Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
9/11 WIDOWS RESPOND

Posted By: Curious
Date: Wednesday, 7 June 2006, 3:27 p.m.

In Response To: ANN COULTER-SLEAZE HAG (amya)

: Okay, Coulter goes right to the top of my list -move over.
: O'Rielly- of truly wacko right wing sickos. This woman is
: incredible in her sliminess-shiver-it is amazing to me that
: she can string together two coherent thoughts, I have yet
: to hear anything that she has said that makes the least bit
: of sense. Maybe her and O'Rielly are having phone sex while
: panting about the neo-cons...sick...peace
: Amy

We did not choose to become widowed on September 11, 2001. The attack, which tore our families apart and destroyed our former lives, caused us to ask some serious questions regarding the systems that our country has in place to protect its citizens.

Through our constant research, we came to learn how the protocols were supposed to have worked. Thus, we asked for an independent commission to investigate the loopholes which obviously existed and allowed us to be so utterly vulnerable to terrorists. Our only motivation ever was to make our Nation safer. Could we learn from this tragedy so that it would not be repeated?

We are forced to respond to Ms. Coulter’s accusations to set the record straight because we have been slandered.

Contrary to Ms. Coulter’s statements, there was no joy in watching men that we loved burn alive. There was no happiness in telling our children that their fathers were never coming home again. We adored these men and miss them every day.

It is in their honor and memory, that we will once again refocus the Nation’s attention to the real issues at hand: our lack of security, leadership and progress in the five years since 9/11.

*SNIP*
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp ... 1002648990
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/06/0 ... 22487.html

Quote:MSNBC's Olbermann: "If You Were Ann Coulter's Attorney At A Sanity Hearing, Where Could You Possibly Start?"...
Crooks And Liars | Posted June 8, 2006 01:02 AM
Rofl Rofl
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/FBI_c ... _0608.html

FBI confidential informant also said to be provocateur
06/08/2006 @ 12:00 pm
Filed by Jennifer Van Bergen


According to activists from Des Moines, Philadelphia, Miami, Sacramento, and other locations, a young woman named "Anna" allegedly infiltrated peace and justice rallies and anarchist meetings, and even attempted to join protests against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) ahead of the DNC's national convention last year as a paid FBI confidential "informant." Activists say that she has tried to provoke conflict at various advocacy events and violent incidents with police to get people arrested. In other words, Anna is not just an informant, she may be a provocateur.

Although she is known among activist groups as either Anna Davies or Anna Davidson, others know her as Grai Damiani. She focuses her efforts largely on "anarchist" groups.

The McDavid Case

In January 2006, Eric McDavid, Lauren Weiner, and Zachary Jenson were arrested in California and charged with knowingly conspiring to use fire or explosives to damage property. Their arrest was the direct result of work by Anna, who was "deeply embedded within the subjects' cell," according to FBI documents.

The FBI affidavit in support of the complaint against the three defendants states that they planned on their own to engage in "direct action" – which the FBI agent equated with criminal activity – apparently without Anna's input or guidance. The direct action involved bombing one or several locations in California.

However, McDavid's attorney, Mark Reichel, states that Anna was always pushing McDavid to do something criminal, taught the three how to make the bombs, supervised their activities, and repeatedly threatened to leave them if they didn't start doing "something."

McDavid allegedly wanted to target banks, commercial trucks, mountaintop removal projects in West Virginia, Communist party office, and the U.S. Forest Service Institute of Forest Genetics in California, according to the affidavit.

The affidavit, which was written by FBI Special Agent Nasson Walker, shows that the agency has identified the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) as "a recognized eco-terrorist group," which Walker states has been involved in over $100 million dollars worth of damage since 1997. Walker further notes that: "Environmental extremists under the ELF banner have been known to use arson and/or explosives to damage or destroy or attempt to damage or destroy government, commercial, and residential facilities." Walker also states that "ELF adherents share a strong philosophical connection to the anarchist movement," which he notes "seeks to end the current system of government, economy and replace them with systems characterized by a lack of authoritarian/hierarchical relationships." Walker states that all three of the defendants are anarchists.

The FBI claims that Anna has "provided information that has been utilized in at least twelve separate anarchist cases" and that her "information has proved accurate and reliable."

But just who is Anna and what makes her reliable?

Organization of American States (OAS) Protests

In June of last year, according to witnesses, Anna showed up in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida for an anti-OAS protest which drew approximately 1200 people. Wearing a shirt with a red cross on it and carrying a bag with the same logo, she appeared on the day the protests began and identified herself as a "medic" from California.

One protester who had become ill during the event was treated by Anna. "She was pushy," said Barbara Collins, a retired Miami resident who says Anna gave her Gatorade with water and then left. "She gave me that drink that made me sick, but later on she didn't seem that interested in treating me. She wanted to get back to the others." Collins was subsequently hospitalized for heat stroke.

Linda Belgrave, a sociology professor at University of Miami, who assisted Collins that day, had to go find Anna again when Barbara got worse. According to Belgrave, Anna told her she was "busy." Belgrave did not see Anna attending to any other person in need of medical attention. She was simply "hanging out" with the "kids."

Indeed, Anna was busy, according to other protesters at the OAS rally.

During the march to the rally where Collins fell ill, one Miami resident, who asked that her name not be used, heard people talking about doing a sit-in. Since the coalition had decided against sit-ins and had negotiated carefully with the police about routes and activities, she warned people individually not to participate in the sit-in. Most did not, but Ray Del Papa from Ft. Lauderdale subsequently saw Anna directing young people to sit down on the street directly in front of a line of police in riot gear. In describing what he saw, Del Papa motions with his arms to show how Anna instructed individuals to sit here and there. Del Papa felt that it was a "set-up," a "trap, similar to what the police did during the protests against the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) in Miami in 2003."

The fences penned the protesters in completely except where the riot police were, which was exactly where Anna instructed the young people to do their sit-in, according to Del Papa.

"She knew they could get their heads bashed in," notes Mark Reichel, based on conversations with the activists. "If you saw their faces as well, you would understand that these people were not lying."

Under the Attorney General's Guidelines, the FBI and prosecutors are required to keep secret the identity of a confidential informant. However, Anna was seemingly "outed" last year by activists who recognized what they saw as disruptive and provocative tactics and posted pictures of her on the internet.

The allegations were later confirmed by Reichel, who identified the unnamed FBI confidential source cited in the January 2006 complaint affidavit for the McDavid case as Anna.

Reichel also viewed hundreds of hours of surveillance tapes of Anna and McDavid and his cohorts. He notes that Anna's forte is identifying "radical" young men and women and "getting them" to fall in love with her.

The FBI will not discuss Anna's status or the specifics of her training or operations but denies that informants are trained to provoke. In response to RAW STORY's queries about Anna, FBI media representative Karen Ernst said that "Sources are admonished not to provoke criminal activity,"

"Sources operated by the FBI are closely monitored and the information received from them is corroborated through other investigative techniques."

Additionally, Ernst explains that the FBI corroborates information obtained from an informant "before charges are brought" against an individual. "Charges are brought when the totality of the evidence is sufficient for either a criminal complaint or indictment. Information from a source would never be the only evidence used to bring charges; other evidence would include recordings, surveillance video, results of witness testimony, etc.," adds Ernst.

Despite being outed, Anna continues to infiltrate groups and presently is living in a collective home with some young people in Iowa, according to Reichel.

Criminal Activity Plus Salary

According to the "Attorney General's Guidelines Regarding the Use of Confidential Informants" (AG Guidelines), a "Confidential Informant" or "CI" is "any individual who provides useful and credible information to [the FBI] regarding felonious criminal activities, and from whom the [FBI] expects or intends to obtain additional useful and credible information regarding such activities in the future."

The FBI conducts a "suitability determination" for each informant, which includes consideration of the candidate's age, affiliations, motivations, reliability, truthfulness, and criminal and drug history.

Every informant receives and must acknowledge her understanding of a written set of instructions, which are reviewed by an agent with the CI. The CI is not allowed to engage in criminal activity without authorization. A CI who is authorized to engage in "Tier 1 Otherwise Illegal Activity" – which includes involvement with violent activities by other persons, corrupt conduct by officials, and trafficking of controlled substances – becomes a "High Level Confidential Informant."

Given Anna's involvement in the McDavid case, where she was involved in allegedly planning violent activities, she became a High Level CI.

According to Ernst, all sources are operated in accordance with the Attorney General's Guidelines. Sources are required to meet on a regular basis with an agent who provides them guidance and instructions.

Yet in a scathing report released by the Department of Justice in September of last year, DOJ inspector general, Glenn A. Fine, found "that FBI agents violated procedures in 87 percent of the cases, including some in which informants allegedly engaged in illegal activity without proper oversight or permission."

As for Anna, she receives about $37,500 a year, plus expenses, for her work. In the McDavid case, for example, in addition to her salary, the FBI paid for Anna to rent a house in California, paid for helicopter surveillance at her behest, and ostensibly also paid for the audio and video surveillance rigged in the rental house.

Are there other Annas?

Although the FBI states that it does not target lawful activity or activity protected by the First Amendment, in Florida alone, groups advocating against the invasion of Iraq, the PATRIOT Act, the OAS, and the FTAA have all been infiltrated, according to participants -- who cannot prove that the suspicious persons were infiltrators or informants. But documents released last year show that a counter-recruitment meeting at the Quaker House in Lake Worth, Florida was infiltrated by the Department of Defense. And the revelations about Anna, who participated in at least two of the major protests in Florida, further confirm activists' fears.

While officials have claimed that anarchists advocate violence, Fred Frost, President of the Florida AFL-CIO, stated in 2004 at public hearings after the FTAA demonstrations that anarchists "may look different from you and me, but they are some of the nicest, most peaceful people I've ever met, helping everyone – I have a great deal of respect for them."

None of the above-mentioned peace and justice groups advocates violence; all advocate using peaceful and lawful means of expression.

#
Jennifer Van Bergen is a freelance journalist with a law degree. Her book "The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America" is available on Amazon. Her book "Archetypes for Writers: Using the Power of Your Subconscious" will be out next year. She can be reached at <a href="mailto:jvbxyz@earthlink.net">jvbxyz@earthlink.net</a>.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
It wasn't the Arabs, it was an inside job via Mossaqaeda and Ameriqaeda letter Terrorist organizations...all of this was done as an excuse to take our last freedoms away from us!
Reply
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html


FBI says, “No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11”


June 6, 2006 – This past weekend, a thought provoking e-mail circulated through Internet news groups, bringing attention to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist web page for Usama Bin Laden.[1] (See bottom of this web page for Most Wanted page) In the e-mail, the question is asked, “Why doesn’t Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster make any direct connection with the events of September 11, 2001?” The FBI says on its Bin Laden web page that Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. According to the FBI, these attacks killed over 200 people. The FBI concludes its reason for “wanting” Bin Laden by saying, “In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorists attacks throughout the world.”



On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”



Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”



It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure. If you think the way I think, in quick order you will be wrestling with a barrage of very powerful questions that must be answered. First and foremost, if the U.S. government does not have enough hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11, how is it possible that it had enough evidence to invade Afghanistan to “smoke him out of his cave?” The federal government claims to have invaded Afghanistan to “root out” Bin Laden and the Taliban. Through the talking heads in the mainstream media, the Bush Administration told the American people that Usama Bin Laden was Public Enemy Number One and responsible for the deaths of nearly 3000 people on September 11, 2001. Yet nearly five years later, the FBI says that it has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.



Next is the Bin Laden “confession” video that was released by the U.S. government on December 13, 2001. Most Americans remember this video. It was the video showing Bin Laden with a few of his comrades recounting with delight the September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. The Department of Defense issued a press release to accompany this video in which Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said, “There was no doubt of bin Laden’s responsibility for the September 11 attacks before the tape was discovered.”[2] What Rumsfeld implied by his statement was that Bin Laden was the known mastermind behind 9/11 even before the “confession video” and that the video simply served to confirm what the U.S. government already knew; that Bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.



In a BBC News article[3] reporting on the “9/11 confession video” release, President Bush is said to have been hesitant to release the tape because he knew it would be a vivid reminder to many people of their loss. But, he also knew it would be “a devastating declaration” of Bin Laden’s guilt. “Were going to get him,” said President Bush. “Dead or alive, it doesn’t matter to me.”



In a CNN article[4] regarding the Bin Laden tape, then New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said that “the tape removes any doubt that the U.S. military campaign targeting bin Laden and his associates is more than justified.” Senator Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said, “The tape’s release is central to informing people in the outside world who don’t believe bin Laden was involved in the September 11 attacks.” Shelby went on to say “I don’t know how they can be in denial after they see this tape.” Well Senator Shelby, apparently the Federal Bureau of Investigation isn’t convinced by the taped confession, so why are you?



The Muckraker Report attempted to secure a reference to the U.S. government authenticating the Bin Laden “confession video”, to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress, along with the dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic. So why doesn’t the FBI view the “confession video” as hard evidence? After all, if the FBI is investigating a crime such as drug trafficking, and it discovers a video of members of a drug cartel opening talking about a successful distribution operation in the United States, that video would be presented to a federal grand jury. The identified participants of the video would be indicted, and if captured, the video alone would serve as sufficient evidence to net a conviction in a federal court. So why is the Bin Laden “confession video” not carrying the same weight with the FBI?



Remember, on June 5, 2006, FBI spokesman, Chief of Investigative Publicity Rex Tomb said, “The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” This should be headline news worldwide. The challenge to the reader is to find out why it is not. Why has the U.S. media blindly read the government-provided 9/11 scripts, rather than investigate without passion, prejudice, or bias, the events of September 11, 2001? Why has the U.S. media blacklisted any guest that might speak of a government sponsored 9/11 cover-up, rather than seeking out those people who have something to say about 9/11 that is contrary to the government’s account? And on those few rare occasions when a 9/11 dissenter has made it upon the airways, why has the mainstream media ridiculed the guest as a conspiracy nut, rather than listen to the evidence that clearly raises valid questions about the government’s 9/11 account? Why is the Big Media Conglomeration blindly content with the government’s 9/11 story when so much verifiable information to the contrary is available with a few clicks of a computer mouse?



Who is it that is controlling the media message, and how is it that the U.S. media has indicted Usama Bin Laden for the events of September 11, 2001, but the U.S. government has not? How is it that the FBI has no “hard evidence” connecting Usama Bin Laden to the events of September 11, 2001, while the U.S. media has played the Bin Laden - 9/11 connection story for five years now as if it has conclusive evidence that Bin Laden is responsible for the collapse of the twin towers, the Pentagon attack, and the demise of United Flight 93?



…No hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11… Think about it.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Federal Bureau of Investigation, Most Wanted Terrorists, Usama Bin Laden, http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm, [Accessed May 31, 2006]

[2] United States Department of Defense, News Release, U.S. Releases Videotape of Osama bin Laden, December 13, 2001, http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/200 ... 30-01.html, [Accessed June 5, 2006]

[3] BBC News, Bin Laden video angers New Yorkers, December 14, 2001, Peter Gould, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1711874.stm, [Accessed June 5, 2006]

[4] CNN, Bin Laden on tape: Attacks ‘benefited Islam greatly”, December 14, 2001, http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/12/13/r ... .videotape, [Accessed June 5, 2006]



If you enjoyed this article, please consider donating $1 or more to the MUCKRAKER REPORT.
Your donations keep the Muckraker Report subscription free!
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://benfrank.net/blog/

June 9, 2006
Enough about Ann Coulter: Answer the Jersey Girls questions about 9/11!
Filed under: headline news — Lula @ 7:27 am
Is anyone else outraged at all the attention that Ann Coulter is getting for attacking the Jersey Girls? How is it possible that everyone is talking about what Ann Coulter wrote, and no one is talking about what the Jersey Girls have to say? John Kerry wrote for Huffington post about how horrible it is that Ann is attacking them with the provocative headline “Shameless, but the Real Shame Is If We Don’t Act” No folks, he is not talking about acting on the very important issue of demanding answers to what the hell happened on to our air defenses on 9/11…he wants us to act by calling the media and telling them we don’t like Ann Coulter.

Instead of jumping in to defend them from this insignificant hateful warmonger, I bet the Jersey Girls would rather have people pay attention to what actually happened on 9/11 and
start answering their questions!

1. Was NORAD aware of the four hijacked planes veering off course even before being reported by the FAA? If not, please explain why NORAD, which monitors 7000 flights a day, was unable to track the four aberrant flights.

2. At precisely what time was NORAD notified of each plane being hijacked? What was their response?

3. Who determined from which bases the F-16s should be scrambled? Why were fighter jets scrambled from such distant bases such as Langley Base in Va. instead of Andrews Air Force Base, a mere 10 miles from the Pentagon? Who were the pilots of these F-16s?

4. Why weren’t the jets able to intercept the hijacked planes if they were airborne within eight minutes of notification? What was their airspeed?

5. It is reported that there were two F-15s off the coast of Long Island while Flights 11 and 175 were in the air. If there were indeed fighters off Long Island, why weren’t they diverted to investigate Flights 11 and 175? Were any other military planes flying routine missions on the morning of September 11th which could have responded?

6. Why did NORAD wait until after the second plane hit the WTC to try and prevent possible further attacks? Why weren’t the fighter jets that tailed flights 11 and 175 as they crashed into New York’s WTC, immediately rerouted to intercept flights 77 or 93, before they crashed into the Pentagon and Pennsylvania?

7. Why wasn’t the Pentagon defended?

8. Were surveillance satellites orbiting North American airspace on 9/11?

• What exactly does the satellite imaging reveal?
• What companies own these satellites?
• Where are the records and logs for these orbits?

9. Why were these four planes able to evade all radar? Even when the transponders are disconnected, a plane is still able to be located by its “skin” on radar screens.

10. In June 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld modified NMCC response procedure in the event of a hijacking. Could this procedural change have slowed NORAD’s response time?

11. Who was directing the defense of our country that morning?

12. What defensive actions were ordered to protect our nation during the crisis?

There are many more questions and I think if we are going to defend the Jersey Girls we should start by demanding John Kerry and others look at the facts and start answering some questions about why they are ignoring the blatantly obvious and letting the Bush Administration get away with murder.

911: Official Explanations + Basic Logic Expose the Big Lie
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=54004

AIPAC wont be satisfied until they have a fully conscripted American Army at their 'figer tips'..
Give generously to the new fundraising campaign to make sure American Boys are ready to die for Israel again, and again, and again.
TATA




Pro-Israel group pushes tough U.S. policy on Iran
Wed Jun 7, 2006 4:15 AM IST



By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As the Bush administration pursues sensitive diplomacy, the influential U.S. pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC has sent out a fundraising letter seeking support for a tough U.S. line against Iran's nuclear program.

In a letter to supporters this week, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee requested contributions to build support for a proposed law tightening U.S. sanctions on Iran.

Meanwhile, President George W. Bush is backing a new diplomatic initiative offering incentives to Iran, including the prospect of direct talks and economic benefits, as an inducement to end its nuclear program.

The package, agreed by Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany as well as the United States, also outlines penalties if Iran rejects the deal.

It was formally presented to Iranian officials in Tehran on Tuesday. Many American and European officials are doubtful that Tehran will accept any deal but see the overture as diplomacy's best chance.

AIPAC, with about 100,000 members, has for years considered Iran and its nuclear program the most serious threat to U.S. ally Israel and sought to ensure a tough American policy.

"Iran's apocalyptic president (Mahmoud Ahmadinejad) has openly and repeatedly called for Israel's destruction. But long before he began making headlines ... AIPAC was working behind-the-scenes to educate leaders throughout the U.S. government about the growing Iranian threat," the fundraising letter states.

"While many organizations now realize the threat that Iran poses, AIPAC is the only organization uniquely positioned to work with (the U.S.) Congress and the administration to take meaningful action against this terrorist regime," it said.

The letter added, "we need your help to stop Iran" and to pass the Iran Freedom Support Act.

The act, which was overwhelmingly approved by the U.S. House of Representatives and has considerable support in the Senate, would tighten sanctions on Iran, urge disinvestment from companies investing in its oil sector and support assistance for democratic forces inside Iran.

An AIPAC official said the letter's timing was not connected to the major powers' offer and its message essentially mirrored long-standing AIPAC policy.

AIPAC has not formally endorsed the U.S. decision to back the major powers' offer to Iran.

AIPAC spokesman Josh Block said: "If Iran fulfills the demands of the international community ... by immediately stopping all of its work on the nuclear fuel cycle and allowing inspectors unfettered access, that would be a positive development."

But he added: "We must remain cautious and aware of Iran's two decade history of deception and delay, and not allow the offer of dialogue to devolve into a time-wasting exercise."

The United States and its partners believe Iran is trying to produce nuclear weapons but Tehran insists its activities are only aimed at generating civilian energy.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=9110

War Criminal Nation

by Paul Craig Roberts
Faced with mounting civilian carnage, both from war crimes committed by demoralized and broken U.S. troops and from the raging civil war unleashed by Bush's ill-fated, illegal invasion of Iraq, the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee has decided to waste another $50 billion to continue the lost war for five more months. Our elected "representatives" are so in thrall to the powerful military-industrial complex that no amount of American shame, pariah status, and military defeat can shut off the flow of taxpayers' funds to the merchants of death.

Bush's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing hard-pressed U.S. taxpayers $300,000,000 per day! These wars are lost. Yet, imbecilic members of Congress are in the process of funding the war for another year. Multiply $300 million by 365 days and you get $109,500,000,000. These are not the full costs. The huge figure does not include the destroyed equipment, destroyed lives, and long-term care of the maimed and disabled.

Gentle reader, are you getting enough vicarious pleasure from the slaughter of Iraqi women and children to justify this price tag? Is murdering "ragheads" that important to you? If so, you are one sick person, just like every member of the Bush administration.

U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan have killed far more civilians than they have resistance fighters. Bush administration spokespersons are crowing that they have killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in an air strike. But Zarqawi was an al-Qaeda leader, not a member of the Iraqi resistance. Zarqawi's death will have no affect on the outcome in Iraq.

Far more important is the news that civil war in Baghdad alone claimed 1,400 deaths last month. Perhaps even more important is the news that the Taliban's resurgence has forced the Bush administration to launch more than 750 air strikes in Afghanistan in May. That is 25 air strikes per day! It is a foregone conclusion that most of the casualties are women and children.

America is drowning in the shame of war crimes. One monstrous slaughter of civilians after another, each denied and covered up until brought to light by photos and eyewitnesses. The once proud U.S. Marines, unable to defeat the resistance that is picking them off one by one, is now a frustrated, demoralized force that is getting even by murdering 3-month old babies and old women.

The Council of Europe has issued its report on the Bush administration's policy of kidnapping "suspected terrorists" and spiriting them off to tyrannical regimes to be tortured. U.S. State Department spokesperson Sean McCormick, whose job it is to justify the criminal conduct of the Bush administration, said that he was "disappointed" in the report. Sean seemed genuinely puzzled that Europe's oldest political organization would second-guess the sound judgment of the virtuous Bush administration or protest U.S. violations of international law and human rights.

The only reason Americans can look themselves in the mirror is that they are clueless and have little idea of what is being done in their name. One-third of the U.S. population actually believes that Iraq was behind 9/11 and that Bush found the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Apparently, a large percentage of the U.S. population believes that Iran has nuclear weapons and that America is in danger of being attacked by Iran. No democracy can work when people take their responsibility as citizens so lightly as to be totally ignorant.

Formerly conservative, now proto-Nazi, publications such as National Review and the Wall Street Journal editorial page keep pounding the war drums, as does right-wing talk radio and neocon propaganda organs such as the Weekly Standard and Fox "News." The few facts that emerge in the interstices of the war propaganda are quickly spun away.

Slaughter of civilians? Just a few bad apples. We will fix that with seminars for the troops on military ethics and core values.

Troop withdrawals? As soon as the undefined mission is completed.

No weapons of mass destruction? Don't worry about it. We had to have some excuse to invade Iraq and to "build democracy" so that America would be safe.

World opinion? No opinion counts but ours.

Red ink? No sweat. We can borrow more from China. Our growing indebtedness is proof that our power makes us a preferred debtor.

Bush supporters dismiss anyone who tells them the truth as a traitor. Bush supporters are as dependent on propaganda as substance abusers are on drugs and alcohol. Try weaning Bush supporters from the obvious lies that are the basis of this administration, and they will call you every name in the book.

They are proud to be Americans. Lies and war crimes are an American right.

And you had better shut up or those Halliburton-built concentration camps will be your new home.
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
Friday, June 9th, 2006
Student Takes on McCain Over Iraq War Support at New School Graduation

Listen to Segment || Download Show mp3
Watch 128k stream Watch 256k stream Read Transcript
Help Printer-friendly version Email to a friend Purchase Video/CD

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We play what may have been the most controversial speech at a college campus this spring when 21-year-old student Jean Sara Rohe blasted Sen. John McCain (R - AZ) - who delivered the keynote address at the ceremony - over his support for the Iraq war. [includes rush transcript]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We turn now to what may have been the most controversial speech at a college campus this spring.
It occurred at the New School graduation ceremony in New York where Republican Senator John McCain gave the keynote address. McCain was invited to speak by New School President Bob Kerrey, the former Senator and longtime friend of McCain.

Nearly 1,000 people signed a petition urging Kerrey to rescind McCain's invitation. The protests continued even at the graduation ceremony when one of the student speakers directly confronted McCain over his support for war. The student was Jean Sara Rohe, a 21-year-old graduate from New Jersey.


Jean Sara Rohe,speaking at the New School graduation ceremony.

Soon after Senator John McCain's chief of staff, Mark Salter, wrote a comment on the website HuffingtonPost.com attacking the student.
Salter wrote, "The only person you have succeeded in making look like an idiot is yourself." He went on to tell the student protesters: "You might look back on the day of your graduation and your discourtesy to a good and honest man with a little shame and the certain knowledge that it very unlikely any of you will ever posses the one small fraction of the character of John McCain."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...

AMY GOODMAN: She began her commencement address by singing a song.

JEAN SARA ROHE: [singing] If all the world were peaceful now / And forever more / Peaceful at the surface / And peaceful at the core / All the joy within my heart / Would be so free to soar / And we're living on a living planet / Circling the living star / I don't know where we're going / but I know we're going far / We can change the universe / By being who we are / And we're living on a living planet / Circling a living star.

Welcome, everyone, on this beautiful afternoon. I only have five minutes, so I'd appreciate it if you'd -- thanks. Welcome everyone, on this beautiful afternoon to the commencement ceremony for the New School class of 2006. That was an excerpt of the song I learned as a child called "Living Planet," by Jay Manquita. I chose to begin my address this way because, as always, but especially now, we are living in a time of violence, of war, of injustice. I am thinking of our brothers and sisters in Iraq, in Darfur, in Sri Lanka, in Mogadishu, in Israel, Palestine, right here in the United States, and many, many other places around the world. And my deepest wish on this day, on all days, is for peace, justice, and true freedom for all people.

The song says, "We can change the universe by being who we are," and I believe that it really is just that simple. Right now, I'm going to be who I am and digress from my previously prepared remarks that I had been working on for the past several weeks. I am disappointed that I have to abandon the things I had wanted to speak about, but I feel that it is absolutely necessary to acknowledge the fact that this ceremony has become something other than the celebratory gathering that it was intended to be due to all the media attention surrounding John McCain's presence here today and the student and faculty outrage generated by his invitation to speak.

The senator does not reflect the ideals upon which this university was founded. Not only this -- please, not only this, but his invitation was a top-down decision that did not take into account the desires and interests of the student body on an occasion that is supposed to honor us above all and to commemorate our achievements. What is interesting and bizarre about this whole situation is that Senator McCain has stated that he will be giving the same speech at all three universities where he has been invited to speak recently, of which ours is the last, those being Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, Columbia University, and finally, here at the New School. For this reason, I have unusual foresight concerning the themes of his address today.

Based on the speech he gave at the other institutions, Senator McCain will tell us today that dissent and disagreement are our civic and moral obligation in times of crisis, and I agree. I consider this a time of crisis, and I feel obligated to speak. Senator McCain will also tell us about his strong-headed self-assuredness in his youth which prevented him from hearing the ideas of others, and in so doing, he will imply that those of us who are young are too naive to have valid opinions and open ears. I am young, and although I don't profess to possess the wisdom that time affords us, I do know that preemptive war is dangerous and wrong, that George Bush's agenda in Iraq is not worth the many lives lost. And I know that despite all the havoc that my country has wrought overseas in my name, Osama bin Laden still has not been found, nor have those weapons of mass destruction.

Finally, Senator McCain will tell us that we, those of us who are Americans, have nothing to fear from each other. I agree strongly with this, but I take it one step further. We have nothing to fear from anyone on this living planet. Fear is the greatest impediment to the achievement of peace. We have nothing to fear from people who are different from us, from people who live in other countries, even from the people who run our government, and this we should have learned from our educations here. We can speak truth to power. We can allow our humanity always to come before our nationality. We can refuse to let fear invade our lives and to goad us on to destroy the lives of others.

These words I speak do not reflect the arrogance of a young, strong-headed woman, but belong to a line of great progressive thought, a history in which the founders of this institution play an important part. I speak today, even through my nervousness, out of a need to honor those voices that came before me, and I hope that we graduates can all strive to do the same. Thank you very much.

AMY GOODMAN: New School student, Jean Sara Rohe speaking at the university graduation ceremony just a few weeks ago.

To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877.


http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl? ... 09/1427215
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/m ... te=6/10/06

Information to set the 9/11 movement on fire.

DON'T MISS THIS ONE !

Friday, 9 June 2006

Richard Andrew Grove, a whistleblower who worked for the big boys and money people behind 9/11 has come out with information to set the 9/11 movement on fire.

[link]

or here:

[link]

for slower connections a transcript in pdf format can be found
here:

[link]
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
$21 Bilion Missing - Who's
Following The Iraq Money?
By Dave Lindorff
6-10-6


During the days of the Nixon Watergate scandal investigation, reporter Bob Woodword was famously advised by his mysterious source, Deep Throat, to "follow the money" as a way of cracking the story.

Well, there is a lot of money to follow in the current scandal that can be best described as the Bush/Cheney administration, and so far, nobody's doing it.

My bet for the place that needs the most following is the more than $9 billion that has gone missing without a trace in Iraq--as well as $12 billion in cash that the Pentagon flew into Iraq straight from Federal Reserve vaults via military transports, and for which there has been little or no accounting.

When word of the missing money first surfaced in 2004, Congress passed legislation creating an office of Special Inspector General, assuming that this new agency would root out the problem and figure why all that taxpayer money had disappeared, and why only minimal reconstruction was going on in destroyed Iraq, instead of a massive rebuilding program as intended.

The new inspector general, an affable attorney named Stuart Bowen, went to work and came up with a report in early 2006 that sounded scathing enough. Bowen found cases of double billing by contractors, of payments for work that was never done, and other scandals. But he never came up with more than $1 billion or so worth of problems.

Now we know why.

It turns out that Bowen was never really looking very hard.

When the Boston Globe, this past April, broke the story that President Bush has been quietly setting aside over 750 acts passed by Congress, claiming he has the authority as "unitary executive" and as commander in chief to ignore such laws, it turned out that one of the laws the president chose to ignore was the one establishing the special inspector general post for Iraq. What the president did was write a so-called "signing statement" on the side (unpublicized of course), saying that the new inspector general would have no authority to investigate any contracts or corruption issues involving the Pentagon.

Well, since most of the missing money has been going to the military in Iraq, that pretty much meant nothing of consequence would be discovered by the inspector general.

You might think that the inspector general himself would have complained about such a restriction on his authority to do the job that Congress had intended, but Bush took care of that. In his role as Chief Executive, he appointed Bowen to the post, a man who has a long history of working as a loyal manservant to the president. Bowen was a deputy general counsel for Governor Bush (meaning he was an assistant to the ever solicitous solicitor Alberto Gonzales). He did yeoman service to Bush as a member of the term that handled the famous vote count atrocity in Florida in the November 2000 election, and then worked under Gonzales again in the White House during Bush's first term, before returning briefly to private practice.

Bowen simply never mentioned to anyone that, courtesy of a secretive and unconstitutional order from the president, he was not doing the job that Congress had intended.

The deception was far-reaching. When Thomas Gimble, the acting inspector general of the Pentagon, was asked in 2005 during a congressional hearing by Christopher Shays (R-CT), chair of the House government reform subcommittee, why the Pentagon had no audit team in Iraq to look for fraud, Gimble facilely replied that such a team was "not needed" because Congress had set up the special inspector general unit to do that. He didn't mention that the president had barred the special inspector general from investigating Pentagon scandals.

This would all be pretty funny except for two things.

First of all, Americans and Iraqis are dying in droves because of the chaos that the U.S. invasion and occupation have created in Iraq-a problem that that $9 billion in missing Congressionally-allocated funds, and the bales of US dollars, were supposed to have solved.

Second, and I admit this is pretty speculative on my part, money being like water, it tends to flow to the lowest level, which, from a moral and ethical standpoint, would be the Bush/Cheney administration and the Republican Party machine that put them, and the do-nothing Congress that covers up for them, into office.

My guess is that a fair piece of those many billions of dollars is sloshing around back in the U.S. paying for things like Republican Party electoral dirty tricks, vote theft, bribing of Democratic members of Congress, and god knows what else.

If this seems far-fetched to anyone, remember that this administration has included a number of people who were linked to the Reagan-era Iran-Contra scandal, when the creative-and criminal-idea was conceived of secretly selling Pentagon stocks of shoulder-fired Stinger anti-aircraft missiles to Iran, and using the proceeds to secretly fund the U.S.-trained and organized Contra fighters who were fighting to topple the Sandinista government in Nicaragua (Congress had inconveniently banned any U.S. aid to the Contras).

It seems to me inconceivable that this corrupt and obsessively power-mad administration would have passed up an opportunity to get its hands on some of the easy money flowing into Iraq over the course of the last three years.

Given all this, it seems almost unfathomable that Democratic Party leaders would be insisting, as have Rep. Nancy Pelosi (R-CA) and Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), Democratic leaders of the House and Senate, that there would be no impeachment hearings in Congress if Democrats were to succeed in winning back Congress this November.

What better way to follow that money than an impeachment hearing into why the president unconstitutionally subverted the intent of Congress in establishing an office of special inspector general for corruption in Iraq?

Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. His new book of CounterPunch columns titled "This Can't be Happening!" is published by Common Courage Press. Lindorff's new book is "The Case for Impeachment", co-authored by Barbara Olshansky.

He can be reached at: http://www.counterpunch.org/lindorff06072006.html
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=9+11&page=1&so=0

911 Loose Change 2nd Edition with extra footage
Phil Jayhan and Korey Rowe
1 hr 21 min 50 sec

"This is the best damn 9-11 documentary out there." -Dave vo.. Loose Change 9-11 Alex Jones Conspiracy
LetsRoll911.com
1 hr 0 min 55 sec

A one hour analysis of 9/11 and how it is more likely than n.. Loose Change 2nd Edition
Korey Rowe / Dylan Avery / Jason Bermas
1 hr 21 min 50 sec

Loose Change 2nd Edition
Korey Rowe / Dylan Avery / Jason B.. THE TRUTH & LIES OF 9/11
.
2 hr 17 min 37 sec
This pioneering, groundbreaking expose of 9-11, now two year.. 9/11 Revisited
Dustin Mugford
56 min 3 sec

9/11 Revisited - Were explosives used?
Visit http://www.911revis.. Martial Law 9/11: Rise of the Police State (Alex Jones)
AEJ Productions
2 hr 35 min 43 sec

Martial Law: 9/11 Rise of the Police State was filmed primar.. Compilation exposing 9/11 Truth
Lone Lantern Society
59 min 3 sec

Alex Jones, Eric Hufschmid, et al Aktenzeichen 9/11 (FILE REFERENCE 9/11)
Dennis Kirstein
43 min 39 sec
Aktenzeichen 9/11 (FILE REFERENCE 9/11)

11 September 2001.. SEPTEMBER 11: Evidence to the Contrary REDUX 2006
Lone Lantern
1 hr 26 min 24 sec
SEPTEMBER 11: Evidence to the Contrary REDUX 2006

It is a.. 9/11 - 2/1/2006 BYU Professor Steven E Jones WTC Lecture UVSC
st911.org
2 hr 13 min 40 sec

BYU Physics professor and founder of SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH.. 911 Eyewitness
Blue Star Media Group
1 hr 44 min 40 sec

Learn the truth about what happened at the World Trade Cente.. 9/11: The Road to Tyranny Special Emergency Release (Alex Jones)
AEJ Productions
2 hr 5 min 9 sec

From the Bush family business ties to the bin Ladens, to ins.. Stupid 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
thatsjuststupid.com
9 min 14 sec
Penn & Teller call BULLSHIT! on factually unsound 9/11 consp.. Shot from street level of South Tower collapsing
CameraPlanet
2 min 49 sec

This is a clip from the CameraPlanet 9/11 Archive. For infor.. 9/11: The Road to Tyranny Extras (Alex Jones)
AEJ Productions
24 min 49 sec

This is a weekly report from The Alex Jones Report, a local .. Martial Law: 9/11 Rise of the Police State (1)
INFOWARS.COM
43 min 55 sec

Evil has spread across the land. Martial Law: 9/11 Rise of t.. The Great Conspiracy
Barrie Zwicker
1 hr 10 min 22 sec

The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw Secret of 9/11
pinkert0n
19 min 45 sec
bush is a monster.
Reply
Jimmy Walter, Rodriguez, Piper
Meet With Mahathir Mohamad
Group Seeks Dr Mahathir's Assistance To Reopen 9-11 Investigation
From Bernama
The Malaysian National News Service
6-12-6


PUTRAJAYA (Bernama) -- A group of concerned Americans and their sympathisers has sought the support of former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad in their effort to push for an international investigation into the Sept 11 2001 (9-11) tragedy.

Representatives of the group, including a survivor of the attacks on the World Trade Centre (WTC) in New York, met Dr Mahathir here Monday with a claim that the official version of what transpired on that day was far from the truth.

"We want him (Dr Mahathir who is chairman of Perdana Global Peace Organisation) to help us set up an international commission to reopen the investigation," said Jimmy Walter who has brought together individuals under the Reopen 911 organisation dedicated to opening a real investigation into the tragic attacks.

Joining him today were American Free Press journalist Michael Collins Piper, Yvonne Ridley who is the political editor of Islam Channel United Kingdom and William Rodriguez -- the last man to run out of the WTC before it collapsed.

They claimed to have evidence that the towers came down in a controlled demolition, and that a much bigger agenda lurked behind the war on terror, unleashed soon after with the attack on Afghanistan and Iraq by United States-led forces.

Convinced that that was what really happened, the Reopen 911 organisation is offering US$1 million to anyone who can prove that explosives were not used in the catastrophe that killed thousands.

Recounting his ordeal, Rodriguez, a janitor of Puerto Rico descent, said he heard a huge explosion occurring in the basement of the North Tower seconds before an aircraft struck the building.

He single-handedly rescued 15 persons from the WTC, and as Rodriguez was the only person at the site with the master key to the North Tower stairwells, he led firefighters up the stairwell, unlocking doors as they ascended, thereby aiding in the successful evacuation of unknown hundreds of those who survived.

"We have access to evidence and information... that we realise that the whole thing was a scheme. The government knew it was going to happen, they needed to shock the world so they can create an agenda and have an excuse to attack Iraq, Afghanistan and others," said the man who was recognised as a national hero.

Rodriguez said the so-called international war on terror meant that there would be a never-ending war that would benefit entities like weapon manufacturers.

Journalist Piper said that everything in the US revolved around 9-11 with the survivors held up as heroes and Americans told that it was important to honour them as well as those who died.

"But here is the problem -- although they put his (Rodriguez's) face on magazines, they will not tell you what he really has to say. What he told you today has never been reported by major US newspapers or newsmagazines," he said.

Piper said the fact was that in the US today there were "Jewish and Christian extremists" who used their combination of money and influence in Washington, taking command of the levers of power.

"And we are saying we do not appreciate this, they do not represent us, nor do they represent most Americans of all races," he said.

Piper said it was important for Malaysia and Muslims all over the world to realise that the agenda of the detractors of Islam was much bigger than events in West Asia.

"Islam is considered to be a major pillar of opposition to the establishment of a worldwide empire. The image they convey is that (former Iraqi leader) Saddam Hussein is an evil man, so we have to eliminate him.

"Now they say we have to go after the Iranians because they are building nuclear weapons, ignoring of course the fact that it was Israel who started the arms race in West Asia," he said.

The team is also heading for countries like Chile, Venezuela, Japan, South Africa and the UK to canvass support for the reopening of 911 investigations.


http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v3/news.php?id=202973



http://www.reopen911.org/wrodriguez.php ... ide_parade

William Rodriguez was the last man to run out of the World Trade Center. On 9/11, Rodriguez single-handedly rescued fifteen (15) persons from the WTC, and as Rodriguez was the only person at the site with the master key to the North Tower stairwells, he bravely led firefighters up the stairwell, unlocking doors as they ascended, thereby aiding in the successful evacuation of unknown hundreds of those who survived.

Now Mr. Rodriguez is the official representative and spokesman for the ReOpen 911 organisation.
Reply
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00739.html


The Democrats, Keeping a Civil Tongue

By Al Kamen
Monday, June 12, 2006; A19



House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is promising that things are going to change big time if the Democrats capture control of the House in November.

Former majority leader Tom DeLay 's resignation, she wrote last week in a piece in The Hill newspaper, "brings to an end what the press has referred to as a 'criminal enterprise' run out of the former majority leader's office."

"Yet the widespread Republican culture of corruption goes deeper than one man," she continued, and DeLay's departure doesn't get rid of that "broader corruption," which is what Republicans are all about.

"The corruption extends to legislation written by lobbyists" that favors business at the expense of regular folks. So DeLay, Pelosi wrote, "may be leaving office, but he leaves behind the cost of corruption."

That's Republican corruption. Corrupt, criminal-enterprise Republicans. But "Democrats are proposing change," she added, "a new direction for all Americans." The House Democrats have a new set of principles for a Congress "that sets standards for civility and integrity."

Civility?

Mission Accomplished?

The doors may be closing shortly on the nine-year-old Project for a New American Century, the neoconservative think tank headed by William Kristol , former chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle and now editor of the Weekly Standard, which is must reading for neocon cogitators and agitators.

The PNAC was short on staff -- having perhaps a half-dozen employees -- but very long on heavy hitters. The founders included Richard B. Cheney , Donald H. Rumsfeld , Paul D. Wolfowitz , Jeb Bush , I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby , William J. Bennett, Zalmay Khalilzad and Quayle.

The goal was to continue the Reaganite, muscular approach to projecting American power and "moral clarity" in a post-Cold War world, the group's manifesto said. The targets were liberal drift and conservative isolationism.

PNAC and its supporters dominated the Bush administration's foreign policy apparatus and championed a policy to get rid of Saddam Hussein long before Sept. 11, 2001.

In its famous 1998 letter to President Bill Clinton , PNAC said "removing Saddam Hussein and his regime . . . now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy." Clinton was urged to use all diplomatic, political and military means to topple him.

Despite the happy chatter before the Iraq invasion about cheering crowds and bouquets and cakewalks and how the war was going to pay for itself, the signatories wrote that "we are fully aware of the dangers of implementing this policy."

There had been debate about PNAC's future, but the feeling, a source said, was of "goal accomplished" and it looks to be heading toward closing. Former executive director Gary J. Schmitt , who had been executive director of President Ronald Reagan 's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, left recently for a post at the American Enterprise Institute. (Not a big move. Actually, only five floors up from PNAC.) Still, seems like a short century.

Hello, I Must Be Going

Historic moments in the Senate . . . Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), last week seeking floor time at 2:50 p.m. to speak on Susan Schwab 's nomination to be U.S. trade representative: "Mr. President, I don't care whether they pay attention or not. I want to get out of this town, so let me give my speech."

Mr. Ambassador Puts on His Thinking Cap

The German magazine Der Spiegel published an interview last week with Zalmay Khalilzad , now U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

Question: "Mr. Ambassador, your boss, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice , has admitted that 'thousands of tactical errors' were made in Iraq. President Bush has said he regrets the Abu Ghraib torture scandal. What do you think has been America's biggest mistake?"

Khalilzad clearly didn't want to play. "In my job," he said, "I do my best to look forward. Historians will have some big questions to address: Was it a good idea to hand over control to the occupying forces after the war ended, instead of placing our bets on an Iraqi government from the very start -- the way we did in Afghanistan? Was it the right thing to do, disbanding the military and driving so many members of the Baath Party out of their positions? Did we wait too long to involve the Sunnis in the political process?"

Hard to choose.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company


<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />
Reply
NASA'S REMOTE CONTROLLED JET IMPACT DEMONSTRATION

Posted By: anarchtype <Send E-Mail>
Date: Monday, 19 June 2006, 8:43 p.m.

i don't often try to enlighten people as to the real nature of the events of 9/11 because it can make people uncomfortable. but i did so recently and when i tried to explain that the planes which hit the buildings were remotely operated drones i got the textbook response to the effect that they just can't do that. what's funny is that this footage was used a bunch of times in different entertainment media so most people have seen it before and should know that such things are indeed possible. perhaps they don't want to remember.

-------------

In 1984 NASA Dryden Flight Research Center and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) teamed-up in a unique flight experiment called the Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID), to test the impact of a Boeing 720 aircraft using standard fuel
with an additive designed to suppress fire. The additive FM-9, a high molecular-weight long chain polymer, when blended with
Jet-A fuel had demonstrated the capability to inhibit ignition and flame propagation of the released fuel in simulated impact tests.

On the morning of December 1, 1984, a remotely controlled Boeing 720 transport took off from Edwards Air Force Base
(Edwards, California), made a left-hand departure and climbed to an altitude of 2300 feet. It then began a descent-to-landing
to a specially prepared runway on the east side of Rogers Dry Lake. Final approach was along the roughly 3.8-degree
glide slope. The landing gear was left retracted. Passing the decision height of 150 feet above ground level (AGL), the aircraft
was slightly to the right of the desired path. Just above that decision point at which the pilot was to execute a "go-around," there appeared to be enough altitude to maneuver back to the centerline of the runway. Data acquisition systems had been activated, and the aircraft was committed to impact. It contacted the ground, left wing low. The fire and smoke took over an hour to extinguish.

This flight, called the Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID), was the culmination of more than a year of preparation in a joint research project by NASA and the FAA to test the effectiveness of anti-misting kerosene (AMK) in a so-called survivable impact. Added to typical Jet A fuel, the AMK was designed to suppress the fireball that can result from an impact in which the airstream causes spilled fuel to vaporize into a mist.

The plane was also instrumented for a variety of other impact-survivability experiments, including new seat designs, flight data recorders, galley and stowage-bin attachments, cabin fire-proof materials, and burn-resistant windows. Crash forces were measured, and a full complement of instrumented crash test dummies was carried on the flight.

The aircraft was remotely flown by NASA research pilot Fitzhugh (Fitz) Fulton from the NASA Dryden Remotely Controlled
Vehicle Facility. Previously, the Boeing 720 had been flown on 14 practice flights with safety pilots onboard. During the 14
flights, there were 16 hours and 22 minutes of remotely piloted vehicle control, including 10 remotely piloted takeoffs,
69 remotely piloted vehicle controlled approaches, and 13 remotely piloted vehicle landings on abort runway.

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/movie/CID/index.html

here are some videos of it on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FRnyqQHMT0&search=nasa

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxLyBimKfW0&search=nasa

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtnVqdklJhI&search=nasa
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/world ... 0&emc=eta1

PARIS, June 22 — Non-Muslim Westerners and Muslims around the world have widely different views of world events, and each group tends to view the other as violent, intolerant, and lacking in respect for women, a new international survey of more than 14,000 people in 13 nations indicates.

Skip to next paragraph
Times Topics
Russia and the Post-Soviet Nations
Wide-ranging coverage of Russia and the former Soviet republics, updated by The Times's Moscow bureau.
In what the survey, part of the Pew Global Attitudes Project for 2006, called one of its most striking findings, majorities in Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan and Turkey — Muslim countries with fairly strong ties to America — said, for example, that they did not believe that Arabs carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States. The findings, illustrating the chasm in beliefs, follow another year of violence and tension centered around that divide. In the past 12 months, there have been terrorist bombings in London, riots in France by unemployed youths, many of them Muslim, a global uproar over Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, and no letup to the war in Iraq.

This led majorities in the United States and in countries in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East to describe relations between Muslims and people in Western countries as generally bad, Pew found.

Over all, Muslims in the survey worldwide, including the large Islamic populations in Britain, France, Germany and Spain, broadly blamed the West, while Westerners tended to blame Muslims for the bad relations. Muslims in the Middle East and Asia depicted Westerners as immoral and selfish, while Westerners saw Muslims as fanatical.

The results were not uniform, however, and delivered some surprises: Support for terrorism declined in some Muslim countries surveyed, dropping dramatically in Jordan, where terrorist bombings killed more than 50 people in Amman in November.

Two-thirds of the French people surveyed expressed positive views of Muslims, and even larger majorities of French Muslims felt favorable toward Christians and Jews. Muslims in Europe surveyed were less inclined to see a "clash of civilizations" than general publics in Europe and Muslims elsewhere.

Pew found sharp divergences on respect toward women: Non-Muslims in the West view Muslims as lacking respect, the survey indicated, while Muslims outside Europe say the same of Westerners.

In the West, where many view as discriminatory Islamic customs like mandatory veils for women and prohibitions on women working outside the home or driving, big majorities saw Muslims as not respectful of women. In contrast, fewer than half of the Muslims asked in Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Nigeria, Pakistan and Turkey said they associate Westerners with respect toward women. European Muslims surveyed were more likely to view Westerners as respectful of women, though, in some places by wide margins. Pew, which interviewed Muslims in Europe as a group for the first time this year, said their views represented "a bridge" between the widely divergent views of other Europeans and Muslims in Asia and the Middle East.

The overall results, said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, show that "even though relations are not good, there hasn't been a spike in outright hostility between the two groups over the past year." While both sides see relations as bad, he said, "at least it's not getting worse."

Nonetheless, majorities in every country surveyed except Pakistan expressed pessimism about Muslim-Western relations, with Germany most strongly viewing the situation as bad (70 percent), followed by France (66 percent), Turkey (64 percent), Spain and Britain (61 percent), and Egypt (58 percent).

Pew surveyed 14,030 people from March 31 to May 14 in Britain, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Spain, Turkey and the United States. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus two to four percentage points in every country except Britain and Germany, where it is six points.

For analytical purposes, Muslims were oversampled in Britain, France, Germany and Spain, and the margin of sampling error for their responses is plus or minus five or six points.

Interviews were conducted face to face, except in the United States, Britain, France and Germany, where they were done by telephone. The poll was conducted nationwide except in India and Pakistan, where is mostly covered only urban areas. In follow-up interviews in countries surveyed about the results, Muslims attributed the poor relations with the West to a variety of causes. But many pointed to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians as the main cause and accused the West of double standards on terrorism.

"Whenever the Israelis strike the Palestinians, the international community and the U.N. turn a blind eye or keep quiet," said Saleh Bayeri, a politician and Muslim community leader in Jos, Nigeria. "But when the Palestinians launch a counterattack, it is condemned by America, the U.K. and other friends of Israel as a terror attack."

Pew asked respondents to give their opinions of Christians, Muslims and Jews, and it found anti-Jewish sentiment to be "overwhelming" in the Muslim countries surveyed. It reached 98 percent in Jordan and 97 percent in Egypt.

Majorities in the Muslim world, Pew said, also expressed the opinion that the victory of the militant group, Hamas, in Palestinian elections in January would "be helpful to a fair settlement between Israel and the Palestinians — a view that is roundly rejected by non-Muslim publics."

Disbelief was strong among Muslims that Arabs were behind the Sept. 11 attacks, with 65 percent in Indonesia and 59 percent in Turkey, for example, expressing that viewpoint. Even in Britain, 56 percent of the Muslims surveyed did not believe that Arabs carried out the attacks. The results, Mr. Kohut said, show that "many Muslims are still in denial" about something that even Osama bin Laden has acknowledged
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/fassanella1.html

I Am Angry
by Susan Fassanella
by Susan Fassanella



Dear Lew, the Honorable Ron Paul’s piece on why Americans are angry really stirred me to respond. Mr. Paul’s piece speaks about many issues facing Americans today.

I am a 51-year-old woman. I have been married to the same man since 1976. I am the secretary/office manager for a small legal firm in the D.C. suburbs. My husband manages a wine and spirits store. I have two sons, aged 26 and 22. After realizing it wasn’t possible to support themselves and the government at the same time, both returned to the nuclear nest. Along with most people in my economic situation, I believe I am living what is supposed to be the American dream. I know why I am an angry American. I am frightened because America isn’t the same country it was when I was my children’s age. Allow me to share with you some of the reasons why I am an angry American.

I am angry because my government has been taken over by liars, thieves, thugs, deviants, and micromanagers. The propaganda it produces rivals that of the most fascist dictatorship.

I am angry that my government perceives my intelligence to be that of a jar of pickles incapable of making the smallest decision.

I am angry that my government takes it upon itself to shove its clucking nose into my pantry, medicine chest, bedroom, family room, doctor’s office, workplace, and everywhere else it thinks I need guidance to keep me safe from myself.

I am angry that the will of the American people is ignored on every issue imaginable. If voting really mattered, it would have been outlawed long ago.

I am angry that I am called a conspiracy theorist because I dare to think on my own and question authority and its lies.

I am angry that the more I read about 9-11 the more it looks like an inside job that was allowed to happen, enabling the Patriot Act to be conveniently enacted into law with the ensuing "war on terrah" following closely on its heels.

I am angry that the evil puppets in power think laws are created for the peon masses and it is their right to ignore the ones that get in the way of their agenda.

I am angry that the media has sold its soul to the evil forces running the world.

I am angry that my "leaders" have taken to calling my country the "homeland." It reeks of socialism.

I am angry that my government has invaded yet another sovereign nation and caused untold death and destruction based on a flimsy lie. I am expected to believe that weapons of mass destruction threatened my freedom and then I am told several years and billions of squandered dollars later that a massive intelligence network got the wrong information. A select group of businesses profit enormously from war. When Bush announced his intention to save Iraq from itself and that its oil would pay for the overthrow of Hussein, I laughed so hard I nearly choked. I remember the instability in the Middle East during the 1970s and the gas "shortages" that followed. I knew which direction gas prices would go. How stupid does Mr. Bush and his cronies think I am?

I am angry that the world stands silently by while my government bombs foreign lands with weapons containing depleted uranium and the news magazines wonder on their front covers why lung cancer has increased six-fold in the last year.

I am angry that Americans accept as gospel the propaganda that is routinely cranked out of the Washington lie machine. The lies become more transparent and brazen with each passing year, yet the only thing that seems to matter in living rooms across America is who will be the next American Idol.

I am angry that I am punished with high energy and gas prices and the resulting inflation because tree-hugging terrorists masquerading as environmentalists have handcuffed my country’s ability to produce its own energy. It would be easy to tell the Middle East what to do with their oil if restrictions on exploration and production were lifted in our own backyard.

I am angry that I am constantly admonished by minimalists for being a greedy consumer because I live where I choose, drive the vehicle of my choice, eat meat, and use tin foil to cover my leftovers.

I am angry that my life doesn’t belong to me anymore.

I am angry that I am required to obtain permission, fill out mandated paperwork in quadruplicate, and obtain the correct license or permit for just about everything imaginable. The tentacles of government are strangling my freedom, choice, and privacy at an alarming rate. The wrath of the machine is a constant threat should I dare do anything without leaving a neon paper trail and of course ignorance of the law is never an excuse.

I am angry that property rights are a thing of the past thanks to court-approved eminent domain theft.

I am angry that the Constitution is routinely declared irrelevant making it easier for a fascist police state and new world order to take over.

I am angry that legislation is in the works that will require me to carry "papers" to "prove" who I am. Another coming law I will ignore.

I am angry that my right to own and carry a firearm is drastically regulated and restricted.

I am angry every time I see a young person detained on the side of the road while cops paw through their possessions looking for anything that could enable them to be arrested and dragged through the criminal justice system. This has become so commonplace it is now the accepted norm.

I am angry that roadblocks are set up under the guise of keeping roads free of drunk drivers. What has happened to my right to travel freely? Why am I presumed guilty without probable cause? I am afraid to have a few drinks when I go out to dinner for fear I will be pulled over and end up in court-ordered drug rehabilitation.

I am angry when I read stories of Americans terrorized in airports and treated like common criminals by government minions after they have paid for the right to travel within a private system, yet pilots are blocked from carrying firearms.

I am angry that America has become a nation of busybodies. We are constantly bombarded with messages to be on the lookout for terrorists around every corner, report "suspicious activity," and rat on our neighbor whenever the opportunity presents itself. Is this not how the Nazis gained control of Germany and then most of Europe?

I am angry that the government requires me to sign a form every time I purchase a prescription. Whose business is it that I choose to take a thyroid medication, an antibiotic, a painkiller, an appetite suppressant, or any other substance? Am I dying of cancer? Am I facing debilitating chronic pain? Do I simply want to get HIGH? Heaven forbid someone out there might get their hands on something that might make them FEEL GOOD! No substance should be illegal or unobtainable. If a person wishes to self-medicate, that is their right. The government should not be in the business of criminalizing personal choices of any kind as long as those choices don’t infringe on another’s rights.

I am angry that my government meddles in the lives of people all over the world but looks the other way on the catastrophic issue of what to do about the millions of illegals who have crashed the gates of this nation. My country’s laws are ignored and mocked, yet I am told I must accept with open arms those who are here illegally. My taxes are used to educate their children in their native language. Hospitals are overrun with indigent people seeking medical care. Untaxed dollars earned in the underground economy are sent to the family back home while social services here are stretched to the limit. I read job want ads stating if you aren’t bilingual don’t bother to apply. What would happen to me if I placed an ad that said don’t bother to apply if your English isn’t understandable? Marches are conducted in my cities’ streets waving their countries’ flags as they shamelessly demand their "rights." I am told they deserve the same opportunities that brought my forefathers here. I am scolded that it is un-American to ask why they are not sent home. I am told that the term "illegal alien" offends them and that they prefer to be called "undocumented workers" and that my economy would die without them. I will happily pay more for fruits and vegetables if it means enforcing sensible immigration laws. But immigration isn’t about the cost of lettuce. It is another facet of an agenda that is bent on changing the face of America. When America is no longer a wealthy country of white European descent, it will be a place worse than anything Orwell could have imagined.

I am angry that my country is the only nation on earth who declares that a baby born on its soil is automatically an American citizen.

I am angry that the thugs that run my country don’t have the guts to declare English my nation’s official language.

I am angry that I have to search a package for English and push a button on every telephone system and ATM machine to continue in English.

I am angry that Washington, D.C.’s Metro is now being pressured to replace every station sign with bilingual verbiage to the tune of millions of dollars. Are bilingual road signs going to be the next mandated law of the land? I am currently forced to pay for voting ballots printed in 15 different languages and my tax dollars pay for interpreter services for people who are summoned to court for breaking laws. If English is the international language of the world, why isn’t it good enough to be the official language of the United States?

I am angry when I am told I am a bigot when I thumb my nose at political correctness.

I am angry when I wonder whether an expressed belief or opinion could land me in litigation if someone doesn’t like what I said and wants to silence my voice.

I am angry that diversity and sensitivity training is being forced on people whose only crime is to dare to speak freely.

I am angry that the symbols, customs, and roots of my Judeo-Christian country are being systematically outlawed because my culture offends newcomers. When we freely choose to go somewhere, are we not accepting the customs and cultures of that place? I am weary of being made to feel guilty for being an American.

And finally, I am angry that after working my entire adult life, I don’t see retirement in my life’s picture. My husband and I earn over a hundred thousand dollars a year, but by the time we pay federal taxes, state taxes, social security taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, energy taxes, telecommunication taxes, savings taxes, fees, permits, etc., there isn’t much left. But please don’t think that I mind supporting every deadbeat and down-and-outer with his hand out for a piece of my pie that I worked so hard for. I love supporting the world. After all, it’s the American way, isn’t it?

July 5, 2006

Susan Fassanella [send her mail] was born in Washington, D.C. and resides in Frederick County, Maryland with her husband and two sons.

Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com





<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />
Reply
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ju ... attack.htm

Fox News Spin Attack Ends With Red-Faced Anchors
9/11 truth scholar Fetzer anticipated slant of Hannity and Colmes spot

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | July 11 2006

Fox News' tactic of mapping out a spin and attack policy for guests whose stance they disagree with was spotlighted and deflated recently by 9/11 truth scholar Jim Fetzer - who left Alan Colmes and Oliver North red-faced after he exposed them and Fox producers for not having done their homework.

Fetzer called the appearance, "perhaps the most interesting four and a half minutes of my life."

Fetzer described how in a pre-interview a Fox producer has insistently asked him if he taught alternative theories behind 9/11 as a college course. Fetzer was keen to stress that he taught a course on critical thinking but not a course specific to 9/11.

From this exchange Fetzer began to understand the spin that Fox were preparing to put on the interview.

Fetzer was then told that Sean Hannity had been replaced by Colonel Oliver North for the show.

"Because I'm a former Marine Corps officer I thought this was probably a good thing - that the Colonel and I would have a very cordial Marine to Marine conversation," said Fetzer.

"When I said this to my wife she said 'don't kid yourself, they're going to be out to kill you'."

Fetzer was picked up by a Fox limo and only arrived at the studio after the program had started. He insisted that a TV be turned on in the make-up room to gage how they were going to pitch his interview.

"Five minutes before I go on I catch their drift which is they're going to talk about a professor who is using his classroom to teach conspiracy theories about 9/11 to our children."

"During that five minutes it occurred to me that I was going to be able to explode this one way or another - that I would talk about how they had 'Foxed their facts'," Fetzer told a packed house at the L.A. 9/11 Symposium.



"What they were doing was saying I was teaching our children - I was offering a course on 9/11 - and the way they were defining it in terms of children and kids - this had to be a freshman level or equivalent course."

Fetzer was able to prepare to bite back at the attack dogs by exposing the fact that Fox had not done its homework and were simply preparing to savage Fetzer on an aspect of the topic that they had completely dreamt up.

"They were attacking me for a non-existent course, said Fetzer."

"There was no course that satisfied the description they were trying to nail me for having taught."

Fetzer was able to embarrass Colmes and North who cut the interview short because their attack strategy had clearly been ripped out from underneath them.

"The first question out of Colmes mouth was 'is this a required course?' - and I had to explain to him that he had his facts Foxed," said Fetzer.

"The fact is they had defined the parameters - I knew they knew they had made a mistake but I wasn't there to argue their case."

North and Colmes quickly changed their tone after they realized the 'evil professor teaching our children horrible liberal lies' approach had failed.

"When they tried to put me on the spot after they realized they had committed a mistake - when they tried to put me on the spot about the society - I began to explain some of the findings - how the towers had come down by controlled demolition - how the FBI was asserting that they had no hard evidence tying Osama bin Laden to 9/11," said Fetzer.



After Colmes asked if there was any hard evidence tying any Bush administration members to 9/11, Fetzer related the story of Norman Mineta who testified that Cheney's orders were to do nothing as Flight 77 hurtled towards the Pentagon.

"This was when Ollie started getting a little nervous and he asks how many there are in your organization - when he heard there were 300 and 200 with research credentials - 85 actually having academic affiliations - it took so much wind out of their sails that they tried to cut it off as quickly as they could," said Fetzer.

Fetzer said it was interesting how the anchors were more concerned about whether he was teaching the information to his students than inquiring about the evidence behind 9/11 being an inside job.

The interview was quickly canned and - as with the much vaunted Pentagon tape that was heralded to 'shut up 9/11 conspiracy theorists for good' - an expected propaganda coup for Fox turned into a red-faced debacle and a moral victory for the 9/11 truth movement.

Watch Jim Fetzer discuss his Fox appearance and present a high-quality 78 minute illustrated discussion on the collapse of the twin towers and the Pentagon controversy at Prison Planet.tv. Click here to subscribe and enjoy a multitude of exclusive membership benefits.

COMMENT ON THIS ARTICLE


<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />
Reply
http://wizbangblog.com/2006/07/11/novak ... -plame.php

July 11, 2006
Novak finally spills his guts on Plame
Robert Novak has finally revealed what he knew about Valerie Plame before he wrote his infamous column, when he knew it, and (mostly) who told it to him. And if Novak is to be given credibility, here's how it unfolded.

Novak was interviewing an unnamed high-level source (let's call him "Skippy") about various matters. During the course of the investigation, Skippy casually let slip that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson's trip to Africa to investigate the possibility that Iraq was attempting to obtain material for weapons of mass destruction was pushed forward by Wilson's wife, who worked at the CIA.

Later, Novak realized the significance of Skippy's slip when it started being passed around that Wilson's public accounts of his investigation -- that it turned up nothing -- were at odds with reports of his classified report. The notion that Wilson and his wife might have had their own agenda for his trip started looking more and more likely.


Novak called Karl Rove to confirm that it was Wilson's wife who had pushed for Wilson to get the job, and not Vice President Cheney's office, as Wilson was saying. Rove confirmed it.


At this point, Novak consulted Joseph Wilson's entry in Who's Who to determine the wife's name -- up until now not stated by anyone -- and published his infamous column.


Novak then calls the CIA to confirm that Valerie Plame works for them, and the CIA's spokesman confirms it.


Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has the names of the CIA spokesman, Karl Rove, and Skippy, but declined to pursue any charges against any of them.


To date, the only person charged with anything in this matter is Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, "Scooter" Libby (who may or may not also be "Skippy" -- nobody is saying who Skippy really is), for perjury. Libby, in essence, is accused about lying about telling the truth about a liar, namely Joseph Wilson.


Joseph Wilson will not get to see Karl Rove, Skippy, or anyone else "frog-marched out of the White House."

To sum up:

The Wilsons arranged for Joseph Wilson to take the trip to Africa on behalf of the CIA for their own reasons. Whether this was to jump-start his career or make a political attack against the Bush administration is unknown.

Wilson himself began politicizing his trip when he started lying about two things: who chose him to go, and what he found.


The exposing of Plame's employment at the CIA was a direct consequence of her and her husband's actions, intended to prove the lies Wilson was telling about who sent him and what he found.


Although he has not publicly stated so, the actions of Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald indicate that he does not believe that the publicity that Plame worked for the CIA violated any laws.


Scooter Libby is once again proof of the old adage that "it isn't the crime, but the coverup." If Libby had simply told the truth about telling the truth about Joe Wilson's lies, he most likely wouldn't be under indictment.


Now, I'm no expert on all the minutiae of the Plame case. But I think this sums it up fairly well.


<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/hmm2.gif" alt="Hmm2" title="hmm2" />
Reply
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_woman.html
Reply
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Piper06.html
Never invite a Yoda to a frog leg dinner.
Go ahead invite Yoda to a Frog leg dinner
Reply
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/ju ... willis.htm

Michelle Malkin's Neo-Con Blog Fears Bruce Willis Now 9/11 Truther
Laments "truly, truly distressing news"

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | July 12 2006

Following our exclusive yesterday about A Scanner Darkly director Richard Linklater's efforts to spread 9/11 truth within the film making community, including formerly 'die-hard' Neo-Con Bruce Willis, a Bushist blog has voiced its fears that Willis has left the fold of the government apologist crowd.

Hot Air is a popular video blog, founded by Neo-Con poster child Michelle Malkin, created to challenge the supposed liberal domination of the Internet streaming video market.

Calling Willis' apparent re-think on his political stance, "Like Schwarzenegger converting to Islam," Hot Air quotes from our story.

Linklater said he had handed out DVD’s on set which carried claims that 9/11 was perpetrated by the US government to erect a police state to Bruce Willis, one of the stars of Linklater’s upcoming Fast Food Nation.

“He said it put him in such a head space that he will be quiet on issues of national policy.”

Linklater said Willis had told him in an e mail that the videos had changed his entire political paradigm.

Complaining that Willis is now, "believing the plots of his own movies," Hot Air calls the development, "truly, truly distressing."

Noting that Willis is producing a "pro-war film in which American soldiers will be depicted as brave fighters for freedom and democracy," according to the Times, Hot Air laments that Willis"could have his brain turn(ed) so easily to oatmeal."

The Blog says that it contacted Michael Yon, on whose book Willis' film is based, to gage exactly what Willis' opinion of the Alex Jones DVD's he received from Linklater is.
Reply
Michele Malkin is but another paid gop bow tied talking monkey.

an insignificant piece of fecal matter dangling from a hair on a rat's rectum.
On a satellite I ride. Nothing down below can hide.
Reply
Posted By: hmm <Send E-Mail>
Date: Thursday, 13 July 2006, 5:03 p.m.

Valerie Plame and Joseph Wilson filed a law suit in the United States District Court For The Divison Of Columbia on July 13, 2006, alleging that V.P. Dick Chenny,Presidental Advisor Karl Rove, and Cheney's former top aide,"Scooter" Libby (currently under indictment for lying to a federal Grand Jury examining the circumstances of the Plame leak), conspired with other Bush Administration officals to destroy her career in retalation for Joseph Wilson's criticism of the White House's rationale for invading Iraq.

The Prayer For Relief seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for First and Fifth Amendment Violations,Civil Rights Conspiracy,Failure To Prevent Civil Rights Violations,Public Disclosure of Private Facts and Civil Conspiracy.
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/71306plame2.html
Reply
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/

FAKE TERROR -
THE ROAD TO WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
It's the oldest trick in the book, dating back to Roman times; creating the enemies you need.

In 70 BC, an ambitious minor politician and extremely wealthy man, Marcus Licinius Crassus, wanted to rule Rome. Just to give you an idea of what sort of man Crassus really was, he is credited with invention of the fire brigade. But in Crassus' version, his fire-fighting slaves would race to the scene of a burning building whereupon Crassus would offer to buy it on the spot for a tiny fraction of it's worth. If the owner sold, Crassus' slaves would put out the fire. If the owner refused to sell, Crassus allowed the building to burn to the ground. By means of this device, Crassus eventually came to be the largest single private land holder in Rome, and used some of his wealth to help back Julius Caesar against Cicero.

In 70 BC Rome was still a Republic, which placed very strict limits on what Rulers could do, and more importantly NOT do. But Crassus had no intentions of enduring such limits to his personal power, and contrived a plan.
Crassus seized upon the slave revolt led by Spartacus in order to strike terror into the hearts of Rome, whose garrison Spartacus had already defeated in battle. But Spartacus had no intention of marching on Rome itself, a move he knew to be suicidal. Spartacus and his band wanted nothing to do with the Roman empire and had planned from the start merely to loot enough money from their former owners in the Italian countryside to hire a mercenary fleet in which to sail to freedom.


Sailing away was the last thing Crassus wanted Spartacus to do. He needed a convenient enemy with which to terrorize Rome itself for his personal political gain. So Crassus bribed the mercenary fleet to sail without Spartacus, then positioned two Roman legions in such a way that Spartacus had no choice but to march on Rome.
Terrified of the impending arrival of the much-feared army of gladiators, Rome declared Crassus Praetor. Crassus then crushed Spartacus' army and even though Pompey took the credit, Crassus was elected Consul of Rome the following year.


With this maneuver, the Romans surrendered their Republican form of government. Soon would follow the first Triumvirate, consisting of Crassus, Pompeii, and Julius Caesar, followed by the reign of the god-like Emperors of Rome.
The Romans were hoaxed into surrendering their Republic, and accepting the rule of Emperors.


Julius Caesar's political opponent, Cicero, for all his literary accomplishments, played the same games in his campaign against Julius Caesar, claiming that Rome was falling victim to an internal "vast right wing" conspiracy in which any expressed desire for legislative limits on government was treated as suspicious behavior. Cicero, in order to demonstrate to the Romans just how unsafe Rome has become hired thugs to cause as much disturbance as possible, and campaigned on a promise to end the internal strife if elected and granted extraordinary powers.

What Cicero only dreamed of, Adolph Hitler succeeded in doing. Elected Chancellor of Germany, Hitler, like Crassus, had no intention of living with the strict limits to his power imposed by German law. Unlike Cicero, Hitler's thugs were easy to recognize; they all wore the same brown shirts. But their actions were no different than those of their Roman predecessors. They staged beatings, set fires, caused as much trouble as they could, while Hitler made speeches promising that he could end the crime wave of subversives and terrorism if he was granted extraordinary powers.
Then the Reichstag burned down; a staged terrorist attack.

The Germans were hoaxed into surrendering their Republic, and accepting the total rule of Der Fuehrer. Hitler had German troops dressed in Polish uniforms attack the radio station at Gliewitz, then lied to the Germans, telling them Poland had invaded, and marched Germany off into World War Two


The state-sponsored schools will never tell you this, but governments routinely rely on hoaxes to sell their agendas to an otherwise reluctant public. The Romans accepted the Emperors and the Germans accepted Hitler not because they wanted to, but because the carefully crafted illusions of threat appeared to leave no other choice.
Our government too uses hoaxes to create the illusion that We The People have no choice but the direction the government wishes us to go in.




In 1898, Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal were arguing for American intervention in Cuba. Hearst is reported to have dispatched a photographer to Cuba to photograph the coming war with Spain. When the photographer asked just what war that might be, Hearst is reported to have replied, "You take the photographs, and I will provide the war". Hearst was true to his word, as his newspaper published stories of great atrocities being committed against the Cuban people, most of which turned out to be complete fabrications.
On the night of February 15, 1898, the USS Maine, lying in Havana harbor in a show of US resolve to protect her interests, exploded violently. Captain Sigsbee, the commander of the Maine, urged that no assumptions of enemy attack be made until there was a full investigation of the cause of the explosion. For this, Captain Sigsbee was excoriated in the press for "refusing to see the obvious". The Atlantic Monthly declared flat out that to suppose the explosion to be anything other than a deliberate act by Spain was "completely at defiance of the laws of probability".

Under the slogan "Remember the Maine", Americans went to war with Spain, eventually winning the Philippines (and annexing Hawaii along the way).

In 1975, an investigation led by Admiral Hyman Rickover examined the data recovered from a 1911 examination of the wreck and concluded that there had been no evidence of an external explosion. The most likely cause of the sinking was a coal dust explosion in a coal bunker imprudently located next to the ship's magazines. Captain Sigsbee's caution had been well founded.


President Franklin Delano Roosevelt needed a war. He needed the fever of a major war to mask the symptoms of a still deathly ill economy struggling back from the Great Depression (and mutating towards Socialism at the same time). Roosevelt wanted a war with Germany to stop Hitler, but despite several provocations in the Atlantic, the American people, still struggling with that troublesome economy, were opposed to any wars. Roosevelt violated neutrality with lend lease, and even ordered the sinking of several German ships in the Atlantic, but Hitler refused to be provoked.
Roosevelt needed an enemy, and if America would not willingly attack that enemy, then one would have to be maneuvered into attacking America, much as Marcus Licinius Crassus has maneuvered Spartacus into attacking Rome.


The way open to war was created when Japan signed the tripartite agreement with Italy and Germany, with all parties pledging mutual defense to each other. Whereas Hitler would never declare war on the United States no matter the provocation, the means to force Japan to do so were readily at hand.
The first step was to place oil and steel embargoes on Japan, using Japan's wars on the Asian mainland as a reason. This forced Japan to consider seizing the oil and mineral rich regions in Indonesia. With the European powers militarily exhausted by the war in Europe, the United States was the only power in the Pacific able to stop Japan from invading the Dutch East Indies, and by moving the Pacific fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, Roosevelt made a pre-emptive strike on that fleet the mandatory first step in any Japanese plan to extend it's empire into the "southern resource area".

Roosevelt boxed in Japan just as completely as Crassus had boxed in Spartacus. Japan needed oil. They had to invade Indonesia to get it, and to do that they first had to remove the threat of the American fleet at Pearl Harbor. There never really was any other course open to them.


To enrage the American people as much as possible, Roosevelt needed the first overt attack by Japan to be as bloody as possible, appearing as a sneak attack much as the Japanese had done to the Russians. From that moment up until the attack on Pearl Harbor itself, Roosevelt and his associates made sure that the commanders in Hawaii, General Short and Admiral Kimmel, were kept in the dark as much as possible about the location of the Japanese fleet and it's intentions, then later scapegoated for the attack. (Congress recently exonerated both Short and Kimmel, posthumously restoring them to their former ranks).

But as the Army board had concluded at the time, and subsequent de-classified documents confirmed, Washington DC knew the attack was coming, knew exactly where the Japanese fleet was, and knew where it was headed.
On November 29th, Secretary of State Hull showed United Press reporter Joe Leib a message with the time and place of the attack, and the New York Times in it's special 12/8/41 Pearl Harbor edition, on page 13, reported that the time and place of the attack had been known in advance!

The much repeated claim that the Japanese fleet maintained radio silence on it's way to Hawaii was a lie. Among other intercepts still held in the Archives of the NSA is the UNCODED message sent by the Japanese tanker Shirya stating, "proceeding to a position 30.00 N, 154.20 E. Expect to arrive at that point on 3 December." (near HI)

President Lyndon Johnson wanted a war in Vietnam. He wanted it to help his friends who owned defense companies to do a little business. He needed it to get the Pentagon and CIA to quit trying to invade Cuba. And most of all, he needed a provocation to convince the American people that there was really "no other choice".
On August 5, 1964, newspapers across America reported "renewed attacks" against American destroyers operating in Vietnamese waters, specifically the Gulf of Tonkin. The official story was that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an "unprovoked attack" on the USS Maddox while it was on "routine patrol".

The truth is that USS Maddox was involved in aggressive intelligence gathering in coordination with actual attacks by South Vietnam and the Laotian Air Force against targets in North Vietnam. The truth is also that there was no attack by torpedo boats against the USS Maddox. Captain John J. Herrick, the task force commander in the Gulf, cabled Washington DC that the report was the result of an "over-eager" sonar man who had picked up the sounds of his own ship's screws and panicked. But even with this knowledge that the report was false, Lyndon Johnson went on national TV that night to announce the commencement of air strikes against North Vietnam, "retaliation" for an attack that had never occurred.


President George H. W. Bush wanted a war in Iraq. Like Crassus, George Bush is motivated by money. Specifically oil money. But with the OPEC alliance failing to keep limits on oil production in the Mideast, the market was being glutted with oil pumped from underneath Iraq, which sat over roughly 1/3 of the oil reserves of the entire region.

George wanted a war to stop that flow of oil, to keep prices (and profits) from falling any further than they already had. But like Roosevelt, he needed the "other side" to make the first move.
Iraq had long been trying to acquire greater access to the Persian Gulf, and felt limited confined a narrow strip of land along Kuwait's northern border, which placed Iraqi interests in close proximity with hostile Iran. George Bush, who had been covertly arming Iraq during its war with Iran, sent word via April Glaspie that the United States would not intervene if Saddam Hussein grabbed a larger part of Kuwait. Saddam fell for the bait and invaded.

Of course, Americans were not about to send their sons and daughters to risk their lives for petroleum products. So George Bush arranged a hoax, using a public relations firm which has grown rich on taxpayer money by being most industrious and creative liars! The PR firm concocted a monumental fraud in which the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States, went on TV pretending to be a nurse, and related a horror story in which Iraqi troops looted the incubators from a Kuwaiti hospital, leaving the premature babies on the cold floor to die. The media, part of the swindle from the start, never bothered asking why the "nurse" didn't just pick the babies up and wrap them in blankets or something.

Enraged by the incubator story, Americans supported operation Desert Storm, which never removed Saddam Hussein from power but which did take Kuwait's oil off of the market for almost 2 years and limited Iraq's oil exports to this very day. That our sons and daughters came home with serious and lingering medical illnesses was apparently not too great a price to pay for increased oil profits.


Following the victory in Iraq, yet another war appeared to be in the offering in the mineral rich regions of Bosnia. Yet again, a hoax was used to create support for military action.
The photo (right) of Fikret Alic staring through a barbed wire fence, was used to "prove" the existence of modern day "Concentration Camps". As the headline of "Belsen 92" indicates, all possible associations with the Nazi horrors were made to sell the necessity of sending yet more American troops into someone else's nation.


But when German Journalists went to Trnopolje, the site of the supposed Concentration Camp. to film a documentary, they discovered that the photo was a fake! The camp at Trnopolje was not a concentration camp but a refugee center. Nor was it surrounded by barbed wire. Careful examination of the original photo revealed that the photographer had shot the photo through a broken section of fence surrounding a tool shed. It was the photographer who was on the inside, shooting out at the refugees.
Once again, Americans had been hoaxed into support of actions they might otherwise not have agreed with.


While several American Presidents have willingly started wars for personal purposes, perhaps no President has ever carried it to the extreme that Bill Clinton has.
Coincident with the expected public statement of Monica Lewinsky following her testimony, Bill Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack on Sudan and Afghanistan, claiming to have had irrefutable proof that bogeyman extraordinaire (and former Afghani ally) Osama Bin Ladin was creating terrorist chemical weapons there.


Examination of the photos of the debris revealed none of the expected structures one would find in a laboratory that handled lethal weapons-grade materials. Assurances from the CIA that they had a positive soil test for biological weapons fell on their face when it was revealed that there had been no open soil anywhere near the pre-bombed facility. Sudan requested that international observers come test the remains of the factory for any signs of the nerve gas Clinton had insisted was there. None was found. The Sudanese plant was a harmless aspirin factory, and the owner has sued for damages.



Later examination of the site hit in Afghanistan revealed it to be a mosque.


Click for larger image

Meanwhile, back in Kosovo, stories about genocide and atrocities were flooding the media (in time to distract from the Sudanese embarrassments), just as lurid and sensational and as it turns out often just as fictional as most of William Randolph Hearst's stories of atrocities against the Cubans.
Again, the government and the media were hoaxing Americans. The above photo was shown on all the American networks, claiming to be one of Slobodan Milosovic's Migs, shot down while attacking civilians. Closer examination (click on the photo) shows it to be stenciled in English!

Like Germany under Chancellor Hitler, there have been events in our nation which strike fear into the hearts of the citizens, such as the New York World Trade Tower bombing, the OK City Federal Building, and the Olympic Park bomb (nicely timed to divert the media from witnesses to the TWA 800 shoot down). The media has been very quick to blame such events on "radicals", "subversives", "vast right wing conspiracies", and other "enemies in our midst", no different than the lies used by Cicero and Hitler.

But on closer examination, such "domestic terrorist" events do not appear to be what they are made out to be. The FBI had an informant inside the World Trade Tower bombers, Emad Salam, who offered to sabotage the bomb. The FBI told him "no". The so-called "hot bed" of white separatism at Elohim City, occasional home to Tim McVeigh in the weeks prior to the OK City bombing, was founded and is being run by an FBI informant!



Click for larger image

And nobody has ever really explained what this second Ryder truck was doing in a secret camp half way from Elohim City to Oklahoma City two weeks before the bombing.
So, here we are today. Like the Romans of Crassus' and Cicero's time, or the Germans under a newly elected Hitler, we are being warned that a dangerous enemy threatens us, implacable, invisible, omnipresent, and invulnerable as long as our government is hamstrung by that silly old Bill of Rights. Already there have appeared articles debating whether or not "extraordinary measures" (i.e. torture) are not fully justified under certain circumstances such as those we are purported to face.

As was the case in Rome and Germany, the government continues to plead with the public for an expansion of its power and authority, to "deal with the crisis".

However, as Casio watch timers are paraded before the cameras, to the stentorian tones of the talking heads' constant dire warnings, it is legitimate to question just how real the crises is, and how much is the result of political machinations by our own leaders.

Are the terrorists really a threat, or just hired actors with bombs and Casio watches, paid for by Cicero and given brown shirts to wear by Hitler?

Is terrorism inside the United States really from outside, or is it a stage managed production, designed to cause Americans to believe they have no choice but to surrender the Republic and accept the totalitarian rule of a new emperor, or a new Fuhrer?

Once lost, the Romans never got their Republic back. Once lost, the Germans never got their Republic back. In both cases, the nation had to totally collapse before freedom was restored to the people.

Remember that when Crassus tells you that Spartacus approaches.

Remember that when thugs in the streets act in a manner clearly designed to provoke the public fear.

Remember that when the Reichstag burns down.

Remember that when the President lies to you about weapons of mass destruction.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See also: The 9/11 Reichstag Fire
Reply
It was the Ameriqaeda and Mossadqaeda forces that done it! Osama bin Bush approved of it too! Guilty!!!
Reply
please ignore the spamalot.

don't feed the Spam
Reply
excellent thread, spam is all dead.

<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />
&quot;Confusion... first sign of a bad relationship-whether personal, societal or governmental&quot;
Reply
Cheers
Reply
Saw a good bumper sticker today!

Dump em both
Vote
Libertarian

<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
Reply
Thanks for the History bump.

Almost a time loop, ain't it? Only the costumes, set and plumbing has changed to protect any resemblance for those living (or about to die in a mysterious plane crash).


<img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cheers.gif" alt="Cheers" title="cheers" />
Reply
http://www.keithlaney.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=2637

<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
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)