Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 1:28 pm Post subject:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ... &Itemid=35

Halliburton's War
Written by by Jeffrey Steinberg
Tuesday, 04 April 2006

This article appears in the April 7, 2006 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

Halliburton's War
by Jeffrey Steinberg

President George W. Bush landed in a Navy S-3B jet on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, off the California coast, on May 1, 2003. In what may go down in history as the most expensive pre-election campaign stunt by a sitting American President, Bush delivered the words that now haunt his Presidency: "Mission accomplished."

President Bush was referring to the Iraq War, which had commenced on March 19, 2003. By May Day, the "hot" combat phase of the war had ended, with 170,000 American troops, 35,000 British troops, and a smattering of other "Coalition" forces occupying the capital city of Baghdad and a number of other Iraqi cities and towns. Saddam Hussein and his two sons were in hiding, the insurgency that would soon grip the country had not yet begun in earnest, but, as the world now knows, the "mission" was, and still is, anything but "accomplished."

Nevertheless, as President Bush was prancing around the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, telling the sailors how much he "preciated" their efforts, hard-working combat commanders from the Central Command (CENTCOM), and officials of the interim occupation authority, the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), under Gen. Jay Garner (ret.), were cobbling together a plan for the rapid transfer of power to the Iraqis—a plan that offered the last best hope for an exit strategy, to restore stability and sovereignty to an Iraq that is today viewed by many experts as caught hopelessly in a rapidly spreading, out-of-control civil war.

At the same time that there was still a chance to repair some of the damage done by the preemptive invasion, and do the right thing in Iraq, the U.S. State Department was being offered an opportunity to open comprehensive talks with Iran, covering everything from Tehran's assistance in the post-Saddam Iraq stabilization and reconstruction, to Iran's nuclear energy program, to Iran's relationship with Hezbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad.

Within weeks of Bush's PR stunt on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, all of these opportunities had been flushed down the toilet by the "Cheney-Rumsfeld Cabal," to use the terminology of Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (ret.), who was, at the time, the chief of staff to Secretary of State and former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Gen. Colin Powell (ret.).

Instead of a comprehensive solution to the Persian Gulf crisis, we got what can only be called "Halliburton's War," the three-year descent into Hell, during which time, thousands of American GIs were killed or maimed, Iraq became engulfed in an ever-growing asymmetric warfare insurgency, and a parade of private military corporations (PMCs), led by Halliburton, raked in tens of billions in U.S. taxpayers' dollars and Iraqi Oil-for-Food funds, left over from the Saddam Hussein era. Pentagon and Congressional investigations have confirmed that the PMCs, particularly Halliburton, have engaged in crass war profiteering, with the latest Pentagon audit concluding that Halliburton's Kellog Brown and Root (KBR) subsidiary has systematically over-billed U.S. taxpayers by 25% on all of their Iraq logistics and reconstruction contracts, since the beginning of the Iraq imbroglio.

As EIR documented last week, the architects of the Iraq War had a larger "transformational" agenda: to set the precedent for the privatization of war, by giving the lion's share of the post-combat occupation mission to a combine of PMCs, collectively modelled on the neo-feudal British East India Company, which had administered the 18th- and 19th-Century British Empire through a private cartel of banks and chartered corporations. Today, this system is called "globalization," and the leading champions of the privatization of national security are Synarchist bankers, typified by Felix Rohatyn and George Shultz.

The story of the willful sabotage of the opportunity to end an unwarranted and unjust invasion of Iraq, with at least some semblance of stability in the Persian Gulf, has been documented by eyewitnesses with impeccable credentials. Bernard Trainor, a highly respected, retired three-star Marine Corps general, and New York Times military correspondent Michael Gordon have catalogued the role of Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence Stephen Cambone, and George Shultz and Henry Kissinger-protégé L. Paul Bremer, in the sabotage of the plan for a successful American withdrawal from Iraq. While Trainor and Gordon's new book, Cobra II: the Inside Story of the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq (New York: Pantheon Books, 2006) does not take up the consequences of the sabotage, in ushering in Halliburton, Bechtel, and a legion of smaller PMCs, it does provide a damning indictment of the Cheney-led neo-con insurgency that is critical to comprehending the bigger picture.

And two senior officials in the first term of the Bush-Cheney Administration, Colonel Wilkerson and National Security Council senior director for Middle East affairs Flynt Leverett, came forward in late March to reveal how Cheney directly blocked a proposal from Tehran for a comprehensive U.S.-Iranian direct dialogue, at the same time that the Iraq situation was being sabotaged almost beyond repair. Wilkerson and Leverett provided their damning account to historian Gareth Porter, who reported it in a March 29 Inter Press Service (IPS) story, "Neocons Blocked 2003 Nuclear Talks With Iran."

Before 'De-Baathification'
As recounted in Cobra II, on April 17, 2003, just one week after American troops had taken Baghdad, then-Deputy Commander Gen. John Abizaid held a satellite video conference, during which he unfurled plans to establish three divisions of an interim Iraqi Army, which would take up critical security functions, and to clearly signal that the United States had no intention of long-term occupation. As Trainor and Gordon write, Abizaid "believed that Arab armies were not just military organizations—they provided jobs, helping to hold Arab societies together. His goal was to field three divisions in three months."

The approach taken by CENTCOM's top generals was to reconstitute the interim Iraq Army from the top down—by recruiting commanders from the former Army who were not tainted by close ties to Saddam Hussein's Baathist inner circle, and recalling their units, intact. As it would turn out, months later, when U.S. commanders got access to the Iraqi Ministry of Defense personnel records, they discovered that few of the top-ranking military officers, and even fewer of the junior officers and NCOs, were Baath Party figures.

A key player in the strategy of CENTCOM was Lt. Gen. David D. McKiernan, who was the commander of the combined allied ground forces during the invasion, which was officially called "Cobra II." On May 9, 2003, General McKiernan, along with a small group of U.S. senior officers and CIA officials, met with Faris Naima, a former Iraqi military officer and Ambassador to the Philippines and Austria, who had defected at the close of his diplomatic tour in Vienna. Naima had contact with a number of Iraqi generals, and he presented a plan for creating a new Ministry of Defense, staffed by experienced officers who were all prepared to denounce the Baath Party and work with the Americans.

A parallel effort was also being run by Gen. Jay Garner (ret.), the Bush-appointed head of ORHA. As Trainor and Gordon report, "Soon after arriving in Baghdad, one of Garner's top planners, Colonel Paul Hughes, heard that some former Iraqi officers had approached U.S. troops in Baghdad to ask how they might receive their salaries. After securing approval from senior officers, Hughes met with the group at one of the Republican Guard's officers' clubs. Calling themselves the Independent Military Gathering, the Iraqi officers indicated that they wanted to cooperate with the Americans. Though many wanted to work outside the military, they were willing to supply names of potential recruits, including lower-ranking noncommissioned officers. Anticipating that the Defense Ministry would be bombed, they had wisely removed the computers containing military personnel records. Eventually, they gave the Americans a list of some 50,000 to 70,000 names, including the military police." As the authors note, "The United States may not have had a ready-made military force but it seemed to have some of the pieces—if, that is, it wanted to use them."

Obviously the situation on the ground in Iraq was already chaotic and complicated. While Garner's impulse was to back CENTCOM's traditional military plan to turn over power to an interim Iraqi authority and begin withdrawing American forces, he was also already turning to PMCs to join in the process of implementing the exit strategy. He had hired two American companies, RONCO and MPRI (Military Progessional Resources Inc.), to screen Iraqi soldiers for future employment, as military or civilian workers. MPRI, one of the first American PMCs, drawn from the top ranks of American retired military officers, received an initial contract of $625,000 from Garner, to launch the vetting and training program.

Iran's 'Grand Bargain'
At the exact moment that Generals Abizaid, McKiernan, and Garner were putting together a comprehensive exit strategy from Iraq, the Iranian government sent an offer to Washington that was almost too good to be true. As reported by Gareth Porter, in early May 2003, Tehran sent a letter to the U.S. State Department, via the Swiss Ambassador in Tehran. The letter would be referred to as Iran's "grand bargain." The Khatami government, with the backing of the Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, proposed to open comprehensive talks with the Bush Administration on a wide range of issues, including Iran's nuclear energy program; Iranian assistance in stabilizing Iraq, with its large Shiite majority; Iran's support for Hamas and Islamic Jihad; and the prospect of Hezbollah being transformed into a strictly political institution within Lebanon. The Iranians also proposed to give the Americans information about al-Qaeda members in Iranian custody, in return for the American side providing information about the Mujahideen el-Khalq (MEK), an Iranian exile group on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist organizations, based in Iraq.

The May 3, 2003 Iranian letter was not without precedent. In 2001-02, the United States and Iran had conducted secret talks in Geneva, which had resulted in Iranian cooperation in stabilizing Afghanistan, following the U.S. post-9/11 invasion of that country. Initially, over howls of protest from the neo-cons inside the Bush Administration, the President gave his special Iraq envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, the okay to begin talks with Iran's "man in Geneva" Javad Zarif, about Iraq.

Cheney-Rumsfeld Cabal Reacts
With events turning potentially against the war party, both on the ground inside Iraq, and on the diplomatic level with Iran, Vice President Cheney and the neo-con civilian apparatus inside the Pentagon made their move. In what amounted to a quiet, but deadly policy coup, Cheney and company killed the Iraq exit strategy and poisoned the dialogue with Iran.

A U.S. intelligence official intimately familiar with the events of May 2003 was blunt: "Cheney and Rumsfeld had no intention of dealing with Iran. They viewed the Iraq invasion and occupation as part of a package, that also included regime change in Syria and Iran. They weighed in and killed a golden opportunity."

The man that Cheney and company chose to kill both initiatives was a longtime George Shultz and Henry Kissinger protégé, Ambassador L. Paul Bremer. Bremer had earned his stripes at the State Department, first as executive assistant to Kissinger, and later as Shultz's ambassador for combatting terrorism. In 1989, when he left the government, Bremer stepped in as managing director of Kissinger Associates, a post he held until 2000.

In his own self-serving memoir of his tour of duty as the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) from May 2003-June 2004, Bremer made it clear that his appointment as proconsul in Baghdad was a Cheney-Rumsfeld manuever. The two people who called him, to solicit his help in Iraq were: Lewis "Scooter" Libby, then Cheney's chief of staff and chief national security aide; and Paul Wolfowitz. Bremer had worked with both men in George Shultz's State Department during the Reagan years.

From the moment that Bremer agreed to go to Baghdad, things moved with lightning speed:

On May 5, Bremer was in Washington, meeting with Rumsfeld. The two men had been friends since the Ford Administration in the mid-1970s. As Bremer wrote of Rumsfeld in My Year in Iraq (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006): "We had stayed in touch over the years and I admired his patriotism, quick intelligence and drive." For Rumsfeld, one of Bremer's greatest qualifications was that he had never served in Southwest Asia, and had no ties to the "damned Arabists" at the State Department, CIA, and DIA, who considered Rumsfeld and Cheney's approach to the Iraq occupation to be madness.

On May 6, Bremer met with President Bush in the Oval Office and was offered the job as head of the Coalition mission in Iraq. Before he would accept the posting, Bremer insisted that the President fire Zalmay Khalilzad as the special White House envoy, insisting that he had to have absolute Presidential authority to act, with no one second-guessing his decisions. A labile President Bush agreed, apparently without even consulting with Secretary of State Colin Powell, who later said, according to Trainor and Gordon, that he was "stunned" that Khalilzad, "the only guy who knew the Iraqi players well and who was regarded by them as a trusted representative of the White House," was dumped. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were also bypassed in the Bremer coup.

Next, Vice President Cheney assigned one of his aides, Brian McCormack, to Bremer's staff. In a meeting with Doug Feith at the Pentagon, shortly before he departed for Baghdad, Bremer was given a draft text of a de-Baathification order, which was to have been issued by Garner. Bremer insisted that the order be postponed until his arrival in Baghdad, so he could deliver it as his first order of business as the head of the newly created Coalition Provisional Authority, which replaced the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Affairs.

Bremer would be joined in Baghdad by another Cheney-Rumsfeld handpicked operative, Walter Slocombe. Although Slocombe had served in the Clinton Administration as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, he had been an avid supporter of the Bush-Cheney "preemptive" invasion of Iraq. He was tapped to head up the interim Iraqi Defense Ministry by Rumsfeld's Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence and top protégé, Stephen Cambone. Slocombe arrived in Baghdad with instructions from Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Feith to completely dismantle the Iraqi Army, and begin to rebuild it from the bottom up, a laborious process that would take years to complete, thus assuring a long-term American occupation.

On May 12, 2003, Bremer arrived in Baghdad. The very next day, by his own accounts, and the reporting of other eyewitnesses, Bremer convened a closed-door staff meeting. His first order of business: Issue shoot-to-kill orders against any Iraqis caught looting. Bremer insisted that the Iraqis had to be taught a harsh lesson, that the Americans were serious about bringing law and order to a country that had just been decimated by "shock and awe."

At least two of the military commanders in the Baghdad district flat-out refused to accept Bremer's instructions. According to Trainor and Gordon, "Bremer's position came as a surprise to Buff Blount, who soon made clear that his soldiers had no intention of using deadly force to stop stealing by the impoverished Iraqis his soldiers had liberated.... Mattis expressed similar sentiments." The next day, the details of Bremer's closed-door orders appeared, verbatim, in the New York Times.

On May 15, Bremer unilaterally cancelled a conference that had been called for the end of the month by Garner and Khalilzad, which was to have put together an interim Iraqi government. Bremer's policy precisely mirrored a classified memo that Rumsfeld had sent to Cheney, Powell, and CIA Director George Tenet, soon after the Iraq invasion began, warning that any premature effort to create a post-Saddam Iraqi government could result in an anti-American regime coming into power. Bremer set a one-year timetable for a hand-over of power, mandating that the drafting and popular ratification of a constitution should precede any turnover of sovereignty from the CPA to the Iraqis. For Halliburton and the other PMCs, this would mean a one-year open-ended license to steal.

The next day, Bremer signed the Feith-drafted Order No. 1, "De-Baathification of Iraqi Society." According to a CIA estimate, with the flick of a pen, Bremer fired more than 30,000 Iraqis.

Bremer waited just one week before dropping the other shoe. On May 23, he issued Order No. 2, "The Dissolution of Entities," formally dismantling the entire Iraqi Army. Slocombe had drafted the order, but only after Rumsfeld personally sent his two men in Baghdad a May 19 classified planning guidance on creating the "New Iraqi Corps."

Trainor and Gordon capture the treachery of the moment: "While Rumsfeld had been consulted in advance, other key players were blindsided by the edict. Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said later that the Joint Chiefs were not consulted about the decision. Powell did not know about it in advance. Condoleezza Rice was caught off guard but comforted herself with the thought that the White House needed to respect the judgment of their man in Baghdad.... In fact, Abizaid and McKiernan did consider the decision an abrupt and unwelcome departure from their previous planning."

That was an understatement. Overnight, 300,000 Iraqi soldiers were unemployed and stigmatized as "Saddamists," despite the fact that under even Bremer's strict de-Baathification criteria, only 8,000 out of a total of 140,000 officers and NCOs would have been disqualified from serving in the New Iraqi Corps.

The day that Bremer signed that order was the day that the Iraqi insurgency was truly born. In fact, much to Rumsfeld and Cheney's dismay, on July 16, the day he took command of CENTCOM, General Abizaid honestly told the press that Coalition forces in Iraq were facing "a classical guerrilla-type campaign." This stood in stark contrast to Rumsfeld's glib claims that the United States was merely carrying out clean-up operations against "dead-enders." Two years later, Vice President Cheney would be peddling the same lies, claiming that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes."

Battle Over the Iran Policy Directive
Here the narrative of treachery is picked up by Colonel Wilkerson and Flynt Leverett. The May 3 letter from the Iranian government to Secretary of State Powell, offering Iran's "grand bargain," arrived in Washington, as a feverish battle was already under way over Bush Administration policy towards Iran. For over a year, the Administration had been divided over the drafting of a National Security Policy Directive (NSPD) on Iran, with Administration "realists," led by Powell, arguing for a continuation of the Clinton Administration's policy of diplomatic engagement. The Cheney/Rumsfeld-led neo-cons, centered in the Office of the Vice President and in Feith's Pentagon Office of Special Plans (OSP), penned their own draft NSPD, calling for regime change, and even suggesting a role for the terrorist MEK.

According to U.S. intelligence community sources who spoke to EIR, it is believed that the OSP draft was prepared by Michael Rubin, a protégé of neo-con Richard Perle, who would spend six months in Iraq on Bremer's CPA staff. What is certain is that by no later than February 2003, a copy of the OSP Policy draft had been delivered to Israeli Embassy officials by OSP Iran desk officer Larry Franklin, who was subsequently indicted and pleaded guilty to passing classified material to Israel and to two officials of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

When the letter from Iran arrived in Washington, the already simmering battle inside the Bush Administration escalated into an all-out, behind-the-scenes policy brawl. Powell pressed President Bush for approval to have Khalilzad resume the Geneva channel of talks, which had produced positive results on Afghanistan after 9/11. The neo-cons, according to then-NSC Middle East chief Leverett, balked. "They were saying we didn't want to engage with Iran because we didn't want to owe them," he told Porter.

Although President Bush did approve the Khalilzad Geneva talks with Iran, by the end of May, the whole deal had been scotched. Wilkerson blames the "secret cabal" headed by Cheney: "The secret cabal got what it wanted; no negotiations with Tehran." But he acknowledges, "As with many of these issues of national security decision-making, there are no fingerprints." He did not hesitate to offer his own educated guess as to who had shut down the Iran channel: "I would guess Dick Cheney with the blessing of George W. Bush."

In fact, the Administration stalemate represented a clear victory for Cheney and Rumsfeld. By April 1, the entire Geneva channel had been permanently shut, and, as of October 2003, Franklin would quietly inform the Israelis that all work on a final National Security Policy Directive on Iran had been shut down.

PMCs Fill a Gaping Hole
Both the Bremer and Trainor-Gordon accounts of the events of May 2003 highlight another burning issue that would play directly into the Shultz-Rohatyn-Cheney grand design for privatizing war and profiteering handsomely off of the neo-feudal scheme: the acute shortage of American troops for any long-term, postwar occupation of Iraq.

Generals Abizaid, McKiernan, and Garner had all been pressing for a quick stand-up of the Iraqi Army and the early creation of an interim Iraqi government, in part because of the lack of sufficient American military personnel to restore order without a lot of Iraqi involvement.

Rumsfeld's position on the question had been made clear in April 2003, when he unceremoniously fired Army Secretary Tom White, for siding with Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki, over Shinseki's insistance that the United States needed a minimum of 300,000 troops to invade and secure Iraq. White left office on May 9, and Shinseki followed a month later.

Just before he left for Baghdad, Bremer had met with a friend, James Dobbins, who had been a State Department trouble-shooter, and who had served in Afghanistan and the Balkans. Now at the RAND Corporation, Dobbins had just presided over a study of the history of nation-building, over the past 60 years, the results of which he shared with Bremer. The essential point of the RAND study was that any effective nation-building mission required a 1:50 ratio of peacekeepers to civilians. That was the size of the various Balkan peacekeeping forces. By that standard, between 450,000 and 500,000 U.S. troops would have been required in Iraq.

According to Trainor and Gordon, Bremer passed along a copy of the study to Rumsfeld, who promptly threw it in the garbage.

There might be 300,000 or even 500,000 Coalition forces eventually on the ground in Iraq, but the majority would not be active duty military. Iraq would be the PMCs' Shangri-la: the first truly neo-feudal imperial occupation of their post-Treaty of Westphalia world.

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 1:32 pm Post subject:


Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:03 pm Post subject:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ... 01&sc=1000

David Ray Griffin: Theologian scoffed at 9/11 conspiracy theories, then looked closer
Reyhan Harmanci

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Printable Version
Email This Article

When David Ray Griffin, noted theologian and professor emeritus at the Claremont School of Theology, first heard someone say that Sept. 11 was an inside job, he scoffed.

"I can remember my exact words. ... I said, 'I don't think that even the Bush administration could perpetrate such a thing,' " said Griffin, who has since written two books, "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11" and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions,'' which dispute the official version of events. Specifically, Griffin believes that the U.S. government orchestrated the attacks.

Griffin began to delve into 9/11 conspiracy theories after looking at a time line of the events of Sept. 11, 2001 (by Paul Thompson, who later turned it into a book) on the Internet. He found himself swayed by the catalog of inconsistencies and strange coincidences.

When asked what the most compelling facts are to make the case that the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks, Griffin names three things. The behavior of Bush at the schoolhouse in Florida ("Secret Service should have whisked him out immediately if we're under attack but he stayed over 30 minutes. ... It's pretty clear evidence that they knew they wouldn't be attacked"), the strange pyrotechnics that brought down the World Trade Center ("fire has never brought down a steel high-rise building") and the poorly planned targeting of the West Wing of the Pentagon ("all the important people are in the East Wing -- it doesn't make any sense").

Not only that, Griffin points to historical evidence that the U.S. government would be capable of such a thing. Operation Northwoods, a plan concocted by the Pentagon in the '60s as a way of taking Castro from power, included ideas about how a terrorist attack on U.S. soil could provide a pretext for military action.

But why now? Griffin names the neoconservative think tank the Project for the New American Century as a motivating force. "Once you look at it, they have lots of motivation," he says. "It's what the neocons have been salivating about."

"The goals would be to get control of the world's oil and establish a new doctrine of pre-emptive warfare. That was a difficult sell before 9/11."

While many conspiracy theories have been passed around, it's been very easy to dismiss many of the theorists as, well, crazy. But Griffin comes to his controversial conclusions with lucidity and calm. He even sees a connection between his long-standing work as a theologian and his new position as a political writer.

"In both cases, the concern is for the good of the world as a whole. Those of us who believe in God believe that trashing the world is not what God wants."

David Ray Griffin speaks on "9/11: The Myth & the Reality." 7 p.m. today, Grand Lake Theater, 3200 Grand Ave., Oakland. (510) 452-3556. He also appears at 11:30 a.m. Mon.,Commonwealth Club, 595 Market St., S.F. (415) 597-6700. $15.

Reyhan Harmanci,,,1734939,00.html

'Iraq was awash in cash. We played football with bricks of $100 bills'

At the beginning of the Iraq war, the UN entrusted $23bn of Iraqi money to the US-led coalition to redevelop the country. With the infrastructure of the country still in ruins, where has all that money gone? Callum Macrae and Ali Fadhil on one of the greatest financial scandals of all time

Monday March 20, 2006
The Guardian

In a dilapidated maternity and paediatric hospital in Diwaniyah, 100 miles south of Baghdad, Zahara and Abbas, premature twins just two days old, lie desperately ill. The hospital has neither the equipment nor the drugs that could save their lives. On the other side of the world, in a federal courthouse in Virginia, US, two men - one a former CIA agent and Republican candidate for Congress, the other a former army ranger - are found guilty of fraudulently obtaining $3m (£1.7m) intended for the reconstruction of Iraq. These two events have no direct link, but they are none the less products of the same thing: a financial scandal that in terms of sheer scale must rank as one of the greatest in history.
At the start of the Iraq war, around $23bn-worth of Iraqi money was placed in the trusteeship of the US-led coalition by the UN. The money, known as the Development Fund for Iraq and consisting of the proceeds of oil sales, frozen Iraqi bank accounts and seized Iraqi assets, was to be used in a "transparent manner", specified the UN, for "purposes benefiting the people of Iraq".

For the past few months we have been working on a Guardian Films investigation into what happened to that money. What we discovered was that a great deal of it has been wasted, stolen or frittered away. For the coalition, it has been a catastrophe of its own making. For the Iraqi people, it has been a tragedy. But it is also a financial and political scandal that runs right to the heart of the nightmare that is engulfing Iraq today.

Diwaniyah is a sprawling and neglected city with just one small state paediatric and maternity hospital to serve its one million people. Years of war, corruption under Saddam and western sanctions have reduced the hospital to penury, so when last year the Americans promised total refurbishment, the staff were elated. But the renovation has been partial and the work often shoddy, and where it really matters - funding frontline health care - there appears to have been little change at all.

In the corridor, an anxious father who has been told his son may have meningitis is berating the staff. "I want a good hospital, not a terrible hospital that makes my child worse," he says. But then he calms down. "I'm not blaming you, we are the same class. I'm talking about important people. Those controlling all those millions and the oil. They didn't come here to save us from Saddam, they came here for the oil, and so now the oil is stolen and we got nothing from it." Beside him another parent, a woman, agrees: "If the people who run the country are stealing the money, what can we do?" For these ordinary Iraqis, it is clear that the country's wealth is being managed in much the same way as it ever was. How did it all go so wrong?

When the coalition troops arrived in Iraq, they were received with remarkable goodwill by significant sections of the population. The coalition had control up to a point and, perhaps more importantly, it had the money to consolidate that goodwill by rebuilding Iraq, or at least make a significant start. Best of all for the US and its allies, the money came from the Iraqis themselves.

Because the Iraqi banking system was in tatters, the funds were placed in an account with the Federal Reserve in New York. From there, most of the money was flown in cash to Baghdad. Over the first 14 months of the occupation, 363 tonnes of new $100 bills were shipped in - $12bn, in cash. And that is where it all began to go wrong.

"Iraq was awash in cash - in dollar bills. Piles and piles of money," says Frank Willis, a former senior official with the governing Coalition Provisional Authority. "We played football with some of the bricks of $100 bills before delivery. It was a wild-west crazy atmosphere, the likes of which none of us had ever experienced."

The environment created by the coalition positively encouraged corruption. "American law was suspended, Iraqi law was suspended, and Iraq basically became a free fraud zone," says Alan Grayson, a Florida-based attorney who represents whistleblowers now trying to expose the corruption. "In a free fire zone you can shoot at anybody you want. In a free fraud zone you can steal anything you like. And that was what they did."

A good example was the the Iraqi currency exchange programme (Ice). An early priority was to devote enormous resources to replacing every single Iraqi dinar showing Saddam's face with new ones that didn't. The contract to help distribute the new currency was won by Custer Battles, a small American security company set up by Scott Custer and former Republican Congressional candidate Mike Battles. Under the terms of the contract, they would invoice the coalition for their costs and charge 25% on top as profit. But Custer Battles also set up fake companies to produce inflated invoices, which were then passed on to the Americans. They might have got away with it, had they not left a copy of an internal spreadsheet behind after a meeting with coalition officials.

The spreadsheet showed the company's actual costs in one column and their invoiced costs in another; it revealed, in one instance, that it had charged $176,000 to build a helipad that actually cost $96,000. In fact, there was no end to Custer Battles' ingenuity. For example, when the firm found abandoned Iraqi Airways fork-lifts sitting in Baghdad airport, it resprayed them and rented them to the coalition for thousands of dollars. In total, in return for $3m of actual expenditure, Custer Battles invoiced for $10m. Perhaps more remarkable is that the US government, once it knew about the scam, took no legal action to recover the money. It has been left to private individuals to pursue the case, the first stage of which concluded two weeks ago when Custer Battles was ordered to pay more than $10m in damages and penalties.

But this is just one story among many. From one US controlled vault in a former Saddam palace, $750,000 was stolen. In another, a safe was left open. In one case, two American agents left Iraq without accounting for nearly $1.5m.

Perhaps most puzzling of all is what happened as the day approached for the handover of power (and the remaining funds) to the incoming Iraqi interim government. Instead of carefully conserving the Iraqi money for the new government, the Coalition Provisional Authority went on an extraordinary spending spree. Some $5bn was committed or spent in the last month alone, very little of it adequately accounted for.

One CPA official was given nearly $7m and told to spend it in seven days. "He told our auditors that he felt that there was more emphasis on the speed of spending the money than on the accountability for that money," says Ginger Cruz, the deputy inspector general for Iraqi reconstruction. Not all coalition officials were so honest. Last month Robert Stein Jr, employed as a CPA comptroller in south central Iraq, despite a previous conviction for fraud, pleaded guilty to conspiring to steal more than $2m and taking kickbacks in the form of cars, jewellery, cash and sexual favours. It seems certain he is only the tip of the iceberg. There are a further 50 criminal investigations under way.

Back in Diwaniyah it is a story about failure and incompetence, rather than fraud and corruption. Zahara and Abbas, born one and a half months premature, are suffering from respiratory distress syndrome and are desperately ill. The hospital has just 14 ancient incubators, held together by tape and wire.

Zahara is in a particularly bad way. She needs a ventilator and drugs to help her breathe, but the hospital has virtually nothing. Her father has gone into town to buy vitamin K on the black market, which he has been told his children will need. Zahara starts to deteriorate and in desperation the doctor holds a tube pumping unregulated oxygen against the child's nostrils. "This treatment is worse than primitive," he says. "It's not even medicine." Despite his efforts, the little girl dies; the next day her brother also dies. Yet with the right equipment and the right drugs, they could have survived.

How is it possible that after three years of occupation and billions of dollars of spending, hospitals are still short of basic supplies? Part of the cause is ideological tunnel-vision. For months before the war the US state department had been drawing up plans for the postwar reconstruction, but those plans were junked when the Pentagon took over.

To supervise the reconstruction of the Iraqi health service, the Pentagon appointed James Haveman, a former health administrator from Michigan. He was also a loyal Bush supporter, who had campaigned for Jeb Bush, and a committed evangelical Christian. But he had virtually no experience in international health work.

The coalition's health programme was by any standards a failure. Basic equipment and drugs should have been distributed within months - the coalition wouldn't even have had to pay for it. But they missed that chance, not just in health, but in every other area of life in Iraq. As disgruntled Iraqis will often point out, despite far greater devastation and crushing sanctions, Saddam did more to rebuild Iraq in six months after the first Gulf war than the coalition has managed in three years.

Kees Reitfield, a health professional with 20 years' experience in post-conflict health care from Kosovo to Somalia, was in Iraq from the very beginning of the war and looked on in astonishment at the US management in its aftermath. "Everybody in Iraq was ready for three months' chaos," he says. "They had water for three months, they had food for three months, they were ready to wait for three months. I said, we've got until early August to show an improvement, some drugs in the health centres, some improvement of electricity in the grid, some fuel prices going down. Failure to deliver will mean civil unrest." He was right.

Of course, no one can say that if the Americans had got the reconstruction right it would have been enough. There were too many other mistakes as well, such as a policy of crude "deBa'athification" that saw Iraqi expertise marginalised, the creation of a sectarian government and the Americans attempting to foster friendship with Iraqis who themselves had no friends among other Iraqis.

Another experienced health worker, Mary Patterson - who was eventually asked to leave Iraq by James Haveman - characterises the Coalition's approach thus: "I believe it had a lot to do with showing that the US was in control," she says. "I believe that it had to do with rewarding people that were politically loyal. So rather than being a technical agenda, I believe it was largely a politically motivated reward-and-punishment kind of agenda."

Which sounds like the way Saddam used to run the country. "If you were to interview Iraqis today about what they see day to day," she says, "I think they will tell you that they don't see a lot of difference".

· Dispatches: Iraq's Missing Billions produced by GuardianFilms is broadcast tonight on Channel4 at 8pm.

Full coverage
Special report: Iraq
The trial of Saddam Hussein

Britain and Iraq
In memoriam: 100 British troops killed in Iraq
Special report: UK politics and Iraq

January 1 2005 - present
Feb 1 2004 - 31 Dec 2004
July 16 1979 - Jan 31 2004

Interactive guides
Saddam's trial
More click-through graphics on Iraq

Key documents
Full text of speeches and documents

Audio reports
Audio reports on Iraq

Provisional authority: rebuilding Iraq
Iraqi-American chamber of commerce
Wikipedia: Iraq

Follow The Money! <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/naughty.gif" alt="Naughty" title="naughty" />
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner

Moussaoui Judge OKs Playing Plane Tapes

ALEXANDRIA, Va. - The cockpit recorder tape from the Sept. 11 jetliner that crashed in Pennsylvania will be played in public for the first time — to the Zacarias Moussaoui sentencing jury — the judge in the case ruled Wednesday. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said the jury considering whether to execute Moussaoui could hear the recording from United Airlines Fight 93 and see a transcript of it.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:26 am Post subject:


Feingold to Judiciary Committee: 'Under this theory... we have a monarchy'

Published: Friday March 31, 2006

Statement of Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) to Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing On the Call to Censure the President:

Mr. Chairman, first, thank you for scheduling this hearing. I know you recognize that this is a serious issue, and I thank you for treating it as such. I want to welcome and thank our witnesses, some of whom – Mr. Fein, and Professor Turner -- were with us just a few weeks ago, and one of whom -- Mr. Dean -- last appeared before a congressional committee in 1974. I am grateful for your participation, particularly given the short notice that you were given of this hearing.

There is a time-honored way for matters to be considered in the Senate. Bills and resolutions are introduced, they are analyzed in the relevant committee through hearings, they are debated and amended and voted on in committee, and then they are debated on the floor. We have now started that process on this very important matter, and I look forward to seeing it through to a conclusion.

Mr. Chairman, I have looked closely at the statements you have made about the NSA program since the story broke in December. We have a disagreement about some things, but I am pleased to say we are in agreement on several others. We agree that the NSA program is inconsistent with FISA. We agree that the Authorization for Use of Military Force did not grant the President authority to engage in warrantless wiretapping of Americans on U.S. soil. We agree that the President was and remains required under the National Security Act of 1947 to inform the full Intelligence Committees of the NSA program, which he refuses to do.

Where we disagree, apparently, is whether the President’s authority under Article II of the Constitution allows him to authorize warrantless surveillance without complying with FISA. You have said you think this is a close question. I do not believe he has such authority and I don’t think it’s a close question. We will continue to debate that I’m sure. But I think the fact that you have proposed legislation on this program undermines your argument that such presidential authority exists. Because if it does exist, then nothing that we can legislate, no matter how carefully crafted, is worth a hill of beans. For starters, your proposed bill may or may not cover what the NSA is now doing. You and I have no way of knowing because we have not been fully briefed on the program, and I am a member of the Intelligence Committee as well. But regardless, if the President has the inherent authority to authorize whatever surveillance he thinks is necessary, then he surely will ignore your law, just as he has ignored FISA on many occasions.

If Congress doesn’t have the power to define the contours of the President’s Article II powers through legislation, then I have no idea why people are scrambling to draft legislation to authorize what they think the President is doing. If the President’s legal theory, which is shared by some of our witnesses today, is correct, then FISA is a dead letter, all of the supposed protections for civil liberties contained in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act that we just passed are a cruel hoax, and any future legislation we might pass regarding surveillance or national security is a waste of time and a charade. Under this theory, we no longer have a constitutional system consisting of three co-equal branches of government, we have a monarchy.

We can fight terrorism without breaking the law. The rule of law is central to who we are as a people, and the President must return to the law. He must acknowledge and be held accountable for his illegal actions and for misleading the American people, both before and after the program was revealed. If we in the Congress don’t stand up for ourselves and for the American people, we become complicit in his law breaking. A resolution of censure is the appropriate response – even a modest approach.

Mr. Chairman, the presence of John Dean here today should remind us that we must respond to this constitutional crisis based on principle, not partisanship. How we respond to the President’s actions will become part of our history. A little over 30 years ago, a President who broke the law was held to account by a bipartisan congressional investigation and by patriots like Archibald Cox and Elliot Richardson and yes, John Dean, who put loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law above the interests of the President who appointed them. None of us here can predict how history will view this current episode. But I hope that thirty years from now, this Senate will not be seen to have backed down in the face of such a grave challenge to our constitutional system.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Posted: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:14 am Post subject:


From STA >


Posted By: Dosha <Send E-Mail>
Date: Saturday, 1 April 2006, 12:57 p.m.

Hi - Speaking using or losing the brain (i.e., mind) this article from Independent Clearing House goes along with that theme. Peace - Dosha

Ignorance by Content and Omission

By Charles Sullivan

"03/31/06 "ICH" -- -- As a nation and as a people we have come to where we are as a direct result of the information we receive through the commercial media. In terms of democracy creation the news is useless if its intent is to inform and to educate. It is effective if its intent is to purvey propaganda and to deceive the masses. So many well intentioned people fall in line behind the president because they fail to understand his policies. They lack historical perspective. Having the ability to understand current events from an historical perspective brings them into clear focus. Certain unmistakable patterns emerge to explain things.

No thinking person should take any government at its word, especially this one. Governments lie in part because they represent special interest groups rather than the ordinary citizens that comprise the great majority. Most governments fear and loath its citizens because they are clandestinely betraying them. The less transparent the government, the more it has to hide. Lying is the only recourse that undemocratic governments have to make the citizens support and implement their hidden agendas. This explains why the Bush cabal is incapable of speaking truth. It also explains why it is the least transparent government ever to occupy the oval office, bar none.

The Bush cabal and its enablers in Congress are thus forced to call into service noble sounding euphemisms to hide the selfish motives behind their policies. Who but a fool or a madman would volunteer to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people for the sake of increasing the already obscene profits of defense contractors and oil companies? It is precisely because the agenda of those in power conflicts with the interest of the people that governments lie and distort. Those who carry out the agenda of Plutocratic Empire must be made to believe that they are serving noble purposes rather than feeding the insatiable hunger of corporate greed. They must be convinced to betray their own class by acting against its best interest. It would be impossible to accomplish such a monumental task of behavior modification without the aid of the commercial media.

Know that the consumption of commercial media content, whether news or entertainment (they are really one and the same these days), is hazardous to your health. Owned by only five major corporations the world over, the content is sweet to the taste but devoid of nutriment. It consists of addictive substances and empty calories—the kind that leads to mental and spiritual obesity typified by an array of serious health problems that may result in permanent blindness. The sole beneficiaries of this content are the corporations who manufacture and sell them and their servants in government. As always, the consumers are the victims.

At a time when only the most venal would argue that America is not in the midst of serious decline, it is amazing that so little formal opposition has managed to organize itself into action. Even staunch conservatives are distancing themselves from George Bush, whose approval ratings have fallen to thirty-four percent and probably have yet to bottom out. There has been much talk but so little meaningful action. Talk is safe and easy but action requires commitment and sacrifice. In the end it is thoughtful action that gets things done. Propaganda is a powerful wedge that keeps us apart and renders us ineffective.

The illegitimate cabal at the head of government obtained power with the complicity of the commercial media. Despite the virtual ownership of the corporate media and hence its content, the cabal’s hold on power is nevertheless tenuous. Imagine what Bush’s approval rating would be if the people were actually informed. Can you imagine an approval rating of say, minus four hundred? Without the aide of the worlds most prolific and effective propaganda machine the neocons could never have come into power. The fact that they are losing favor with the people despite the useful lies purveyed in the corporate media indicates just how badly they are behaving. Despite the monopoly they enjoy their approval ratings continue to plummet. This is clear evidence that the special interest agenda is not America’s agenda.

No thinking person should assume that the corporate media is neutral or objective. They are not; however, they try to give the impression that they are. All for profit institutions have an agenda—the accumulation of private wealth. Credibility is important to them, facts are not. Like their brethren in the defense and oil industries, the corporate media is amassing fortunes by supporting an agenda of war and world domination. In a capitalist society the role of the media is not to inform and to educate—it is to make money by any and all available means. Capitalism does not care how its fortunes are made. Its modus operandi is Machiavellian: ends justify the means. Capitalism is unbridled greed unleashed upon the world for the privatization of wealth. It allows a small group of business owners and investors to get rich by exploiting the under class of all nations.

Relatively few Americans are aware of the extent to which the corporate media played in putting George Bush in power, or the pandering of propaganda and outright lies that keep him there. They are unaware that under the guidance of ultra conservative Grover Norquist, a group of eighty of the nation’s wealthiest people gathers in the nation’s capital every week. This gathering, as one might expect, is not innocuous or benign. Its purpose is to create the talking points that will be purveyed each week in the commercial media to further their agenda. In essence, this group defines the news for the week and the manner in which it will be presented for public consumption. Their reach is enormous and their sole motivation is profit and power for the elite. Not only does Norquist’s group literally write the scripts followed by Rush Limbaugh and his robotic drones, it provides the content that defines the evening news and the daily newspapers. Every mainstream televised and audio program should be preceded by a Surgeon General’s Warning: Use of this product may be hazardous to your health!

Thus every television and radio network incessantly preaches the same propaganda from the individual pulpits of class privilege. The key talking points are the same whether on Fox, CNN, CBS or ABC; or the nation’s newspapers. Likewise, conservative talk radio receives its marching orders directly from Norquist’s intimate group of billionaires. This is not benign advocacy for a particular point of view—it is blatant propaganda and outright lies packaged and sold as news. Without the aide of the corporate media and Norquist’s billionaires, we would not have invaded Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people would still be alive. We might even have taken global warming seriously and done something about it before it was too late. Truth and integrity might still mean something.

Little by little the minds of the people have been poisoned by propaganda and it is called nourishment. As a result the more noble traits of our culture are incrementally dying. Through the judicious use of lies and distortions the people are deceived into supporting the atrocities of war and conquest that are committed in their name. Historical context reveals the unmistakable patterns that make these behaviors readily visible and renders them understandable to the present moment. The lack of historical perspective leaves one vulnerable to the lies and distortions that have always characterized our government. Of course, this historical context is not taught in our schools for reasons that should be obvious.

By shamelessly touting the transparent lies of the Bush cabal as fact the corporate media is generating enormous wealth for the upper echelon, while our sons and daughters make the blood sacrifice. Encouraging patriotism (really jingoism), keeps the uninformed masses in a frenzy and in mortal fear of phantom enemies. It keeps them from recognizing the real enemies of peace and democracy that misuse government for the creation of privatized wealth for the privileged. By content and by omission the corporate media decides what Americans will be told and thus how they will behave.

The purveyance of such powerful propaganda is keeping the coffers of the nation’s defense contractors and the oil companies running over, while also keeping the people dumbed down. Like bloated ticks fed on blood sucked from the public teat, the Carlyle Group and Halliburton are raking in billions. Such obscene wealth is generated at the expense of working class people who have no health insurance because their tax dollars support war profiteering and welfare for the rich. ..."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e12588.htm
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:35 pm Post subject:


Bush's Unprecedented Arrogance
By John Dean,
Posted on April 5, 2006, Printed on April 5, 2006
President George Bush continues to openly and defiantly ignore the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) -- the 1978 statute prohibiting electronic inspection of Americans' telephone and email communications with people outside the United States without a court-authorized warrant. (According to U.S. News & World Report, the President may also have authorized warrantless break-ins and other physical surveillance, such as opening regular mail, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.)

Bush's position is that he does not need Congressional approval for his measures. Even he does not claim that Congress gave him express power to undertake them, but he does claim that Congress indirectly approved such measures when it authorized the use of force to go after those involved in the 9/11 terror attacks on the United States. He also argues that, in any event, approval was not necessary -- for he argues that he has such authority under Article II of the Constitution, as the chief executive, and Commander in Chief, charged with faithfully executing the laws of the land and protecting the Constitution.

These arguments are hauntingly familiar to this observer.

The Nixon Precedent

No one can question President Bush's goal: Protecting Americans from further terror attacks. But every American should question his means: Openly defying a longstanding statute that prohibits the very actions he insists on undertaking, when done in the very manner he insists upon doing them. In some two hundred and seventeen years of the American presidency, there has been only one President who provides a precedent for Bush's stunning, in-your-face, conduct: Richard Nixon. Like Bush, Nixon claimed he was acting to protect the nation's security. Like Bush, Nixon broke the law -- authorizing, among other things, illegal wiretaps.

Ironically, a stronger case might be made for Nixon's warrantless wiretaps, than for Bush's. Nixon's were installed to track leaks of national security information relating to the war in Vietnam. (He never found the leaker.) He pursued domestic intelligence by illegal means because he believed -- based on information from President Lyndon Johnson -- that communists had infiltrated the anti-war movement. (No such evidence was ever found.) In addition, he believed that extreme measures were necessary to deal with domestic terrorists, who were responsible for hundreds of deadly bombings. (This is the same argument Bush makes today.)

Nixon also claimed he was only doing what his predecessors had done. That was not untrue -- but what had, in the past, been the exception to the rule became standard operating procedure under Nixon. Bush, however, can only claim one predecessor for his actions: Nixon. And, of course, he has not made this claim -- for Nixon was forced from office because of his defiance of the law.

Prior Presidents Have Always Gone To Congress

Bush has admitted he is ignoring FISA. His Attorney General has offered lame and loose legal justifications that he ought not to dare attempt in any court of law. Only blind partisan followers buy the president's bogus legal arguments. The U.S. Supreme Court's prescient discussion of presidential powers reveals how weak these arguments really are.

In May 1952, President Truman directed his Secretary of Commerce, Charles Sawyer, to take charge of the nation's steel mills, rather than permit a strike by steelworkers -- and intransigent management -- from hampering national security. The nation was at war in Korea, and without steel, the war effort would be in jeopardy. Truman informed Congress of his actions, but rather than asked for emergency legislation, he proceeded by executive order.

The owners of the steel mills immediately sought an injunction, which was granted by a federal district court judge, and the government appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court, in Youngstown Co. v. Sawyer, held that Truman's attempted takeover of the steel mills was unconstitutional. Truman then asked Congress for emergency legislation, but Congress turned him down too.

As the strong dissent in Youngstown notes, the "diversity of views expressed in the six opinions of the majority, the lack of reference to authoritative precedent, the repeated reliance upon prior dissenting opinions, the complete disregard of the uncontroverted facts showing the gravity of the emergency and the temporary nature of the taking all serve to demonstrate how far afield one must go to" deny Truman this power. It seems Bush believes he can ride on that dissent. But in the end, the dissent not only is not the law; it is not persuasive.

Truman's actions were not unprecedented: President Lincoln had seized rail and telegraph lines during the Civil War; President Theodore Roosevelt was ready to seize Pennsylvania coal mines if a strike created shortages; President Wilson seized industrial plants and railroads during World War I; and six months before Peal Harbor, President Franklin Roosevelt seized a California aviation plant when a strike occurred. These presidents, however, went to Congress -- as Truman also eventually did. Only Bush (like Nixon) refuses to do so.

As Donald McCoy's study of the Truman presidency (for the University Press of Kansas) points out, "Truman had sought not only to resolve the steel crisis but also substantially to expand the president's power in a single action that matched his sense of gravity of the emergency that was confronting the nation. He had gambled badly, and he had lost badly." The same could be said of Nixon, who lost even worse because he -- like Bush, and unlike Truman -- was acting secretly.

Bush, once it was learned what he was doing, could have asked Congress to grant him the authority that he believed he needed. Instead, he has taken the Nixon approach, and wants to do what he wants to do -- the Congress be damned. Will he succeed? What if he does? What if he doesn't?

Bush's Gambling With Presidential Powers

Like Nixon, Bush has wrapped himself in the American flag, national security, his high office, and a claim to be the defender of America -- the man who can show terrorists not to mess with the U.S.A. His critics are attacked as being soft on fighting terrorism, or being knee-jerk partisans, when all they want is for their president to stay within the law.

If the issue stays out of court -- and continues to be debated by many as if it were purely a policy issue, and FISA does not exist -- Bush may prevail; it will be up to the voters in this Fall's election to judge him, and to decide whether to sweep out of office those legislators who are preventing a full investigation of this matter. But if this issue goes to court, Bush should worry. Even Republican-appointed judges would have to comprise their judicial integrity to rule in his favor. One reason it may stay out of court, though, is the difficulty of finding a plaintiff with proper standing: someone who has been illegally harmed by reason of Bush's surveillance. The ACLU has looked for such plaintiffs and then filed a lawsuit but its chances are not strong.

Another reason it might stay out of court is if legislation moots the issue. Senators Dewine, Graham, Hagel and Snowe have sponsored legislation, S. 2455, that would retroactively (as well as prospectively) legalize the president's refusal to seek FISA warrants. The bill provides for nominal oversight by the Senate and House Select Intelligence Committees. And this approach, which has in the past, usually been requested by presidents, rather than simply granted by Congress, has been a satisfactory remedy.

But Bush does not want this retroactive approval by Congress. Instead, he wants to keep on breaking the law to try to set a precedent -- enlarging his presidential powers (and those of subsequent presidents) permanently, to the detriment of Congress. Another possible solution, and probably the most thoughtful and intelligent to be offered, is the legislation proposed by Senator Arlen Specter, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Specter -- who was once considered by Nixon for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, even before he had been elected to the Senate -- is now one of the Senate's best legal minds. But I suspect the Bush White House will fight Senator Specter's proposal because under it, they may lose.

Senator Specter's Proposed "National Security Surveillance Act of 2006"

On March 16, Senator Specter introduced his proposed legislation, following hearings in which his Judiciary Committee quizzed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for seven hours about the legality of the president's action. Neither Gonzales nor anyone on the panel of legal experts that followed, made anything approaching a compelling case that this was legal activity, although several were highly persuasive that it was transparently illegal.

Implicit in Chairman Specter's proposal, S. 2453, is the fact that the president's actions are, indeed, not legal. Although Specter does not so state, his bill would appropriately place the question of the legality of Bush's actions before the FISA Court, where that court could judge it. No doubt he knows how, in fact, they would judge the matter: They would likely find that the President's bypassing their statutorily-granted authority was, and continues to be, illegal.

Specter recognizes the seriousness of the dilemma here: We are a nation at war, yet also a nation that believes in the rule of law. To have it both ways, he has drawn from a recommendation made decades ago by former Attorney General Edward Levi -- a staunch defender of the executive powers: Turn the matter over the FISA Court, where it can, if the Administration presents a solid case (of need balanced against the invasion of civil liberties), rule in the President's favor, but can also reject the President's actions if the balance cuts the other way.

Specter's is a great solution. It preserves secrecy: The FISA Court has shown itself capable of keeping secrets, and while the bill requires bi-annual reports to Congress, they would not reveal secrets. Most importantly, whereas the President claims he is protecting liberties by reviewing the program every forty-five days, Specter's bill imposes a similar requirement.

No doubt the Bush Administration will fight Specter's bill -- for the simple reason that it does not want to be tested by a court, for it wants neither checks nor balances, but simple the unilateral exercise of executive power. And even if Specter can get the bill through the Senate, Bush's soldiers in the monocratic House will kill it.

Feingold's Motion For Censure

While Specter's bill may be the best idea yet as to how to deal with Bush's behavior, the approach that has received the most media attention is Senator Russ Feingold's resolution calling for censure of President Bush. The resolution condemns Bush's actions in authorizing the illegal wiretapping program of Americans as part of his war on terror, and then misleading the country about the existence and legality of the program.

Even though nearly half of Americans favor censure, it too is a long shot. Yet is probably the most damning of the documents before Congress. Feingold's preamble points out that Bush openly lied to Americans about his secret wiretapping, on repeated occasions: On April 20, 2004, Bush said, "When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.''; on July 14, 2004, he claimed that "the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order"; and on June 9, 2005, he said, "Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools."

All this was untrue. Bush had authorized these very law enforcement officials to bypass federal judges, and proceed without warrants. Why he engaged in such bald-faced lies, in circumstances where it was not necessary, is unclear. Senator Feingold's proposal has no chance of being adopted in a GOP-controlled Senate -- one that includes, as well, more than a few spineless Democrats. Still, he has made his point. As Feingold told the New York Observer, "What [the Republicans had] succeeded in doing, [since this issue has arisen] was to sweep the illegality under the rug." Feingold added, "I decided it was time to include that on the record and came up with the censure proposal, to bring accountability back into the discussion. And I succeeded in doing that. That's been achieved."

Election 2006 Is The Key

In the end, this issue is going to be resolved by the 2006 midterm election. If Republicans lose control of either the House or Senate, the investigations of the Bush/Cheney White House will begin. It won't be pretty. It will make dealing with lying about sex look like High School hazing. It will even make Richard Nixon look like a piker when it comes to staying within the law.

If the early polls are half correct, independent swing voters have had it with Bush. Democrats want no part of him. Moderate Republicans are keeping their distance; they are no longer willing to hold their noses and vote for him. The big question is whether there will be an "October Surprise" -- a dramatic event that will bump up Bush's currently dismal polling numbers, and help his party. Right now, Republican friends tell me they are doing all they can to keep the mid-terms from being a referendum on Bush. They know they have a better chance if they focus on local races -- absent an October Surprise. If you have any knowledge of how White Houses operate, you can be sure they are working night and day to pull off such a surprise.

If they do it, Bush will get away with his lawlessness. If not, he and Cheney are in for two very bad years. They have earned them.

© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at:
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 3:15 pm Post subject:


Associated Press
Monday, April 3, 2006,3566,190215,00.html

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Late Friday a series of memos between senior Bush Administration officials and management at Viacom, Inc. were leaked calling for the media giant to focus on stories and programming choices that "reinforce the Administration's positions" and to "ignore and/or discredit points of view in opposition to the Bush Administration's foreign policy objectives for the purposes of National Security."

Democrats and key civil rights figures were quick to comment on this latest chapter of alleged government malfeasance. Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer issued a statement calling for a congressional inquiry. "This is it. This is a smoking gun. For years we've been saying that liberal and moderate points of view aren't being accurately reflected in the media and this proves our point. The Bush Administration is clearly out of touch with the American people, and Viacom should be ashamed."

Other prominent figures were less forgiving. Rev. Al Sharpton called the memos "treasonous" and "genocidal" and reiterated his desire for impeachment proceedings to commence. "What we have here is a complete disregard for the law, for what is morally correct and for the will of the people. It's been no secret to anyone with a brain that the majority of programming that we are exposed to by certain companies is negative, but now it's out in the open. Look at BET. Look at the exclusion of voices that accurately represent communities of color. It's insidious."

Media companies have come under increasing fire as of late for their portrayal of minorities and for inaccuracies in reporting stories of interest to activist communities.

Most recently, estimates in the participation numbers of protesters at anti-immigration legislation rallies were hotly disputed.

The media's alleged embracing of artists and stories depicting people of color in a derogatory manner has become a hot-topic issue with media watchdog groups and prominent entertainment commentators alike.

Davey D, a San Francisco-based music writer and hip-hop historian, echoed the sentiment. "It's true, there is no balance in the media, especially in hip-hop, where the negativity is most prevalent. All we hear of on a commercial level is pimps, players and gangsters. That's not all us. What about the revolutionary voices? What about artists like The Coup? Like Public Enemy and Paris? They have a new album out together that speaks on exactly what's going on right now, but they don't get played on commercial radio. We've always argued that our voices are systematically suppressed. Well, here's the proof."

Not all agree, however. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist took a more defensive stance. "Of course it raises some concerns, but we can't let this issue be blown out of proportion. Of course there have to be media guidelines. Hell, if we want to plant I.D. chips in people and torture their loved ones until they break, we will. I know the idea of governmental control over what the media can or cannot say during wartime may be an uncomfortable topic for some to digest, but it is a necessary fact of life when our enemies are trying to kill us."

Debra L. Lee, president and CEO of Viacom's Black Entertainment Television, agrees. "Even though our moniker is BET, our allegiance lies with our government and its directives, not the African-American community. Anyone who believes that we will endorse messages in contrast to our government's wishes, or that express dissent, is sorely mistaken."

Some entertainment industry insiders are becoming increasingly concerned, however. One longtime employee of Interscope Records, a leading record label and home to rap superstars 50 Cent and Eminem, stated recently under the condition of anonymity that the company "has a unique relationship with Viacom" and that it "deliberately focuses on marketing campaigns that depict black people in the worst possible light." When told of Rev. Sharpton's likening of the practice to 'genocide' on African-Americans, he agreed wholeheartedly, but expressed fears of reprisal should he publicly address his concerns.

"It's beyond national security. That was the reason given at first, but now they just tell us what we have to endorse, and what we have to avoid." He added, "these kids eat it up. They don't know the difference between what's real and what's fake."

An Interscope company spokesperson was unavailable for comment.

"We will get to the bottom of this," Sharpton continued, "and heads will roll. Now that their practices of propaganda are common knowledge even Americans with limited political awareness will demand change."

Not all agree, however. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist took a more defensive stance. "Of course it raises some concerns, but we can't let this issue be blown out of proportion. Of course there have to be media guidelines. Hell, if we want to plant I.D. chips in people and torture their loved ones until they break, we will. I know the idea of governmental control over what the media can or cannot say during wartime may be an uncomfortable topic for some to digest, but it is a necessary fact of life when our enemies are trying to kill us."
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:41 pm Post subject:


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ... 771#430771
chaiyah Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:58 pm Post subject: White House Ordered Prisoners at Abu Ghraib Sodomized

"I don't think your kids are going to be proud that there was a Ralph Kohlmann who sat in this commission. Just as I don't think Hitler's kids were proud that their father started this shit."

Lawyer pleads Fifth in dramatic hearing at Guantánamo Bay

07 Apr 2006 An Ethiopian 'terrorism' suspect who claims the United States outsourced his interrogation to torture in Morocco made a dramatic debut Thursday at his war-crimes trial.

Within hours, the U.S. Air Force officer assigned to defend Binyan Ahmed Mohammad invoked her Fifth Amendment rights — three times — after declaring the Pentagon had created for her an ethical dilemma.

Air Force Maj. Yvonne Bradley became the first person to plead the Fifth in the short history of Dictator Bush's disputed military commissions, now under review at the U.S. Supreme Court. Mohammad dominated the session [*yes*], declaring the rules unfair — and pointedly accusing the presiding officer, Marine Col. Ralph Kohlmann, of perpetrating an American legal justice fraud on the world.

''After four years of torture and rendition, you have the wrong person in the stand."

Detainee says US handed him over to Moroccans who tortured him 07 Apr 2006 Binyam Muhammad [sic - Mohammad - the U.S. government misspells his name], who has been accused of plotting 'Al Qaeda' attacks in the United States, was tortured with a scalpel after American authorities handed him over to Moroccan interrogators, according to an account provided by his lawyer.

The 27-year-old detainee told the judge that he has been tortured. He criticized US authorities for getting his name wrong and said he was not the person they sought. ''After four years of torture and rendition, you have the wrong person in the stand," Mohammad said.

This article from Citizens for Legitimate Governme
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Posted: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:46 pm Post subject:

Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
[Image: hearyou.jpg]
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Damned :scream:

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ... 060406.wmv
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
[Image: liberal.jpg] Whip
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
#47 ... title=APFN

Col. Robert Bowman:
They lied to us about the war and about 9/11 itself
Mon Apr 10, 2006 20:30

From: Officer Jack McLamb

5mb mp3 of Col Bowman’s speech
music by Layo and Bushwacka ... reason.mp3


Goldilocks and Iran
Washington Post, United States - 46 minutes ago
... These three scenarios each have led Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the ... sometimes at the highest levels just between a handful of Generals and the ...


Sixteen Words, Again
National Review Online, NY - 11 hours ago
... Ambassador Joe Wilson had been sent by CIA to Niger in 2002 to snoop around, at least in part because he came highly recommended by his wife, Valerie Plame ...
Special Features Block New TPMCafe
all 3 related »

Ref: "They lied to us" —DeBPrpht, Tue Apr 11 11:34
Click here to receive daily updates
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Bush Defector To Demolish
911 Lies On May 6

The former top economist in Bush's Department of Labor, Morgan Reynolds, will speak out on the 9/11 inside job at the State Historical Society, University of Wisconsin-Madison on Saturday, May 6th. The film Loose Change will be shown, and refreshments served, starting at 1 p.m, and Reynolds will speak at 3:00 p.m.

Dr. Reynolds, who holds three U.W.-Madison degrees, and who is currently Professor of Economics at Texas A&M University, will present evidence that top Bush Administration officials orchestrated the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and the murder of almost 2,500 Americans, as a pretext for initiating their pre-planned "long war" in the Middle East.

"While more Americans doubt the 9/11 story every week, evidence abounds that many have a mental block against rational examination of the evidence about 9/11" writes Dr. Reynolds in a recent article. This mental block, he thinks, amounts to willful ignorance-not just about 9/11, but about history.

"Governments throughout history have provoked or staged attacks on their own people to serve the powers behind the throne ('the money power'), glorify themselves, engage in vast government spending, reward friends, exert domestic control, stimulate the juices of war, annex neighbors and pursue vast geostrategic rearrangements (the 'global domination project)" Reynolds asserts. He notes that every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on the "Operation Northwoods" plan to murder Americans in fake "Cuban terrorist" attacks in 1962. The planned Operation Northwoods murders of ordinary Americans in fake terrorist bombings and a fake "airliner shoot-down" would have involved hundreds of military and intelligence personnel. Yet the existence of Operation Northwoods was successfully kept secret from the American people for forty years until James Bamford revealed it in his book Body of Secrets, published in January 2002.

Though government officials have historically been able to successfully conceal their fake or arranged war-trigger attacks long enough to avoid being hanged for treason, Reynolds thinks the 9/11 cover-up has already unraveled. "Skepticism about conspiracy, small or large, is somewhat beside the point in the case of 9/11 because the official Osama-and-Nineteen-Young-Arabs (ONYA) conspiracy tale is so farcical and impossible. Nearly everyone in America has easy access to the internet and hundreds of websites expose the 9/11 fraud." (Morgan Reynolds, "Conspiracy and Closed Minds on 9/11": )

Reynolds argues that the Twin Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 were destroyed in a manner that can only be explained by controlled demolition with pre-planted explosives-which should not be surprising, since no steel framed high-rises have ever collapsed in the way the three World Trade Center buildings did for any other reason. In his article "Why Did the World Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?" Reynolds writes that among the many features of the WTC demolitions that suggest explosives, rather than jet-fuel fires, are:

1. Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse except for the three buildings on 9/11, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9/11.

2. The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were small.

3. WTC-7 was unharmed by an airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and twelfth floors of this 47-story steel building yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.

4. WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams (pp. 68-9).

5. In a PBS documentary, Larry Silverstein, the WTC lease-holder, recalled talking to the fire department commander on 9/11 about WTC-7 and said, ".maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it," slang for demolish it.

6. FEMA, given the uninviting task of explaining the collapse of Building 7 with mention of demolition verboten admitted that the best it could come up with had "only a low probability of occurrence."

7. It's difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel (kerosene) to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.

Professional demolition, by contrast, can explain all of these facts and more. Demolition means placing explosives throughout a building, and detonating them in sequence to weaken "the structure so it collapses or folds in upon itself". In conventional demolitions gravity does most of the work, although it probably did a minority on

9/11, so heavily were the towers honeycombed with explosives.

1. Each WTC building collapse occurred at virtually free-fall speed (approximately 10 seconds or less).

2. Each building collapsed, for the most part, into its own footprint.

3. Virtually all the concrete (an estimated 100,000 tons in each tower) on every floor was pulverized into a very fine dust, a phenomenon that requires enormous energy and could not be caused by gravity alone (".workers can't even find concrete. 'It's all dust,' [the official] said").

4. Dust exploded horizontally for a couple hundred feet, as did debris, at the beginning of each tower's collapse.

5. Collapses were total, leaving none of the massive core columns sticking up hundreds of feet into the air.

6. Salvage experts were amazed at how small the debris stacks were.

7. The steel beams and columns came down in sections under 30 feet long and had no signs of "softening"; there was little left but shorn sections of steel and a few bits of concrete.

8. Photos and videos of the collapses all show "demolition waves," meaning "confluent rows of small explosions" along floors (blast sequences).

9. According to many witnesses, explosions occurred within the buildings.

10. Each collapse had detectable seismic vibrations suggestive of underground explosions, similar to the 2.3 earthquake magnitude from a demolition like the Seattle Kingdome (p. 108).

11. Each collapse produced molten steel identical to that generated by explosives, resulting in "hot spots" that persisted for months (the two hottest spots at WTC-2 and WTC-7 were approximately 1,350o F five days after being continuously flooded with water, a temperature high enough to melt aluminum (p. 70). ("Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?" by Morgan Reynolds: )

The apparent demolition of the three skyscrapers, and a perhaps inadvertent statement by heavily-insured WTC landlord Larry Silverstein that WTC-7 was "pulled" (slang for "demolished") can be viewed on many 9/11 truth DVDs and web-videos, including Loose Change, 9/11 Eyewitness, 9/11 and the American Empire, (Dr. David Griffin), and 9/11 Revisited (Dr. Steven Jones). Dr. Reynolds' articles on 9/11 and other matters can be found at .
The videos, and further information about Dr. Reynolds' May 6th speech, are available from the event's sponsor, the Madison-based Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth:

Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
#49 ... action.htm

Quote:Chronicle Forced To Issue Retraction On 9/11 Hit Piece
Encounters massive backlash from alternative media
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Quote:Judge Doubts Moussaoui's Claims About 9/11 By MATTHEW BARAKAT, Associated Press Writer
Wed May 3, 9:15 AM ET

ALEXANDRIA, Va. - The judge presiding over Zacarias Moussaoui's sentencing told trial lawyers that she doesn't believe Moussaoui's claims on the witness stand that he knew advance details of the Sept. 11 plot.

"I still think that Moussaoui was not accurate in a lot of what he said about how much he knew about what was going to happen with which particular buildings and when," U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema said during a closed hearing on April 21 outside the jury's presence. Transcripts of the hearing were released Tuesday.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
#51 ... ead=136555


Posted By: LightEye <Send E-Mail>
Date: Monday, 8 May 2006, 1:24 p.m.

You don't say... ... inside-job

Ex-Bush Official Exposes 9/11 As Inside Job

Monday, May 8th, 2006

An enthusiastic standing-room-only crowd packed the Wisconsin Historical Society auditorium Saturday to hear ex-Bush Administration insider Morgan Reynolds prosecute top administration and military officials for the 9/11 inside job.

Reynolds indicted Richard Cheney, George W. Bush, former Joint Chiefs Chairman Richard Meyers, confessed WTC demolisher and insurance-fraudster Larry Silverstein, and others for mass murder, Conspiracy, and other charges including high treason. The enthusiastic response from the overflow crowd was a de facto vote for conviction on all counts.

The former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis, showed that the defendants conspired to create a false cover story of suicide hijackings in order to “blow the World Trade Center to kingdom come” with explosives—a shock-and-awe psy-op designed to coerce the American people into supporting a pre-planned “long war” in the Middle East, massive increases in military spending, and the rollback of Constitutional civil liberties.

Reynolds stated that everyone in the worldwide intelligence community knew that 9/11 was an inside job as soon as it happened, with the obvious stand-down of US air defenses, controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and non-protection of the President in Florida being the biggest tip-offs. The head of the Russian equivalent of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the former head of the German intelligence service Andreas Von Bulow, former National Security Agency official Wayne Madsen, and former MI-6 agent David Schayler have all openly called 9/11 an inside job, while former CIA official Ray McGovern has confirmed this directly in private, and indirectly in public by way of his ringing endorsement of David Ray Griffin’s work on 9/11.

Reynolds, who served as George W. Bush’s Labor Department Chief Economist in 2001-2002, believes that a 9/11 truth victory is looming on the near-term horizon. He predicted that one or more of the 9/11 insiders will soon “give it up” and come forward with what they know, saying “Remember, you heard it here first.” He said that most of those complicit in the attacks did not realize how over-the-top the plot was, due to the need-to-know compartmentalization of such covert operations, and that some semi-complicit individuals will probably be coming forward.

Reynolds said that most of his email acquaintances are now worried that the 9/11 truth movement is going to win, triggering the greatest Constitutional crisis in U.S. history. For Reynolds, this is less a cause for worry than for rejoicing: “We need a Constitutional crisis!”

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/naughty.gif" alt="Naughty" title="naughty" />
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
How 911 Really Happened
By Douglas Herman
Exclusive to

Some time after the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) composed their manifesto, referring to a "New Pearl Harbor" attack on America, an ultra-secret group of powerful government insiders outlined a series of plans that would attempt to fulfill every facet of their agenda.

They considered and rejected many plans. The plan they finally selected was ingenious and enormously profitable for everyone involved. The plan called for airliner hijackings that were in fact not hijackings at all.

Instead pre-selected, early morning commercial flights would be electronically commandeered and crashed into redundant structures.

Why early morning? Predictably a media blizzard would commence while stunned Americans rubbed the sleep from their eyes. The emotional overload would continue for the entire day and well into the next. During that chaotic first day, disinformation (government-concocted stories) would be released, informing the shocked citizens exactly who perpetrated the treacherous deed.

In the days that followed further "News" releases would inform Americans of the identities and backgrounds of these religious fanatics. Within a week we would know everything about the 19 Muslims who allegedly hijacked four airplanes and killed 3,000 Americans.

As for the targets, a pair of architectural white elephants were chosen, the massive, soaring, iconographic "Twin Towers." In addition another electronically controlled airplane would plow into a remodeled section of the Pentagon (occupied by Office of Naval Intelligence). That fiery impact would signify an attack on America's stronghold, in the public consciousness.

The attacks were masterminded by a select few of interconnected insiders who, not surprisingly, remain in power today. Certain key members of Congress, the CIA, Mossad, Pentagon, and the White House organized the plan to perfection.

Secrecy was no problem. Anyone with foreknowledge of the plan, who considered revealing the daring operation out of guilt or misgiving, would be either threatened personally, have their family threatened and have their story ridiculed and denied. After all, who in the media would have believed 9-11 before it happened? Media complicity, among top directors of the US media, was understood well in advance.

How many were involved you ask? Probably not more than a couple dozen. No more than fifty perhaps at the upper levels of planning. A few Pentagon generals, a handful of US and Israeli intelligence insiders, a half dozen White House ideologues, and certain corrupt Congressmen and Cabinet members compromised by blackmail or debased patriotism.

Beneath them, a cadre of true believers, loyal footsoldiers and mercenaries actually did the dirty work. The flight school drop outs belonged to this later group.

A joint team of CIA and Mossad shadow warriors supervised contract laborers who planted the explosives in the weeks and months prior to the controlled demolitions. At the same time, electronic guidance systems were tested and retested on large airplanes. Nothing was left to chance.

The NORAD stand down was one key element. Whether White House or Pentagon insiders over-ruled top generals Eberhart, Myers, Weaver et al, or whether these generals betrayed their country and their sworn duty is debatable. Perhaps each general was compromised by overt physical threats and or tempting, lucrative promises. Indeed, we should recall that one such top general, General Richard Myers, was rewarded with a promotion within days of the successful attack.

Since the attack, you will have noticed that those rumored connected to the attack have been amply rewarded. But how, or why, did so many millions of otherwise rational and intelligent people, with no stake in the event, agree to ignore the massive and overwhelming suspicious evidence that indicated a conspiratorial crime rather than a terrorist attack?

Because to disagree with the official government version of events (the planners version) would expose the dissident to ridicule, recrimination or physical threat, or loss of job, career and, particularly, social respect.

Consider those patriotic whistleblowers and dedicated American public servants who did attempt to alert their soon-to-be-promoted superiors of the danger. Like FBI agent Colleen Rowley, Sybil Edmonds and John O' Neill, anyone who opposed the plan could be killed, contained or controlled.

The reasons for 9-11 were diverse and extremely rewarding. While the risks were great, the rewards were far greater.

Planners achieved enormous personal fortunes, dictatorial power and a furtherance of a debased nationalism. Israel, which supplied various Mossad loyalists (demolition experts?) months in advance, gained the destruction of her enemies. Pentagon generals achieved promotions. Wall Street masterminds achieved billions in profits with the complete destruction of SEC records (When WTC-7 was demolished). Silverstein, the WTC landlord, achieved hundreds of millions in damage claims. Intelligence orgs achieved massive influx of money, tens of billions, as did the Pentagon. Religious autocrats achieved a new crusade. While the risks were great---for all involved---the rewards were far greater.

How 9-11 actually happened is self-evident. Why 9-11 happened is clearer still.

Everyone involved had a personal reason, an agenda, whether personal gain or a depraved sort of patriotism. Truly 9-11 was all about power, profit and yes, patriotism. The deaths of a few thousand citizens would have been considered a small price to pay.

To those readers who possess a moral compass, who cannot conceive of such seemingly bizarre rationales, and vehemently disagree with my scenario, I offer one final statement.

Compare the motives of powerful men to serial killers. The depraved serial killer, like a lone predator, kills for no intelligent aim. Jeffrey Dahmer for example. Yet a conspiracy of powerful government insiders achieves far greater ends than hundreds or even thousands of serial killers. They change the course of history, seize the ship of state and steer it in the direction they choose, and enrich themselves and their cronies. If several thousand people must die in the process, that is unfortunate but the end does justify the means. No ideologue considers his methods immoral.

A secret, powerful, state society of serial killers may even be considered rational to themselves. Their agendas and objectives-the furtherance of the state regime---may seem unselfish and even patriotic. And if huge fortunes are to be gained, that becomes a suitable reward for their risk.

USAF veteran and amateur historian, Douglas Herman writes for Rense regularly and is the author of The Guns of Dallas. Contact him at <a href=""></a>

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/naughty.gif" alt="Naughty" title="naughty" />
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Pan Am 103 & 9/11 Connection
by Russell Pickering ) - note the part about the Intelligence Officers on board.

I tried to find out more at the George Bush Sr. Presidential Library since Pan Am sued the US government and, "In its suit, Pan Am alleged that the United States Government had prior knowledge of an impending terrorist attack on a Pan Am airliner". But as luck would have it the, ".....court transcripts, affidavits, depositions, motions, objections, reports, and news addition [to] the remaining NSC files deal[ing] specifically with the Lockerbie bombing and the subsequent investigation which led to the indictment of two Libyan nationals..... are closed because of various security classifications". (4)

As we know, literally all evidence regarding 9/11 has been under FBI lock and key for nearly 5 years. That includes the fact that no National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) crash reports were done on any of the four aircraft because the FBI took the investigation away from them, that the Pentagon videos confiscated by the FBI are not being released and that the "hijackers" remains have never been positively identified. (5)

I will highlight two specific details where Robert Mueller was directly involved in 9/11 evidence. One is the Flight 77 cockpit voice recorder and the other was the identities of the 19 "hijackers".

The NTSB claimed:
"Over the next few days, working the 3 p.m. to morning shift, she and several other NTSB experts struggled to separate airplane parts from office parts. Early on the morning of Sept.14, while Cushman was at the site, the cockpit voice recorder, or CVR, was found. It was quickly transported across the Potomac to the NTSB lab in Washington, D.C., where Cushman works with three other analysts, and its data was downloaded.

"Ordinarily, that would have been just the start of Cushman's association with the device, but this time, it was the end. The events of Sept. 11 had already been classified as criminal acts, rather than accidents, so the FBI, which has its own forensic audio lab, took charge of the box and its data.

That's also why Cushman can't say much more about her role in that investigation, or about the work she did on the recorders recovered from Flight 93, which plowed into a field in Pennsylvania after passengers apparently thwarted another hijacking. Like the Pentagon CVR, the black box from that plane came to NTSB only for the extraction of its data before being turned over to the FBI". (6)

Robert Mueller had a different story:
"FBI Director Robert Mueller said Friday that the agency has gotten information from the flight data recorder recovered in the crash of American Airlines Flight 77, which slammed into the Pentagon. He declined to say what information the FBI received from the recorder, which tracks an airplane's flight movements for the last 25 hours. He said the agency had not gotten any information from the voice data recorder from Flight 77". (7)

When it came to the identities of the alleged 19 hijackers Robert Mueller said, "that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt". That is no surprise since the BBC has documented that a couple of them are alive and well. (8)

The FBI controlled every aspect of the Pentagon incident from start to finish. They still control it with total secrecy. How did they know to show up within minutes at the civilian video locations? Why did the Pentagon originally claim to have no video surveillance? I believe the answers may lie in the statement that the FBI Director's "star rose" under Bush Sr. and he already had Pan Am 103 under his belt. Maybe that's why the evidence was snapped up and secured so quickly.

Russell Pickering

(4) ... 0034-F.pdf
(6) ... /hear.html
(8) ... 559151.stm

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/naughty.gif" alt="Naughty" title="naughty" />
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
#54 ... lick-refer

By Susan Page, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — President Bush's approval rating has slumped to 31% in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll, the lowest of his presidency and a warning sign for Republicans in the November elections

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Quote:Reynolds: “Come Out of the White House with Your Hands Up!”
Kevin Barrett, 07.05.2006 13:06

Ex-Bush Official Busts 9/11 Perps at U.W. Historical Society

Madison, WI
Saturday, May 6, 2006

An enthusiastic standing-room-only crowd packed the Wisconsin Historical Society auditorium Saturday to hear ex-Bush Administration insider Morgan Reynolds prosecute top administration and military officials for the 9/11 inside job. ... emid=20766
Quote: Email this item to a friend

Congress For Sale: Who Else Was Bribed With Limos, Cash and Prostitutes?

Contributed by Working Assets

High-level corruption and sleaze are alive and well in Washington D.C. -- and your member of Congress might just be the next one indicted. The newest scandal involves allegations that multiple members of Congress and high-ranking CIA officials were bribed with free limo rides1, hospitality suites at hotels in Washington, and prostitutes to induce them to steer federal contracts to undeserving businesses.

For more than a decade, defense contractors Brent Wilkes and Mitchell Wade2 bribed former Representative 'Duke' Cunningham with millions of dollars in return for fat government contracts for their companies. But apparently, Cunningham wasn't the only recipient, and the bribes offered weren't just financial.

Wilkes and Wade also hosted regular parties at hospitality suites at the Watergate and Westin hotels where powerful guests could play poker and it is alleged, avail themselves of the services of prostitutes. The third-ranking official in the CIA, Kyle Foggo, has admitted to being at these parties – but "just for poker." 3 (Foggo, apparently, will now resign from the CIA.)

Will the corruption and sleaze ever end? Representative Cunningham was the first one convicted for illegal behavior, but other indictments are most certainly going to come out in upcoming weeks. Here are four of the worst to keep your eyes on:

Representative Bob Ney, R-OH: Representative Ney is at the center of the Abramoff corruption scandal. Rep. Ney and his staff reportedly took numerous gifts and trips, including golfing at the Old Course at St. Andrews in Scotland. In addition, they had regular meals and drinks at Abramoff's Washington restaurant and used Abramoff's luxury box suites at Camden Yards baseball stadium in Baltimore for campaign fund-raisers. A former aide to Rep. Ney, Neil Volz, has just pleaded guilty to conspiring with Abramoff to corrupt Ney and other members of his staff by peddling trips, free tickets and meals.

Senator Conrad Burns, R-MT: Senator Burns received close to $150,000 in campaign funds from Indian tribes through Jack Abramoff and his associates. Originally, Sen. Burns pledged to return the money after the Abramoff story made headlines -- but in late April, it was reported that Rep. Burns will now use the money to pay for his defense against corruption charges.

Representative William Jefferson, D-LA: A Louisville businessman recently pled guilty in federal court to paying more than $400,000 in bribes to Jefferson; he has also been accused of misusing federal resources in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The nonpartisan ethics watchdog group CREW has called for an investigation; recently, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi agreed.

Representative John Doolittle, R-CA: Representative Doolittle has been paying 15% commissions on all his fundraising to a company, Sierra Dominion, that is owned by his wife (and also on retainer from Jack Abramoff’s company). This resulted in Rep. Doolittle, in effect, enriching himself by skimming off campaign funds into his own household budget.

Do these elected officials have no shame? They should come to their senses and resign and allow the public to elect honest replacements.

Call to action

Ask Representatives Ney, Jefferson, and Doolittle, as well as Senator Burns, to resign.
Deadline: Ongoing

I am writing to ask that you resign from your Congressional position immediately so the public can elect honest replacements.

The best thing for you to do right now is to come clean, confess to any illegal or unethical acts you committed, and ask for forgiveness from the American people.

If you do not resign, the scandals will continue to swirl around you - impairing your ability to represent the public. For the good of your constituents, and the country, I urge you to resign from Congress immediately.

Add your name and address below and send this e-mail as is, or personalize it using your own words. When you click Send E-mail, your name and address will automatically be inserted at the bottom of this e-mail letter. The subject of your e-mail will be the title of the action.

If you would like to have your name and address automatically filled in to this form whenever you take action, simply register with ActForChange.

Prefix* -Select Prefix-Ms.Mrs.Mr.Dr.
Secondary Title -Select Title-Br.Fr.ImamRabbiRev.Rev. Dr.Sr.
First Name
Last Name
State You will automatically receive a copy of your e-mail.
WorkingForChange and Working Assets are committed to preserving your privacy. Please read our privacy policy for more information.

Follow the Money!
<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner

Quote:Surely the "Hand Of Allah"

(submitted by a reader)

If one accepts the "Official Version" of the events that occurred on 9/11 or in the days leading up to it, one can only conclude that a series of Miracles occurred suggesting the hand of higher powers.

I am struck by the similarities between a 9/11 and the events of "The Iliad" wherein a Pantheon of Gods battled one another by proxy by choosing Champions amongst the Greeks and Trojans and interceding on their behalf with various "Miracles".

I felt it would be interesting to see which "Gods" manifested themselves at or around 9/11 , the nature of that manifestation and which of the various "Gods" won each particular battle.

The Miracle

19 Terrorists gain entry into the United States of America. Not only are none of them turned back at the borders but their entry is made easier with GW Bush changing the Visa requirements shortly before for Saudi citizens. Much of the paperwork they fill out is incomplete and many that gained entry are on intelligence agencies "Terror Lists". This even after the US Government received a number of warnings regarding a desire by Al Qaeda to launch attacks within America.

Surely the "Hand Of Allah"

The Miracle

These 19 terrorists are under the surveillance of various agents of the United States Government. All of these are called off at the last moment with Agents in Chicago and Miami and Phoenix all ignored by higher authorities when they raise questions about the presence of the various terrorists within the United States. Investigations are actively blocked or impeded.

Surely the "Hand of Allah"

The Miracle

On the day of the Hijackings none of the 19 terrorists are discovered as they bring "Box Cutters axes and Guns onto the planes" All use fake names it seems as none appear on any official passenger list. Any one of these could have been discovered getting onto the planes which might well have lead to the unraveling of the entire plot.

Surely the "Hand Of Allah"

The Miracle

One the day of the hi-jackings the US Government is running drills with its Air Force where it is simulating "Multiple Hijackings of Aircraft" within the United States of America. This drill causes great confusion amongst Air Traffic Controllers as it provides "Cover" for the real Hijackings. Without these drills it is very possible that the Aircraft that were hijacked could have been intercepted far earlier. Certainly one has to consider this some sort of "Miracle"

Surely "The hand of Allah"

The Miracle

Months prior to the hijackings the US Government changes the rules of engagement for hijacked Aircraft. Now in order to send up planes to intercept, the approval of the Defense Secretary, one Donald Rumsfeld is required. Unfortunately he goes missing for 30 minutes again impeding the ability of intercepts to be flown. Not only this but on the day of those Intercepts US Fighter Aircraft that are scrambled suddenly have a top speed of only some 200 MPH.

Surely "The Hand Of Allah"

The Miracle

The US President is on a pre-scheduled event in Florida. The Government has no idea of how many Aircraft have been hijacked or what the targets of the hijackers are. The President himself might well be a target yet rather then bring him to safety the Secret Service is certain the President not at risk. The President insists on finishing his story about goats. A miracle of faith if anything.

Surely "The Hand of God"

The Miracle

5 Israeli Citizens manage to be across the river from the WTC towers and are in place to film the planes crashing into the towers. Great is their Joy as they realize that the United States will certainly discover that Al Qaeda is the Culprit and this will lead to the destruction of Israel's many enemies. How they came to be there, certainly a miracle and that it lead to the destruction of the hated Iraqis even more so.

Surely "the Hand Of Yahweh"

The Miracle

No steel framed buildings had ever suffered total structural collapse due to fires, yet on this single day, within hours of one another 3 buildings indeed collapse after fires burn through them. This even after Firefighters claim to have had the fires under control.

Surely "the Hand of Allah"

The Miracle

Shortly before 9/11 the WTC center of buildings is leased by an investor who has the foresight to insure them against terrorist attacks. The buildings were never seen as being profitable yet to destroy them and rebuild them by conventional means would have been prohibitively expensive. Surely a Miracle as the Investor made billions from the Insurance Companies

Surely "The hand of Mammom"

The Miracle

Millions in profits are made off put options shortly before 9/11 wherein investors made millions betting that certain stocks would fall in value over the next few days. These included stocks in various Airlines that would suffer most from 9/11.

Surely "The Hand of Mammon"

This is only a small sampling of the Miracles of 9/11. Any that do not believe in that higher powers did not have a hand in this are surely blinded.The number of coincidences that occurred in those few days is mind boggling. Passports surviving fires and found blocks away and belonging to terrorists, the Miracle of a bag that did not get onto the flight that included the names and details of every hijacker. Persons receiving warnings out of the ether not to fly on that day. Cell phones suddenly working where they had never worked before along with people recording their calls. People barely trained in flying aircraft performing miraculous corkscrew maneuvers in Jumbo Aircraft!
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/naughty.gif" alt="Naughty" title="naughty" />
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Quote:The Miracle

Shortly before 9/11 the WTC center of buildings is leased by an investor who has the foresight to insure them against terrorist attacks. The buildings were never seen as being profitable yet to destroy them and rebuild them by conventional means would have been prohibitively expensive

there's the rub.
On a satellite I ride. Nothing down below can hide.
#59 ... -stand-up/

Quote:Will the Real Traitors Please Stand Up?
Sunday, May 14th, 2006 by bill
From NY Times
By Frank Rich

When America panics, it goes hunting for scapegoats. But from Salem onward, we’ve more often than not ended up pillorying the innocent. Abe Rosenthal, the legendary Times editor who died last week, and his publisher, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, were denounced as treasonous in 1971 when they defied the Nixon administration to publish the Pentagon Papers, the secret government history of the Vietnam War. Today we know who the real traitors were: the officials who squandered American blood and treasure on an ill-considered war and then tried to cover up their lies and mistakes. It was precisely those lies and mistakes, of course, that were laid bare by the thousands of pages of classified Pentagon documents leaked to both The Times and The Washington Post.

This history is predictably repeating itself now that the public has turned on the war in Iraq. The administration’s die-hard defenders are desperate to deflect blame for the fiasco, and, guess what, the traitors once again are The Times and The Post. This time the newspapers committed the crime of exposing warrantless spying on Americans by the National Security Agency (The Times) and the C.I.A.’s secret “black site” Eastern European prisons (The Post). Aping the Nixon template, the current White House tried to stop both papers from publishing and when that failed impugned their patriotism.

President Bush, himself a sometime leaker of intelligence, called the leaking of the N.S.A. surveillance program a “shameful act” that is “helping the enemy.” Porter Goss, who was then still C.I.A. director, piled on in February with a Times Op-Ed piece denouncing leakers for potentially risking American lives and compromising national security. When reporters at both papers were awarded Pulitzer Prizes last month, administration surrogates, led by bloviator in chief William Bennett, called for them to be charged under the 1917 Espionage Act.

We can see this charade for what it is: a Hail Mary pass by the leaders who bungled a war and want to change the subject to the journalists who caught them in the act. What really angers the White House and its defenders about both the Post and Times scoops are not the legal questions the stories raise about unregulated gulags and unconstitutional domestic snooping, but the unmasking of yet more administration failures in a war effort riddled with ineptitude. It’s the recklessness at the top of our government, not the press’s exposure of it, that has truly aided the enemy, put American lives at risk and potentially sabotaged national security. That’s where the buck stops, and if there’s to be a witch hunt for traitors, that’s where it should begin.

Well before Dana Priest of The Post uncovered the secret prisons last November, the C.I.A. had failed to keep its detention “secrets” secret. Having obtained flight logs, The Sunday Times of London first reported in November 2004 that the United States was flying detainees “to countries that routinely use torture.” Six months later, The New York Times added many details, noting that “plane-spotting hobbyists, activists and journalists in a dozen countries have tracked the mysterious planes’ movements.” These articles, capped by Ms. Priest’s, do not impede our ability to detain terrorists. But they do show how the administration, by condoning torture, has surrendered the moral high ground to anti-American jihadists and botched the war of ideas that we can’t afford to lose.

The N.S.A. eavesdropping exposed in December by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau of The Times is another American debacle. Hoping to suggest otherwise and cast the paper as treasonous, Dick Cheney immediately claimed that the program had saved “thousands of lives.” The White House’s journalistic mouthpiece, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, wrote that the Times exposé “may have ruined one of our most effective anti-Al Qaeda surveillance programs.”

Surely they jest. If this is one of our “most effective” programs, we’re in worse trouble than we thought. Our enemy is smart enough to figure out on its own that its phone calls are monitored 24/7, since even under existing law the government can eavesdrop for 72 hours before seeking a warrant (which is almost always granted). As The Times subsequently reported, the N.S.A. program was worse than ineffective; it was counterproductive. Its gusher of data wasted F.B.I. time and manpower on wild-goose chases and minor leads while uncovering no new active Qaeda plots in the United States. Like the N.S.A. database on 200 million American phone customers that was described last week by USA Today, this program may have more to do with monitoring “traitors” like reporters and leakers than with tracking terrorists.
Journalists and whistle-blowers who relay such government blunders are easily defended against the charge of treason. It’s often those who make the accusations we should be most worried about. Mr. Goss, a particularly vivid example, should not escape into retirement unexamined. He was so inept that an overzealous witch hunter might mistake him for a Qaeda double agent.

Even before he went to the C.I.A., he was a drag on national security. In “Breakdown,” a book about intelligence failures before the 9/11 attacks, the conservative journalist Bill Gertz delineates how Mr. Goss, then chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, played a major role in abdicating Congressional oversight of the C.I.A., trying to cover up its poor performance while terrorists plotted with impunity. After 9/11, his committee’s “investigation” of what went wrong was notoriously toothless.

Once he ascended to the C.I.A. in 2004, Mr. Goss behaved like most other Bush appointees: he put politics ahead of the national interest, and stashed cronies and partisan hacks in crucial positions. On Friday, the F.B.I. searched the home and office of one of them, Dusty Foggo, the No. 3 agency official in the Goss regime. Mr. Foggo is being investigated by four federal agencies pursuing the bribery scandal that has already landed former Congressman Randy (Duke) Cunningham in jail. Though Washington is titillated by gossip about prostitutes and Watergate “poker parties” swirling around this Warren Harding-like tale, at least the grafters of Teapot Dome didn’t play games with the nation’s defense during wartime.

Besides driving out career employees, underperforming on Iran intelligence and scaling back a daily cross-agency meeting on terrorism, Mr. Goss’s only other apparent accomplishment at the C.I.A. was his war on those traitorous leakers. Intriguingly, this was a new cause for him. “There’s a leak every day in the paper,” he told The Sarasota Herald-Tribune when the identity of the officer Valerie Wilson was exposed in 2003. He argued then that there was no point in tracking leaks down because “that’s all we’d do.”

What prompted Mr. Goss’s about-face was revealed in his early memo instructing C.I.A. employees to “support the administration and its policies in our work.” His mission was not to protect our country but to prevent the airing of administration dirty laundry, including leaks detailing how the White House ignored accurate C.I.A. intelligence on Iraq before the war. On his watch, C.I.A. lawyers also tried to halt publication of “Jawbreaker,” the former clandestine officer Gary Berntsen’s account of how the American command let Osama bin Laden escape when Mr. Berntsen’s team had him trapped in Tora Bora in December 2001. The one officer fired for alleged leaking during the Goss purge had no access to classified intelligence about secret prisons but was presumably a witness to her boss’s management disasters.

Soon to come are the Senate’s hearings on Mr. Goss’s successor, Gen. Michael Hayden, the former head of the N.S.A. As Jon Stewart reminded us last week, Mr. Bush endorsed his new C.I.A. choice with the same encomium he had bestowed on Mr. Goss: He’s “the right man” to lead the C.I.A. “at this critical moment in our nation’s history.” That’s not exactly reassuring.

This being an election year, Karl Rove hopes the hearings can portray Bush opponents as soft on terrorism when they question any national security move. It was this bullying that led so many Democrats to rubber-stamp the Iraq war resolution in the 2002 election season and Mr. Goss’s appointment in the autumn of 2004.

Will they fall into the same trap in 2006? Will they be so busy soliloquizing about civil liberties that they’ll fail to investigate the nominee’s record? It was under General Hayden, a self-styled electronic surveillance whiz, that the N.S.A. intercepted actual Qaeda messages on Sept. 10, 2001 — “Tomorrow is zero hour” for one — and failed to translate them until Sept. 12. That same fateful summer, General Hayden’s N.S.A. also failed to recognize that “some of the terrorists had set up shop literally under its nose,” as the national-security authority James Bamford wrote in The Washington Post in 2002. The Qaeda cell that hijacked American Flight 77 and plowed into the Pentagon was based in the same town, Laurel, Md., as the N.S.A., and “for months, the terrorists and the N.S.A. employees exercised in some of the same local health clubs and shopped in the same grocery stores.”

If Democrats — and, for that matter, Republicans — let a president with a Nixonesque approval rating install yet another second-rate sycophant at yet another security agency, even one as diminished as the C.I.A., someone should charge those senators with treason, too.

Posted in News, Civil Liberties, Politics, Opinion | 1 Comment

[...] Frank Rich’s column for tomorrow’s New York Times is up behind the firewall, and it’s a doozy. Raw Story has excerpts. It might turn up at True Blue Liberal some time in the next few hours. [Update: Yep; here it is.] Here’s a bit not quoted on Raw Story: This being an election year, Karl Rove hopes the hearings can portray Bush opponents as soft on terrorism when they question any national security move. It was this bullying that led so many Democrats to rubber-stamp the Iraq war resolution in the 2002 election season and Mr. Goss’s appointment in the autumn of 2004. [...]

Pingback by The Mahablog » Saturday Night Blogged | May 14, 2006


Comments RSS TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
#60 ... laden.html

Quote:Bush and Blair,
If the moon could talk, what would it say?

Investigative article that sheds new light on the confession of Osama Bin Laden on tape to 9/11 and supports the possibility that it was produced by western intelligence. It also vindicates those who coined the term "Synthetic Terrorism".

By Maher Osseiran

While the controversy in England about the advice of the Attorney General on the legality of the Iraq war rages on and fuels requests for its publication in full, in America, George W. Bush is luckier and has survived the Valerie Plame issue, WMD’s, and the scathing report on the failure of intelligence prior to 9/11, the question is, how would both deal with the issue brought up in this article that potentially dwarfs all other issues.

The issue is Bin Laden confessionals to his guilt of 9/11 on video tapes; yes plural, it is not a typo. One British supposedly acquired through intelligence, and one American explained as the product of an amateur videographer. Could those two tapes be just one and could it be as reported by the Observer the “result of a sophisticated sting operation”?

We have all seen the “American video”, a video tape acquired by US soldiers in Jalalabad, Afghanistan, and, provided by the Pentagon to the media and the general public in its raw form after intelligence services dissected it, analyzed it, and authenticated it. On the tape aired Dec 13, 2001, Osama Bin Laden, through a conversation with a visiting sheikh, later identified as Khaled al-Harbi, admits to 9/11, or in the least shows prior knowledge of it.

Many of you might have forgotten or never even heard that there is also a “British video”. On Nov. 14, 2001, Tony Blair addressed parliament and informed the audience that the British Government published transcript excerpts of the “video” in which it says Bin Laden admitted taking his campaign to the United States. The article quotes bin Laden as saying: "It is what we instigated for a while, in self-defence. If avenging the killing of our people is terrorism, let history be a witness that we are terrorists. The battle has been moved inside America, and we shall continue until we win this battle, or die in the cause and meet our maker."

Now since Jalalabad fell on Nov. 14, the same day Mr. Blair uttered that quote in parliament, and, the president of the United States first exposure to the “American video” recovered in Jalalabad was not until Nov. 29, one has to assume that the “video” Mr. Blair is referring to is a different “video”. After all, if it is the same “video”, how could Mr. Blair have knowledge of something that has not yet existed?

On Nov 11, The British video makes it debut introduce by David Bamber of the Sunday Telegraph in London. Mr. Bamber informs us that the Telegraph had access to it and reports it this way: "The footage, to which the Telegraph obtained access in the Middle East yesterday, was not made for public release via the al-Jazeera television network used by bin Laden for propaganda purposes in the past. It is believed to be intended as a rallying call to al-Qa'eda members. He also tells us: “The video will form the centrepiece of Britain and America's new evidence against bin Laden, to be released this Wednesday.”

On Nov 14, three days later, the tape commits a disappearing act and this is how T.R. Reid, the Washington Post Foreign Service correspondent, reports from London on its official introduction in Parliament by Tony Blair; he writes: "The British government did not release the video or a full transcript, saying it does not have a copy of the video but has information about it from intelligence sources." In the same article, he also reports that there was an interviewer on the tape.

Now you see it, now you don't !!!

This is how the Washington Post describes on Dec. 9 Mr. Blair’s video in the article that unveiled the “American video” and I quote: “The new videotape is not the one described last month by British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Intelligence sources had obtained only a transcript of that tape, not the actual video.”

It is a fact that the “British video” Tony Blair referred to on Nov 14, has never been provided to the public and his quotes of Nov 14, which are hearsay, are nowhere in the transcript of the “American video” recovered in Jalalabad and aired on Dec. 13, 2001. It is also a fact that through the various newspaper reports, we are asked to believe that only the Telegraph had access to the video while British and American intelligence had no chance to see it, vet it, or authenticate its transcript. Also, we are asked to believe that there are two “videos”, and that confessionals by “video” are a standard Osama Bin Laden business practice with copies distributed to heads of state.

Logic dictates that we not believe, and dictates that we ask Tony Blair and the Telegraph, to release the video immediately. Also, since the analysis that follows increases the credibility of a report that the tape is the result of a sophisticated sting operation run by intelligence services, urgency is warranted.

The following came to light while I was researching inconsistencies in intelligence that sent us to war in Iraq. The “American video” released by the Pentagon, even though not specifically related to the war in Iraq, stayed in my mind ever since it was aired and warranted a revisit as part of my research.

While viewing the “American video”, both historic and technical inconsistencies were found. Granted, the tape is the most analyzed tape in the world, still, most of the analysis was centered on the looks of Bin Laden, his voice quality, his words, and none reported an investigative analysis that considered post-taping edits. Furthermore, none of the analysis considered in depth the words of the visiting sheikh, and what he said was crucial to pinpointing the historic inconsistencies.

Due to limited technical capabilities, we could only report that the tape was a fourth generation edit (copy or otherwise), that there are both VHS and digital drops on the tape, which is unusual, and that there was unwarranted editing that might have happened post-taping. Also, and most importantly, that certain camera angles and motions seemed too similar to a hat camera that football umpires wear. Those who are better equipped to conduct further evaluation are encouraged to do so. (click here for hints to those interested in conducting further technical analysis)

In terms of the historic inconsistencies, the timeline inconsistencies that follow are of a serious nature and clear enough that the Pentagon analysts should have easily picked them out. The failure to detect them and report them should weigh negatively against those who released the video.

The first anchor for the timeline analysis is what Ari Fliescher, the White House press secretary, informed us through his press briefings. Mr. Fliescher told us that the tape was found in Jalalabad, in an abandoned house, that the tape did not seem to be planted, and that the occupiers of the house seem to have left in a hurry. Mr. Fleischer also tells us that the tape seems to have been made on November 9, 2001, since that is what the time stamp on it is. He also goes on to say in one of his answers: “I can tell you, the President was first informed of it on November 29th. He first viewed portions of it on November 30th.” Again, for the record, Jalalabad fell on Nov. 14.

Now let us use the transcript of the tape that the Pentagon provided.

In the transcript, the visiting sheikh to whom Bin Laden confessed is reported to have said: “We came from Kabul….. We asked the driver to take us, it was a night with a full moon, thanks be to Allah.” On the tape itself, the sheikh actually infers prominent moon, which I interpret as 3 to 4 days before and after a full moon. He is later reported to have said: “Allah has bestowed on us...honor on us...and he will give us blessing and more victory during this holy month of Ramadan.” In the tape he never uses the word Ramadan, he actually says: ”…….victory during this Moubarak (meaning blessed) month and the month after.” The translators decided to interpret “Moubarak month” as Ramadan since the word Moubarak is usually used to describe the month of Ramadan and totally omitted the fact that he said: “and the month after”.

If Ramadan were the month the taping took place, Ramadan in 2001 starts like every other Ramadan with a new moon, as black as the night can get, and was on Nov. 16, while a full moon is not until Nov. 30, which means a prominent moon is between Nov. 26 and Dec. 4. The taping could not have happened during a prominent moon in the month of Ramadan since Kabul, the town the sheikh traveled through, had fallen on Nov. 12, Jalalabad, where it was found, on Nov.14, and Kandahar, where supposedly it was taped, was surrounded by anti-Taliban forces during that period and fell towards the end of it.

Now that we have established that the taping could not have taken place during Ramadan and that the reported date stamp of Nov. 9 on the tape could have been a programming error on the part of the camera operator, we need to go back in time and examine the previous periods of a prominent moon which are: Oct. 27 through Nov. 4, and, Sept. 28 through Oct. 6.

Going back to the transcript released by the Pentagon we find no mention of carpet bombings, coalition operations, or travel difficulties due to the military operations that officially started on Oct 6, 2001. I find it incredible that, over a period of 40 minutes of tape, there was no mention of military activities by the coalition or their effects on travel, considering the magnitude of such activities and the chattiness of the sheikh, which puts the period of Oct. 27 through Nov. 4 in doubt.

The second anchors for the timeline analysis are statements by Tony Blair, that of Nov. 14 and the following two:

On Oct 4, 2001 , in a speech, he states that a Government document is to be released and I quote the document: “There is evidence of a very specific nature relating to the guilt of Bin Laden and his associates that is too sensitive to release.” The operative words are “very specific”.

On Sept. 30, 2001 , in a BBC interview, Tony Blair states that he has evidence from intelligence services of Bin Laden’s guilt and that the evidence was "powerful and incontrovertible". I had to look up incontrovertible in the dictionary, it means; not open to question or dispute; indisputable, as in, absolute and incontrovertible truth. This was only 4 days prior to Oct. 4, is he talking about the same “very specific” evidence. Very likely as it takes governments about 4 days to vet and publish.

When we combine all three statements, we can deduce that the incontrovertible evidence was available as early as Sept. 30, that it was acquired by intelligence, and that it is a “video” since the only incontrovertible evidence, even though hearsay, Blair put forth was his quote of Nov. 14.

Again, logic dictates that we ask Tony Blair to release his video.

Going back to the timeline analysis. If we now take the period of Sept. 28 through Oct. 6, into consideration, we have to consider a fact that strongly favors this period, it is the fact that the visiting sheikh is a paraplegic and needs considerable help during travel. I would think a handicapped person would travel into Afghanistan during the relative calm of this period while he could still get the support and cooperation of the Taliban in his trek to locate and meet Bin Laden. Oddly enough, this time period also fits perfectly with Tony Blair’s statements of Sept. 30 and Oct. 4 and begs the conclusion that the video was produced around Sept. 28.

The only inconsistency with the Sept. 28 through Oct. 6 period is where Ramadan is deduced by the translators but never mentioned by name by the sheikh. Again, let us review what the sheikh said: “…….victory during this Moubarak month and the month after.” One can wonder if his usage of the word Moubarak was strictly out of piety, if it is, then there is no inconsistency. But, since the mention of the prominent moon in the video was a normal statement and stating a fact that should be known to all present, giving it more prominence as the truth, and the use of the word Moubarak is not only proven out of chronological context but would also have raised eye brows if he had not followed it with “and the month after”, one has to consider the possibility that the word Moubarak was inserted intentionally, which adds credibility to the following paragraph.

Ed Voliami and Jason Burke reported in the Observer on December 16, 2001 and I quote: “This weekend, as the debate the tape has provoked continued across the Islamic world, several intelligence sources have suggested to The Observer that the tape, although absolutely genuine, is the result of a sophisticated sting operation run by the CIA through a second intelligence service, possibly Saudi or Pakistani.”

If Voliami and Burke are correct in their reporting, and our timeline on target, the sting operation that did the taping of the video could have been the sting operation that did the capturing or elimination of Bin Laden which would also have averted the Afghanistan war and significantly contained terrorism, not to mention preventing the loss of life on both sides.

Another very serious consequence of airing a tape that is a product of a sting operation is the effect it would have on its subject, Bin Laden, when viewing it. By airing it, the producers of the tape tipped their hand and exposed the fact that they were mere feet from him; his paranoia and security concerns could only have increased and made him harder to locate.

Considering all these serious questions that have been raised, strictly through the use of logic and public domain information, it is imperative that we ask Tony Blair and the Telegraph to release their tape.

The implications that arise if both tapes, American and British, are the same are beyond comprehension, and the words needed to comfort those who have lost loved ones in 9/11 and in the war or terror are beyond imagination.

If only the moon could talk!


See also: Osama bin Laden - What Really Happened Index
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
#61 ... ngguns.htm

Quote:What's Wrong With Pointing Guns At Insurgents ("Protesters")?
They do it in Iraq and Iraq is free, why not at home?

Real Texas Cowboy/Prison | May 15 2006

Liberals and Bush bashers were flapping their gums again this week over reports that George W. Bush's motorcade aimed at assault rifles at self-proclaimed protesters in Florida. What is their problem?

Right off the bat let's call a spade a spade and do some real Texas straight talkin'. Since when were people who are trying to prevent Bush from seeking a justified third term afforded the description of 'protesters'?

Where I come from they're known as terrorists....OK....OK insurgents, let's be fair. Now don't be accusing me of being harsh. If you've read the Patriot Act, and I always have a copy on my bedside table (because I'm a real Patriot) then you'll see that under the law of this land, and this land is my land, anyone who tries to influence the government is a terrorist. How are these placard wavers any different?

Iraq is a free country. Look at this photograph of downtown Baghdad. Does it look like the warzone the America hating alternative media makes it out to be?

Now I know that some know-nothings have said Iraq is less free now than under Saddam but they just don't support the troops. Here's one example I found, the Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, what would he know anyway? Someone should tell him to start singing from the right hymn sheet, America's hymn sheet. A hymn sheet that wasn't printed by and written in Al-Qaeda blood.

Iraq is free and in Iraq we point machine guns at potential insurgents. That's freedom. So why are these "protesters" crying over spilt milk? They should be celebrating the fact that machine guns are being pointed at them. Why? Because it shows we live in a free country. Like Iraq and......Nepal or wherever.

What I'm trying to say is that security is freedom. I read some lying poll numbers this week that said something like 29% of "Americans" don't support our best President ever (yes, even better than Vince McMahon). Or was it only 29% support our President? No that can't be right, the jails wouldn't be able to handle that amount of people.

Anyway this means that 29% of "Americans" are a threat to George W. Bush. Why is it then so hard to swallow that these people should be targeted as potential terrorists?

George W. Bush has been above the law since 2004 and if one of his secret service guys wants to stomp a mudhole and walk it dry on these "protesters" to protect this country from those that would take away our freedom to compliment the government then I'm all for it.

This is George W. Bush's America. I associate George W. Bush with my daddy. If you insult George Bush, you're insulting my family and in Texas that's a federal crime punishable by the opening of a can of good old whoop ass just like momma used to make it.

Love it or leave it. If you don't like it then move to one of those raghead countries where you'll be more at home.

I heard Switzerland has cheap discounts on towels and 'Kerrangs' or whatever them terrorists read.

Click here to watch me and a good old boy chew the grass on the issues that face America.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner

Quote:Revolt in the Ranks? Be VERY Careful, Neocon

by Douglas Herman

Exclusive to STR

A few weeks ago, about the same time those high-ranking US generals were stating-- emphatically--their displeasure with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the conduct of the war in Iraq, ran a story on the Internet—Wounded Soldiers Left in Debt.

The broad range of anger, frustration and regret on the forum surprised me. Three years ago the great majority of servicemen and women accorded the Bush administration carte blanche, out of a misguided sense of patriotism, for a war with a non-belligerent nation that had neither threatened nor attacked the U.S.

Now, three years later, the vehemence of these common soldiers and sailors should give any Neocon a great deal to think about. Dissent is common among unhappy soldiers; disgruntlement as common as the chevrons on our sleeves. Always has been and always will be. But whether any actual revolt in the ranks would ever occur within the US military is debatable. However, the Bush administration should be VERY careful. Just because a large scale mutiny among US soldiers has never occurred does not mean one will not.

Here are just a few remarks from servicemen who expressed a measure of disgust not usually found in letters to your average mainstream newspaper media.

An E-6 Coast Guardsman wrote: “I am too close to retirement to chuck it all in, but I do everything I can to discourage my sons from having anything to do with joining the military. Everyone says they support the military, but it does not take much support to buy a stupid yellow ribbon for a car. The Republicans have had complete control for the last 6 years, they don't care about the wounded. If they did, this would not happen. Do you see the civilian pro war group joining, or their children enlisting?”

Sgt John Peters, an E-7, wrote: “I put up with the Army B.S. for 9 years and finally decided enough was enough. People thought I was nuts to throw it all away as an E-7 with that much time in but hey . . . it's just a job! A soldier (and his family) can only put up with so many deployments, B.S. duty assignments, and screwed up pay system so long, before he finally realizes it's just not worth it anymore. I'm all for serving my country but you eventually have to start thinking about yourself and your family because the Army definitely doesn't have your well-being in mind.”

Petty Officer George Madden, USN: “I'm a Vietnam vet and I've seen this and it's been happening forever. I may be wrong on this but the only government that didn't consider its military to be a throw-away tool when they were no longer needed were the Romans. After 25 years of service they were guaranteed a villa and a stipend of some kind for life! And, believe it or not, the average Roman soldier lived a longer life than the average citizen.”

US Army captain Thomas Pallardy: “This is just another example of what has happened and is happening with the Armed Services since this stupid downsizing began. When my son returned from Iraq , he was flown back on a military flight to the East Coast. From there he had to purchase a ticket to Denver and then to the local airport near his Duty Station. He was never reimbursed for something he never should have had to pay for in the first place. The real kicker was when he finished Basic, the cost of the uniforms he was issued was deducted from his final pay before leaving Boot Camp. Just what are these people thinking at Foggy Bottom. These types of individuals shouldn't even be working for us, period.”

Sgt Leroy Farmer, from Arizona , offered something from personal experience: “I was lucky that my troops took care of me when I was hit in Iraq . My troops gathered all of my gear, even the gear cut off during medical treatment and stuck it in a couple bags. It was easier to declare a loss because I had remnants of the equipment. That is not the case for most troops. The Department of Defense dishonors itself by allowing its Departments to recoup money from combat wounded troops for equipment they can no longer be responsible for.”

An Army warrant officer wrote: “After 16 1/2 years of service to this country, I am leaving. This kind of thing (Wounded troops paying for equipment, etc) would never happen if the Army was grooming good commanders. It is amazing to me that more vets are not making the case OUT LOUD for prospective recruits to steer clear of this organization.”

Sgt. Frank Scaletta added: “While our grandstanding politicians are hoodwinking the public about oil prices and the evil oil companies, these kids are being left out to dry. Disgraceful!! "

US Navy petty officer Joel Jenkins wrote: “TYPICAL GOVERNMENT ACTION, It doesn't matter that the 19 year old kid from NC will never walk again, or the 21 year old that that eats through a straw because his jaw got shot off. As long as Uncle Sam still gets paid, they don't care. And I say this after having serving for going on 8 years . . . and still in this clusterfuck.”

Sgt. Dana K. Beausoleil also offered something from his own experience: “While in Iraq my unit suffered several casualties. One soldier, an E-7, had his face literally smashed in. Almost all the bones in his face were broken and he lost three teeth. We MEDEVAC'd him out . . . 6 months later he was still on medical hold. He'd lost like 40 lbs and looked pretty rough but was fighting mad. It seems the Army doesn't want to replace his teeth that he lost in combat. So no it doesn't surprise me that this is happening in the army. They're the only service I know of that makes you pay for military issued equipment if you make a human error and break something that belongs to the US government by accident . . . but every other night I watched us lob 155 mm shells into the desert to "fire for effect" at no particular target just to let them know we were out there. We are truly ruled by idiots.”


Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
#63 ... sional.htm

Quote:The Delusional World of Neocon Make-Believe
If Laura Bush doesn't believe something does that make it untrue?

Steve Watson / Prisonplanet | May 15 2006

Laura Bush's latest comments reveal just how deluded and out of the reality loop the Neocon puppets are.

Interviewed on Fox News Sunday, Laura Bush said she did not think people were losing confidence in President George W. Bush, despite a series of polls showing support for him at its lowest point in his five-year presidency and among the lowest for any president in the past 50 years.

"I don't really believe those polls. I travel around the country. I see people, I see their responses to my husband. I see their response to me," she said.

Bush's current rating has slipped into the 20s and he is reportedly the most despised President in history.

The reason Laura Bush finds it hard to believe the people of America want rid of her and Mr Laura is because every audience she encounters is screened beforehand to ensure they are purely 100% supporters.

As we saw recently with the Rumsfeld/McGovern encounter should any protesters or non-supporters slip through the net and manage to voice their displeasure or disagreement with the government, they are simply removed by burly security personnel as a matter of course.

The only reason former CIA analyst Ray McGovern was allowed to stay to question Rumsfeld's lies was because Lord Rumsfeld allowed it. He did this because he knew it would look good to have McGovern appear to be in the minority.

McGovern was booed for simply asking an unscripted question, this highlights the fact that everyone else in the room was pro Rumsfeld/Neocon/Bush. for proof of this listen to the guy who begins to ask the question that follows McGovern's, it's vomit inducing.

This has been normal practice for years. Remember when Alex Jones was arrested for asking George W Bush a question?

The Bushes and the criminals hired as part of his administration are so used to being praised and worshipped at manufactured public gatherings and showcases that they have actually begun to believe everyone in the country loves them.

They live in a delusional world of make believe created for them by the shadow men who really run the government. Bush, his wife and Rumsfeld are the pawns on the front line that are used to get a job done.

When something unscripted happens and momentarily shakes them out of this la la land they seem genuinely bemused and do not know how to respond.

We have seen several times how when Bush is asked an unscripted question he panics and simply does not know how to answer. He has even become angry on occasions snapping that the question should have been provided in advance.

Of course in Bush's world he is not a bluebood from Kennebunkport in Maine, he is a real Texan cowboy who clear brush and works on a ranch.

In his world he didn't go AWOL from the National Guard, he is a crack fighter pilot who lands jets under mission accomplished banners.

Evidently there are a lot of things that the Bushes do not believe in in their world of make believe. Adhering to the laws of the Constitution being top of the list
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner

Quote:US Bribes Way Into
Kazakhstan's Oil Wealth

A recent trip by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, partially aimed at securing energy resources for America, took him to Lithuania, Kazakhstan and Croatia. His trips instigated a race for energy resources, while complicating efforts to handle energy security, expected to be the focus of the Group of Eight nations summit to be held in St. Petersburg this summer.

While on a visit to Russia, the U.S. Vice-President criticised Putin's government, saying that "in many areas of civil society ­­ from religion and the news media to advocacy groups and political parties ­­ the government has unfairly and improperly restricted the rights of the people". He also warned the Kremlin against using oil as a tool to achieve political ends.

"No legitimate interest is served when oil and gas become tools of intimidation or blackmail, either by supply manipulation or attempts to monopolize transportation," Cheney claimed earlier this month.

A day after criticizing Russian President Vladimir Putin, and chosing to ignore the State Department's annual human rights report attacking the rule of the longtime president, Nursultan Nazarbayev, Mr. Cheney hailed the government of Kazakhstan, likely to become one of the world's top 10 oil producers in the next decade, saying that "All Americans are tremendously impressed with the progress that you've made in Kazakhstan in the last 15 years. Kazakhstan has become a good friend and strategic partner of the United States".

Cheney's condemnation of what he referred to as policy of repression pursued by Moscow received a fierce reaction from Russians, for the vast majority of the Russian nation, hadn't yet recovered from the corruption and poverty of the first post-Communist decade under Boris Yeltsin, supports Putin's drift towards a "soft dictatorship".

Cheney's comments against Russia's monopolization of natural resources, in which he so obviously applied a double standard, follow an increased debate in Europe over the security of Russian energy supplies after Russian gas monopoly Gazprom decided earlier this year to cut off supplies to Ukraine ­ temporarily, sparking a row between Washington and Moscow.

Moscow's business daily Kommersant, a strong critic of the Kremlin, ran an article titled "Enemy at the Gate", warning that "the Cold War has restarted; only now the front line has shifted".

"What is Russia to do? Evidently it needs to strengthen links with Belarus and Central Asia. And get friendly with China, to counter-balance this Western might," "Komsomolskaya Pravda" said.

Kazakhstan, a new oil wealth in the region, and a close friend of the United States, is not a democratic country and Nazarbayev is not a democrat, if we judged according to U.S. "standards".

According to a Monday editorial on The New Vision, Nazarbayev had been the President of Kazakhstan for fifteen years now, his last reelection was last December, when he won 91 per cent majority in a vote, foreign observers condemn as fraudulent.

But the U.S. in this case doesn't care much about "democracy", what it seeks from Nazarbayev is commitment to pipelines that transfer Kazakh oil to Europe without having to pass by Russia, meaning through pipelines under the Caspian Sea, the editorial adds.

Nazarbayev is now waiting for a concrete offer from his U.S. friends, an offer that he can use to blackmail the Russians and demand a higher price for his country's gas that's transferred to Russia through the existing pipelines.

He's waiting for the American's offer also to use it against the Chinese and pressure them build pipelines through which he can transfer his country's oil and gas to China.

U.S. experts on the other hand view America's current steps against Moscow, now planning to increase the development of nuclear power by 23-25 percent which will help guarantee energy security globally, as complicating current U.S. efforts aimed at referring Iran to the UN Security Council, for it risks winning Russia on its side which will boost its anti-Tehran campaign.

"Russia's key position is that broad access to civilian nuclear power must be guaranteed, while at the same there must be a guarantee that weapons of mass destruction will not proliferate under any circumstances," Kiriyenko said.

"Russia holds this position in discussions over the Iran issues, and in developing new means to ensure non-proliferation."

"We believe that any military operation in Iran could lead to consequences that could seriously aggravate the situation in the region and beyond," said Igor Ivanov, secretary of Russia's Security Council.

Putin seeks to restore Russia back to it powerful position, especially through the use of oil and gas revenues, according to analysts.

In a recent interview with The New York Times, Andrew C. Kuchions, director of the Russian and Eurasian Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace stated that "oil and gas revenues are such an important piece of the Russian economy and they're the key lever for Russia's recovery in the near-term, and the oil companies have been privatized for a song,"

Responding to U.S. charges of "blackmail", the Russian President stressed in his annual state of the union address that his government doesn't seek undermining democracy through monopolization of natural resources.

"We must be ready to counter any attempts to pressure Russia in order to strengthen positions at our expenses," he said.

Understanding the American oil strategy helps understanding whatever political moves taken by the Bush administration, or rhetoric and double standard policy it pursues whether in the Middle East and the Arab world on one hand, or Western powers on the other.

Tom Malinowski, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch said that the Bush administration risks fueling worldwide anger over its "democracy" by carving out such exceptions for energy-rich nations.

"When the vice president appropriately criticizes Russia one day and praises Kazakhstan the next, it contributes to that cynical view of U.S. policy," Malinowski said.

Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
[Image: intecep.jpg]
Why NORAD Interceptors
Couldn't Catch Those
911 Boeings
By Douglas Herman
Exclusive to

One of the most sacred beliefs about the four jumbo jets hijacked on September 11th, 2001, was that terrified passengers tried to communicate with those safe on the earth. The recent movie, "Flight 93," elevates this belief to a sacrament.

In order to verify that cell phones would have functioned, a test would have had to be performed in 2001, from a Boeing 757-767, moving erratically through the sky, often at low elevation. To my recollection, none were ever performed by any researcher, and certainly no reporter in the mainstream media.

Because NORAD fighter pilots never VISUALLY verified what happened aboard those four Boeings on 9-11, we will never know what occurred in the most crucial part of the plane, the cockpit. Instead we have been given play-by-play cell phone accounts of what occurred. Some of the accounts remain perplexing to say the least.

NORAD: Malice Aforethought?

There are three reasons why NORAD fighters did not intercept and visually inspect any of the hijacked Boeings. Being confused and unable to locate the hijacked planes appears suspicious, to say the least. Because imagine what those NORAD pilots might have seen. (1) Arab hijackers-or pilots posing as Arabs. (2) Professional pilots frantically waving and holding signs indicating the plane was remote controlled. (3) No pilots at all.

How, you ask, could no pilots be at the controls? Recall the flight of Pro golfer Payne Stewart. The private jet flew, maintaining a steady airspeed and course---but everyone aboard was dead. What the NORAD interceptors saw was frosted windows and no sign of life.

Now ask yourself: With four slow-moving jets to choose from, why couldn't NORAD intercept and make visual contact with even ONE? Perhaps, if that visual inspection had occurred, the USAF pilot might have reported something highly suspicious. And I don't mean sullen suicide pilots who forgot to pack their Korans.

They might have witnessed no visible sign of life. Or they would have radioed that the pilots were gesturing to them, signaling the plane was somehow flying itself. Without the poignant cell phone conversations, the entire "terrorist hijacking" would have been as fictitious as a Harry Potter fantasy novel.

No hijackers, no war on terror. No war on terror, no billions for defense and security upgrades. No cell phone calls about Arab terrorists, no religious war to, ostensibly smash Islamic countries and steal their oil.

Now suppose those NORAD pilots had made visual contact and saw-gasp---professional pilots frantically trying to regain control of their Boeing aircraft. The fighter pilots might have relayed the ominous message: "Cockpit pilots signaling they have NO control. Pilots holding sign: cannot regain manual control of stick!"

Recall that not ONE Boeing pilot pressed a four digit signal indicating their planes were being hijacked. You would think at least one pilot would have gotten off a quick message.

Equally suspicious, NORAD fighter pilots were either rerouted AWAY from the Boeings, or commanded to fly at such slow speeds they could not intercept a commercial plane, even if given a week to do so. Why? Because fighter pilots could NOT be allowed to see into the cockpit.

Whatever was visible inside the four cockpits was too terrible to see. Not frantic fighting, but perhaps the opposite: an absence of any life.

Was NORAD a criminal conspirator on 9-11? Emphatically. Consider the long list of criminal derelictions that would convict them. These accusations are from 9-11 Research

Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases.

Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds.

Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them.

Indeed, once airborne, NORAD F-15s were flying slower than 450 MPH---slower than World War II fighter planes! The top speed of an F-15 in pursuit is 1875 MPH.

Perhaps the only NORAD interceptor to actually intercept an alleged hijacked airliner, occurred with Flight 93, over Shanksville, Pennsylvania. However, the US government denied the Boeing was shot down although evidence indicates otherwise.

NORAD: many unanswered questions remain about September 11th, 2001. As a former Air Force serviceman, I am ashamed and angered by the evident fraud and intentional failure that indicate---almost without a doubt---a military coup occured.

Footnote: One of the many incongruous scenes in the movie, United 93, occured when the terrorist pilot props a postcard of the Capitol Building on the steering yoke. As if one could just hijack a jumbo jet, head east to the ocean and fly around until seeing the dome.

Amateur historian and USAF veteran, Douglas Herman writes regularly for Rense and is the author of The Guns of Dallas. Read the reviews on

Robert Marr (Must Read)

Real History, Pakistan, and the World Trade Center (Must Read)

Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner

The CRIME That
Covered-Up The Coup
By Jim Kirwan

There's a corporate dagger that has been leveled at the very heart of all that matters in the USA and the world today. The fact is that the role of government's around the world have been nullified by those corporate powers that have taken control over the most pivotal points of life and promise within the global community. There is a key to this entire quagmire that can no longer be ignored, which is, the mega-crime committed on 911. So long as this government along with others in Europe and the wider world continue to spew lies about what happened on that day ­ then nothing can ever be changed!

The enemy of the United States of America is located in Washington D.C., in Tel Aviv and to a lesser degree in London. This cabal has used and abused the events of 911 to create tyrannies and to advance murder and torture on a grand scale, while they continue to act as intermediaries for the Corporatocracy that is the real power hiding behind most governments. It is these essentially private and protected corporate interests, that are using governments worldwide, to crush whatever remains of those freedoms and laws that were supposed to protect people from exactly this kind of take-over. What has happened is that governments everywhere have largely become superfluous, because the real power now lies with the multi-national corporate giants of the Corporatocracy.

911 was an attack upon the Constitution and the people of the United States, carried out by forces that had far greater designs for their private interests than could have ever been allowed under the US Constitution. Without the chaos of 911 that essentially stripped people of all the protections of law, and that turned all discussions into nothing more than fear mongering and terror warnings that we now know, were used to justify the immediate targeting of the entire US population, as potential terrorist sympathizers.

This began with the stolen election that put Bush in office. The Congress and the Courts have both shown themselves to be complicit in furthering those lies that the Bush administration has been spewing from the day they took office. The "Democrats" have proven that they will not offer any resistance to the hundreds of illegal and criminal acts committed by this government during these last five years: Bush alone proudly claims to have violated 750 laws, and this doesn't count Cheney or Rumsfeld and all the others who have done the same thing.

If citizens of the USA have to abide by the laws of the nation ­ then how can government not be forced to abide by those same laws? 911 is and was a crime ­ not the bogus act of "terror" that is being used to justify a new dictatorship of privatized authority. What we have now is a fascist group that ignores the laws that limit them ­ while trying at the same time to enslave the population. Their goal is to enforce the dictates of private interests whose only goals are total power and complete control. The circumstance cannot be changed until the public accepts the fact that the 2000 election was a Coup and that the 911 cover story was created to redirect the public's focus; while the true criminals finished killing off the protections of the Constitution: in order that no real questions could ever be asked because of National Security concerns.

The theft of this nation was a very shabby affair carried out by amateurs whose true motives are just beginning to unravel ­ big-time! Of course had there been a media to cover what was happening, while this was going on ­ none of this could have continued! Had the media asked real questions ­ the Supreme Court could not have appointed Bush as "president." If congress had stepped into the Florida vote count, as was their duty under the Constitution, then the court would have had no jurisdiction; but congress remained silent and the Court broke with the Separation of Powers Act ­ that's how the USA got its first Dictator!

The people didn't understand what happened, so they kept silent. Then on September 11th
the Dictator pulled off his first direct attack against the people of the United States, and to date ­ he's still not been asked to explain his actions on that day. No one who was responsible for things like military defense, intelligence failures, or preparedness has even been fired ­ and apparently at least a third of the public is still fine with that! We've even allowed blatant fabrications about Flight 93 to appear in theaters; posing as a fact, when too much evidence exists that contradicts every facet of that fairy-tale.

People who will not even demand answers from their so-called leaders get exactly what they deserve. In a time of war, it is imperative that the public question everything that leadership does. The American public seems to be otherwise occupied. The public chose to deal with their government from a distance, when that government was supposedly democratic and free. But today there is a full blown dictatorship ­ where the Republic used to be: If that doesn't matter to you ­ then just delete this, and get on with your very important life.

For those to whom the questions matter ­ it appears that things are still continuing to change despite the schemes and plans of the privateers still masquerading as the Corporatocracy. This is "Mother's Day," a Sunday, and none of the Sunday morning talk shows even mentioned the fact that Puerto Rico is now bankrupt, or that the US has sent more troops and ships to the Gulf of Arabia. Apparently we're planning to attack Iran sometime around the first of June; Bush is simply waiting for the necessary excuse to "Open Fire." (It won't take much, as apparently Americans will believe almost anything because they tend to trust their dictator whenever "wars" are happening). There was no mention of Karl Rove's indictment that also happened Saturday. There was no in-depth discussion about anything but the illegal use of US troops on the southern borders, another presidential edict ­ neither congress nor the governors were consulted. The president the vice-president and Rummy need to hold a joint two hour press conference in prime time and let alternative reporters and interested people question what they've done ­ as well as why they've acted as they have. If these three criminals can't manage to accommodate the public, then at least give us Cheney directly, and leave out the middle men!

The public needs to change the subject, as it's clear that neither the congress nor the courts will ever actually investigate 911. Popular Television and film have been making propaganda for this government at a rate that surpasses all that was ever done previously for any other war. Why? Because they want to keep the fear alive, they want to keep the public terrified and insecure ­ which is exactly the opposite of what a government is supposed to do. Look at New Orleans; they did exactly what no one wanted along the entire Gulf coast. No relief, no help, no food, no shelter ­ and still they have failed to act in the majority of cases. Where is that investigation, now that the next hurricane season is almost upon us? 'Brownie' quit, but no one was fired ­ and nothing has changed except that now FEMA has proven to be completely incompetent, along with our Jewish run Homeland Security ­ that too is apparently worthless ­ the largest agency in the federal government composed of 22 separate agencies, that had to cost hundreds of billions, and already it's completely worthless ­ brilliant strategy ­ again!

Police departments around this country have taken on the look of Marines in combat ­ security personnel of every flavor use every opportunity to insult and interrogate the people they are supposed to be protecting ­ the same people that are also paying for their gruff existence. Look at all the secret and illegal acts the White House and the Department of Defense committed both on and after 911. The PATRIOT acts are blatantly illegal, and were written well before 2001, by those who created this deadly and criminal charade. The public never questioned this. Why hasn't the entire national intelligence bureaucracy been dismantled and reformed, why haven't the FBI, the CIA and the NSA been totally reshuffled? What about the Department of Defense and all those career generals, admirals and staff in the Pentagon. We're losing the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet Bush is keeping the idiots throughout government, those same people that made failure the order of the day! Of course he hasn't fired them, because they're his idiots, they're his loyal fools, and he can't do much if he begins to lose his loyal thugs ­ and Bush knows that ­ all too well!

Now we are told that the president decided to monitor all our calls ­ trillions upon trillions of calls in four years of spying on the public: During all that time how many were arrested or charged for anything like the kind of security breach that would have involved 300 million people in 'plotting against their own government'? All of the above and more was possible, because people bought the idea that 911 was an act of war by foreign forces and NOT a mega-crime against the people of the USA.

There was an attack alright, but what happened on 911 was home grown treason designed to capture Americans by using bogus terror tactics to get us to relinquish all our freedoms, for a type of "safety" that no person on this planet has any right to expect. The USA has become the premier rogue nation in the world today, under false pretenses, that were dipped in innocent blood and the criminally of outrageous lies. Look at the levels of criminality within the government, the scandals, the complicity, the lies that underpin the bribery, the insider trading (on 911 as well as after): the patterns of collusion, cover-ups, embezzlement, and fraud on a grand scale as well as outright treason. All of this is written large for all to see ­ yet still ­ too few even notice what has happened.

The government of the United States seems to be following orders from the State of Israel. Israel demanded that Iraq be defanged and we obliged! Now Israel wants to crush Iran ­ and we're in the process of doing that, despite the fact that there is no justification for our interference there. Americans have died for these polices, and even more will die in Iran ­ not for American interests but for those policies of private corporate business interests who want to silence any opposition to Capitalism at any cost. Iraq and Iran are both left-over policy failures from the Western power's decision to insert the Jews into Palestine at the end of the Second World War.

Peace in Palestine is the key to everything else in the Middle East ­ yet almost every compliant act of ours, that continues to favor Israel in that effort, has only further inflamed the region and the world. Now there is no dialogue, no hope for a viable settlement, and only more death and destruction on-tap for the Palestinians. In that illegally brutal occupation of a conquered and unarmed population, the United States has managed to undo a hundred years of integrity and leadership, in order to appease the desires of a State that is not one of ours. Israel does not adhere to human rights, to UN resolutions, to nuclear oversight, or indeed to the needs or rights of any other nation but their own. The US has backed Israel against the world, at a tremendous cost to US taxpayers, for virtually no return on that investment, and without any justification whatsoever for continuing to do so. Some say 'blackmail' is involved, but that hardly seems credible given all the degrees of competing interests in the world today. . .

Yet - like some third world puppet-state the USA is going to again defend the State of Israel, and again jeopardize the peace of the world, while again sacrificing even more American lives ­ simply to appease Israeli Lobbies in Washington and elsewhere? What happened to American interests ­ because what is good for Israel is not necessarily good for the United States! If this president had any balls he would aid the Palestinians for humanitarian reasons, insist that Israel tear down that wall, and negotiate an end to the dispute over Palestine by enforcing a return (with American troops) to the original borders originally agreed to. If Bush were a true leader, instead of just another an impatient politician drunk with power - he would prove his power by assisting the people of Palestine to feed and house themselves, while demanding that the Jews withdraw from all the illegal settlements they built on stolen land.

As for the American congressional puppets, those imposters that have illegally accepted so much money from AIPAC and others ­ these are those who parrot the party line on terror and keep the lies in place. If they really wanted to know about 911, then they need to look no further than 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue ­ if as they say ­ they really want to know the TRUTH!

kirwan ... 48&pl=true

The Corporation

In the 1980s there were about 3,000 SWAT team deployments
Annually, across the US -- Now there are at least 40,000 per year.

The History of Rummy & Cheney


Letter from the President of Iran to President Bush
http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e12984.htm
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)