was placed at the top…inside where he could effectivly exercise VETO POWER over the findings. Google Philip Zelikow. He was the part of the bush transition team, it was he that wrote the 911 report–an U.S. Israeli DUAL citizen zionist neoCon. A political hack , NOT an investigator…..and an Israeli……. These are the depths of subserviaqnce to which the once proud have slumpt.

  7. The guest sounded awfully rude when “9/11 conspiaracy theorists” were mentioned.

    Why do people get branded “kooks” if they question the official 9/11 narrative ? sure there are some really wacky theories out there which don’t deserve a mention, but ive heard many well respected people question what happened on 9/11, some who contribute to this website from time to time here is just a couple off the top of my head…
    -Ray McGovern (who is even in the new loose change film)
    -Paul Graig Roberts

    what about people like Robert Baer ? who has said that the evidence points to some “elements of an inside job”

  8. William Rodriguez is the one eye witness whose testimony proved to me beyond doubt that 911 was an inside job. He experienced bomb blasts coming from the basement right before the tower was hit by the plane. Those buildings were wired in advance.

    I am very disappointed to hear Scott ridicule questioners of 911. At best it smacks of naive denial of fact. At worst it smells like media psy-op.
    My only agenda is to uncover and transmit the truth so that my kids can enjoy their lives without fear of a totalitarian state.
    When i hear trusted voices like Scott dismissing the need to investigate the greatest crime of our time while devoting hours picking apart the web of cronies orbiting Bu$h, it really triggers the old cognitive dissonance.

    Let’s focus on the big picture. You know, the whole “new world order” PNAC agenda to take over the world and get stinking rich while saving Israel from delayed justice.

  9. So, I take it that this gentleman isn’t a fan of your home boy Alex Jones?

    I lost interest in what he had to say after being a jerk to you. Anyway, I don’t need to read his steenking book to know what an opportunistic ass and neocon prick that Rudy is.

  10. Barrett was incredibly nasty. What a pompous jerk, not only on the 9/11 issue but at the very end of the interview–for anyone who bothered to listen that long. Maybe that’s why he’s stuck at the Village Voice after 40 years as a reporter.

  11. The easiest method to get the actual low cost would be to frequently generate from close by
    Coach store. In the event that period as well as range would be the thinking about elements after that attempt your own good fortune in order to get
    designer sunglasses provided on the internet. This Coach london won't save your valuable period as well as cash however, you may steer clear of the hubbub associated with
    rayban sunglasses.
    ghd Australia
    professional straightener
    gucci for men
    gucci borse

Comments are closed.