American Civil Liberties Union : ACLU Urges Supreme Court to Review Case of FBI Whistleblower
NEW YORK -- The American Civil Liberties Union today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court's dismissal of the case of Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator who was fired in retaliation for reporting security breaches and possible espionage within the Bureau. Lower courts dismissed the case when former Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked the rarely used "state secrets" privilege.
The Court created the so-called state secrets privilege more than 50 years ago but has not considered it since. The need for clarification of the doctrine is acute, the ACLU said, because the government is increasingly using the privilege to cover up its own wrongdoing and to keep legitimate cases out of court.
"Edmonds' case is not an isolated incident," said ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson. "The federal government is routinely retaliating against government employees who uncover weaknesses in our ability to prevent terrorist attacks or protect public safety."
The states secrets privilege, Beeson said, "should be used a shield for sensitive evidence, not a sword the government can use at will to cut off argument in a case before the evidence can be presented. We are urging the Supreme Court, which has not directly addressed this issue in 50 years, to rein in the government's misuse of this privilege."
The ACLU is also asking the Supreme Court to reverse the D.C. appeals court's decision to exclude the press and public from the court hearing of Edmonds' case in April. The appeals court closed the hearing at the eleventh hour without any specific findings that secrecy was necessary. In fact, the government had agreed to argue the case in public. A media consortium that included The New York Times , The Washington Post , and CNN intervened in the case to object to the closure.
Edmonds, a former Middle Eastern language specialist hired by the FBI shortly after 9/11, was fired in 2002 and filed a lawsuit later that year challenging the retaliatory dismissal.
Her ordeal is highlighted in a 10-page article about whistleblowers in the September 2005 issue of Vanity Fair which links Edmonds' allegations and the subsequent retaliation to possible "illicit activity involving Turkish nationals" and a high-level member of Congress. The ACLU said the article, titled "An Inconvenient Patriot," further undercuts the government's claim that the case can't be litigated because certain information is secret.
In addition, a report by the Inspector General, made public in January 2005, contains a tremendous amount of detail about Edmonds' job, the structure of the FBI translation unit , and the substance of her allegations. The report concluded that Edmonds' whistleblower allegations were "the most significant factor" in the FBI's decision to terminate her.
The outcome in Edmonds' case could significantly impact the government's ability to rely on secrecy to avoid accountability in future cases, the ACLU said, including one pending case charging the government with "rendering" detainees to be tortured.
In the 1953 Supreme Court case that was the basis for today's state secrets privilege doctrine, United States v. Reynolds, the government claimed that disclosing a military flight accident report would jeopardize secret military equipment and harm national security. Nearly 50 years later, in 2004, the truth came out: the accident report contained no state secrets, but instead confirmed that the cause of the crash was faulty maintenance of the B-29 fleet.
Fourteen 9/11 family member advocacy groups and public interest organizations filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Edmonds ' case before the District Court, and many are expected to join an amicus brief next month supporting Supreme Court review of the case, including the National Security Archive.
Edmonds is represented by Beeson, Melissa Goodman, and Ben Wizner of the national ACLU; Art Spitzer of the ACLU of the National Capital Area; and Mark Zaid, of Krieger and Zaid, PLLC.
The ACLU's Supreme Court cert petition is online at: http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=18870&c=24
The appendix for the Supreme Court cert petition is online at: http://www.aclu.org/NationalSecurity/NationalSecurity.cfm?ID=18872&c=24
Further information on the case, including other legal documents and a backgrounder on the state secrets privilege, is online at : www.aclu.org/whistleblowers.
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
Democracy Now! | Did Speaker Hastert Accept Turkish Bribes to Deny Armenian Genocide and Approve Weapons Sales?
Democracy Now! | Did Speaker Hastert Accept Turkish Bribes to Deny Armenian Genocide and Approve Weapons Sales?
Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds is accusing the FBI of covering up improper contacts and financial dealings between certain Turkish nationals and the office of House Speaker Dennis Hastert. We speak with Sibel Edmonds and investigative journalist David Rose.
BG: 39 minutes in.
Former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds is accusing the FBI of covering up improper contacts and financial dealings between certain Turkish nationals and the office of House Speaker Dennis Hastert. We speak with Sibel Edmonds and investigative journalist David Rose.
BG: 39 minutes in.
Bush Names Edelman to No. 3 Defense Post, Bypassing U.S. Senate
Bloomberg.com: U.S.
Aug. 9 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush today named Eric S. Edelman undersecretary of defense for policy, using his power to make temporary appointments while Congress is in recess to overcome potential Democrat opposition to the nomination.
Edelman replaces Douglas Feith in the No. 3 position at the Pentagon. Feith helped plan the war in Iraq and the postwar occupation, and those roles made him the target of criticism from opponents of the March 2003 invasion.
Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee led by Carl Levin of Michigan, their ranking member, stalled Edelman's nomination to force the release of documents related to a specialized intelligence unit Feith set up before the conflict. Levin said the unit produced assessments alleging still unproven links of Iraq to terrorist groups to justify the invasion.
The committee sent Edelman's nomination to the full Senate July 29. Republican John Warner of Virginia, the panel chairman, was unable to organize a floor vote and asked Bush Aug. 1 to make Edelman a recess appointment, said Warner spokesman John Ullyot.
Bush's appointment puts Edelman in the job until January 2007, when a new Congress convenes. A recess appointment, one of the executive powers in the Constitution, is typically used when a president believes a nominee can't get a fair hearing or a vote in the Senate.
Edelman is the second recess appointment Bush made since Congress left for its summer recess. Bush on Aug. 1 named John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations after a floor vote was stalled by Democrats.
Career History
Edelman is a career foreign service officer who served most recently as U.S. ambassador to Turkey. He was Vice President Dick Cheney's deputy national security officer from Feb. 2001 to June 2003 and ambassador to Finland for three years prior to that, according to the State Department. Edelman was an aide to Cheney when Cheney was secretary of defense under President George H. W. Bush.
Edelman received his bachelor's degree from Cornell University in 1972 and a doctorate in diplomatic history from Yale University in 1981. He was born in Baltimore and raised in New York and now lives in Virginia with his and four children, according to congressional testimony.
Aug. 9 (Bloomberg) -- President George W. Bush today named Eric S. Edelman undersecretary of defense for policy, using his power to make temporary appointments while Congress is in recess to overcome potential Democrat opposition to the nomination.
Edelman replaces Douglas Feith in the No. 3 position at the Pentagon. Feith helped plan the war in Iraq and the postwar occupation, and those roles made him the target of criticism from opponents of the March 2003 invasion.
Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee led by Carl Levin of Michigan, their ranking member, stalled Edelman's nomination to force the release of documents related to a specialized intelligence unit Feith set up before the conflict. Levin said the unit produced assessments alleging still unproven links of Iraq to terrorist groups to justify the invasion.
The committee sent Edelman's nomination to the full Senate July 29. Republican John Warner of Virginia, the panel chairman, was unable to organize a floor vote and asked Bush Aug. 1 to make Edelman a recess appointment, said Warner spokesman John Ullyot.
Bush's appointment puts Edelman in the job until January 2007, when a new Congress convenes. A recess appointment, one of the executive powers in the Constitution, is typically used when a president believes a nominee can't get a fair hearing or a vote in the Senate.
Edelman is the second recess appointment Bush made since Congress left for its summer recess. Bush on Aug. 1 named John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations after a floor vote was stalled by Democrats.
Career History
Edelman is a career foreign service officer who served most recently as U.S. ambassador to Turkey. He was Vice President Dick Cheney's deputy national security officer from Feb. 2001 to June 2003 and ambassador to Finland for three years prior to that, according to the State Department. Edelman was an aide to Cheney when Cheney was secretary of defense under President George H. W. Bush.
Edelman received his bachelor's degree from Cornell University in 1972 and a doctorate in diplomatic history from Yale University in 1981. He was born in Baltimore and raised in New York and now lives in Virginia with his and four children, according to congressional testimony.
Lack of Abu Ghraib abuse charges queried
Lack of Abu Ghraib abuse charges queried
WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- Human rights groups are questioning why no civilian contractors have been charged with abuses at Baghdad`s Abu Ghraib prison.
A Pentagon investigation last year said \"several of the alleged perpetrators of the abuse of detainees\" were private contractors, but noted they may not be subject to criminal prosecution because of the legal vacuum created during the U.S. administration of Iraq.
The study covers the period from the start of May 2003 to the end of October 2004, and acknowledges employees of private contractors were directly involved in interrogating Iraqi detainees, the Financial Times reported.
\"To date, no charges have been filed, however the cases remain under active investigation by the (Department of Justice),\" the report said.
Six U.S. soldiers have pleaded guilty to abuse, and two others have been convicted at courts-martial.
WASHINGTON, DC, United States (UPI) -- Human rights groups are questioning why no civilian contractors have been charged with abuses at Baghdad`s Abu Ghraib prison.
A Pentagon investigation last year said \"several of the alleged perpetrators of the abuse of detainees\" were private contractors, but noted they may not be subject to criminal prosecution because of the legal vacuum created during the U.S. administration of Iraq.
The study covers the period from the start of May 2003 to the end of October 2004, and acknowledges employees of private contractors were directly involved in interrogating Iraqi detainees, the Financial Times reported.
\"To date, no charges have been filed, however the cases remain under active investigation by the (Department of Justice),\" the report said.
Six U.S. soldiers have pleaded guilty to abuse, and two others have been convicted at courts-martial.
Baghdad Mayor Is Ousted by a Shiite Group and Replaced - New York Times
Baghdad Mayor Is Ousted by a Shiite Group and Replaced - New York Times
The New York Times
August 10, 2005
Baghdad Mayor Is Ousted by a Shiite Group and Replaced
By JAMES GLANZ
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 9 - Armed men entered Baghdad's municipal building during a blinding dust storm on Monday, deposed the city's mayor and installed a member of Iraq's most powerful Shiite militia.
The deposed mayor, Alaa al-Tamimi, who was not in his offices at the time, recounted the events in a telephone interview on Tuesday and called the move a municipal coup d'état. He added that he had gone into hiding for fear of his life.
"This is the new Iraq," said Mr. Tamimi, a secular engineer with no party affiliation. "They use force to achieve their goal."
The group that ousted him insisted that it had the authority to assume control of Iraq's capital city and that Mr. Tamimi was in no danger. The man the group installed, Hussein al-Tahaan, is a member of the Badr Organization, the armed militia of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, known as Sciri.
The militia has been credited with keeping the peace in heavily Shiite areas in southern Iraq but also accused of abuses like forcing women to wear the veils demanded by conservative Shiite religious law.
"If we wanted to do something bad to him, we would have done that," said Mazen A. Makkia, the elected city council chief who led the ouster on Monday and who had been in a lengthy and unresolved legal feud with Mr. Tamimi.
"We really want to establish the state of law for every citizen, and we did not threaten anyone," Mr. Makkia said. "This is not a coup."
Mr. Makkia confirmed that he had entered the building with armed men but said that they were bodyguards for him and several other council members who accompanied him. Witnesses estimated that the number of armed men ranged from 50 to 120. Mr. Makkia is a member of a Shiite political party that swept to victory during the across-the-board Shiite successes during January's elections.
Mr. Tamimi, the deposed mayor, was appointed by the central government and held ministerial rank. He was originally put in place by L. Paul Bremer III, the top American administrator in the country until an Iraqi government took over in June 2004.
Baghdad is the only city in Iraq that is its own province, and the city council had previously appointed Mr. Tahaan as governor of Baghdad province, with some responsibilities parallel to Mr. Tamimi's. But the mayor's office was clearly the more powerful office, a fact that proved to be a painful thorn in the side of Mr. Makkia, who believed that the council, which he controls, should hold sway in Baghdad.
Mr. Makkia provided a phone number for Mr. Tahaan, but the phone did not appear to be turned on. A spokesman for the American Embassy in Baghdad said that he was aware of the developments but that he had no immediate comment.
When asked whether the Iraqi prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a politician with another Shiite Islamic party, Dawa, was concerned about developments at the municipality, a spokesman, Laith Kubba, said, "My guess is, yes, he is."
Mr. Kubba said he had not yet had a chance to talk with the prime minister about the issue. But gave clear indications that the prime minister would not stand in the way of the move.
Weeks ago, Mr. Tamimi had offered to resign or retire, saying that the budget he had been given was not adequate. For a city of six million people, the central government had given him a budget of $85 million; he had requested $1 billion.
As of Tuesday, the prime minister still had not formally accepted the offer, Mr. Kubba said. But he said the offer could be used to find a way to formally remove Mr. Tamimi.
"It's more or less a fait accompli that he's not going back to office," Mr. Kubba said. He added that Mr. Tahaan would be considered an interim mayor until the prime minister settled on someone to take the post permanently.
Leaders of the country's major political parties, meanwhile, resumed a summit meeting to break the deadlock over Iraq's new constitution, which was delayed by the same sandstorm on Monday.
The deadline for the constitution is in five days and the parties have so far failed to resolve several crucial issues like the role of Islam in the government, the future of the ethnically mixed and oil-rich city of Kirkuk and the scope of self-rule for regions outside Iraqi Kurdistan.
After the meeting, the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, said discussion focused mainly on the issue of autonomy and the distribution of oil revenues. He expressed confidence that the group would complete the constitution on time, but added, "As the English people would say, the devil is in the details."
Violence also continued around the city. One American soldier was killed and two were wounded when a car bomb exploded as a patrol passed through a crowded square in central Baghdad, the military said. An official at the Interior Ministry said at least three civilians were killed and 54 wounded in the same blast. Mortars landed near a mosque in southern Baghdad, killing two civilians and wounding four, the official said.
At least nine security officials were killed in four separate shooting incidents around Baghdad on Tuesday. An American marine was killed by small-arms fire on Monday in Ramadi, west of Baghdad, the military said.
In Washington, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday that Iran had become a conduit for weapons smuggled into Iraq and used by insurgents, and he criticized Tehran for not doing more to prevent the smuggling.
"Weapons clearly, unambiguously from Iran have been found in Iraq," he said at a Pentagon briefing. He added: "It's a big border. It's notably unhelpful for the Iranians to allow weapons of those types to cross the border."
Defense officials have said recently that components and fully manufactured bombs from Iran began appearing about two months ago and that a large shipment was captured last month in northeast Iraq after coming across the border.
Mr. Rumsfeld's comments were the first confirmation by a senior American official that such smuggling was occurring. Mr. Rumsfeld said it was not clear who in Iran was responsible for the shipments, which some specialists have said could be the work of smugglers or splinter insurgent groups, rather than the government of Iran.
Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also said at the briefing that Iraqi and American forces have made arrests in Haditha, where 20 marines were killed in two ambushes last week, after tips from Iraqis in the area. "The public came forward and said these are the folks," General Myers said.
Mr. Tamimi, the ousted mayor, said he believed that Shiite political parties had forced the takeover in Baghdad in order to position themselves for the elections once a constitution is agreed upon.
For his part, he said, he had lost the sense of enthusiasm that had brought him back to Iraq after nearly a decade in exile.
"When I left in 1995, every day, it is years for me," Mr. Tamimi said. "But now when I leave I don't think I will be sorry. I leave because I cannot live in such conditions."
Dexter Filkins and Khalid al-Ansary contributed reporting from Baghdad for this article, and David S. Cloud from Washington.
The New York Times
August 10, 2005
Baghdad Mayor Is Ousted by a Shiite Group and Replaced
By JAMES GLANZ
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 9 - Armed men entered Baghdad's municipal building during a blinding dust storm on Monday, deposed the city's mayor and installed a member of Iraq's most powerful Shiite militia.
The deposed mayor, Alaa al-Tamimi, who was not in his offices at the time, recounted the events in a telephone interview on Tuesday and called the move a municipal coup d'état. He added that he had gone into hiding for fear of his life.
"This is the new Iraq," said Mr. Tamimi, a secular engineer with no party affiliation. "They use force to achieve their goal."
The group that ousted him insisted that it had the authority to assume control of Iraq's capital city and that Mr. Tamimi was in no danger. The man the group installed, Hussein al-Tahaan, is a member of the Badr Organization, the armed militia of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, known as Sciri.
The militia has been credited with keeping the peace in heavily Shiite areas in southern Iraq but also accused of abuses like forcing women to wear the veils demanded by conservative Shiite religious law.
"If we wanted to do something bad to him, we would have done that," said Mazen A. Makkia, the elected city council chief who led the ouster on Monday and who had been in a lengthy and unresolved legal feud with Mr. Tamimi.
"We really want to establish the state of law for every citizen, and we did not threaten anyone," Mr. Makkia said. "This is not a coup."
Mr. Makkia confirmed that he had entered the building with armed men but said that they were bodyguards for him and several other council members who accompanied him. Witnesses estimated that the number of armed men ranged from 50 to 120. Mr. Makkia is a member of a Shiite political party that swept to victory during the across-the-board Shiite successes during January's elections.
Mr. Tamimi, the deposed mayor, was appointed by the central government and held ministerial rank. He was originally put in place by L. Paul Bremer III, the top American administrator in the country until an Iraqi government took over in June 2004.
Baghdad is the only city in Iraq that is its own province, and the city council had previously appointed Mr. Tahaan as governor of Baghdad province, with some responsibilities parallel to Mr. Tamimi's. But the mayor's office was clearly the more powerful office, a fact that proved to be a painful thorn in the side of Mr. Makkia, who believed that the council, which he controls, should hold sway in Baghdad.
Mr. Makkia provided a phone number for Mr. Tahaan, but the phone did not appear to be turned on. A spokesman for the American Embassy in Baghdad said that he was aware of the developments but that he had no immediate comment.
When asked whether the Iraqi prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a politician with another Shiite Islamic party, Dawa, was concerned about developments at the municipality, a spokesman, Laith Kubba, said, "My guess is, yes, he is."
Mr. Kubba said he had not yet had a chance to talk with the prime minister about the issue. But gave clear indications that the prime minister would not stand in the way of the move.
Weeks ago, Mr. Tamimi had offered to resign or retire, saying that the budget he had been given was not adequate. For a city of six million people, the central government had given him a budget of $85 million; he had requested $1 billion.
As of Tuesday, the prime minister still had not formally accepted the offer, Mr. Kubba said. But he said the offer could be used to find a way to formally remove Mr. Tamimi.
"It's more or less a fait accompli that he's not going back to office," Mr. Kubba said. He added that Mr. Tahaan would be considered an interim mayor until the prime minister settled on someone to take the post permanently.
Leaders of the country's major political parties, meanwhile, resumed a summit meeting to break the deadlock over Iraq's new constitution, which was delayed by the same sandstorm on Monday.
The deadline for the constitution is in five days and the parties have so far failed to resolve several crucial issues like the role of Islam in the government, the future of the ethnically mixed and oil-rich city of Kirkuk and the scope of self-rule for regions outside Iraqi Kurdistan.
After the meeting, the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani, said discussion focused mainly on the issue of autonomy and the distribution of oil revenues. He expressed confidence that the group would complete the constitution on time, but added, "As the English people would say, the devil is in the details."
Violence also continued around the city. One American soldier was killed and two were wounded when a car bomb exploded as a patrol passed through a crowded square in central Baghdad, the military said. An official at the Interior Ministry said at least three civilians were killed and 54 wounded in the same blast. Mortars landed near a mosque in southern Baghdad, killing two civilians and wounding four, the official said.
At least nine security officials were killed in four separate shooting incidents around Baghdad on Tuesday. An American marine was killed by small-arms fire on Monday in Ramadi, west of Baghdad, the military said.
In Washington, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday that Iran had become a conduit for weapons smuggled into Iraq and used by insurgents, and he criticized Tehran for not doing more to prevent the smuggling.
"Weapons clearly, unambiguously from Iran have been found in Iraq," he said at a Pentagon briefing. He added: "It's a big border. It's notably unhelpful for the Iranians to allow weapons of those types to cross the border."
Defense officials have said recently that components and fully manufactured bombs from Iran began appearing about two months ago and that a large shipment was captured last month in northeast Iraq after coming across the border.
Mr. Rumsfeld's comments were the first confirmation by a senior American official that such smuggling was occurring. Mr. Rumsfeld said it was not clear who in Iran was responsible for the shipments, which some specialists have said could be the work of smugglers or splinter insurgent groups, rather than the government of Iran.
Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also said at the briefing that Iraqi and American forces have made arrests in Haditha, where 20 marines were killed in two ambushes last week, after tips from Iraqis in the area. "The public came forward and said these are the folks," General Myers said.
Mr. Tamimi, the ousted mayor, said he believed that Shiite political parties had forced the takeover in Baghdad in order to position themselves for the elections once a constitution is agreed upon.
For his part, he said, he had lost the sense of enthusiasm that had brought him back to Iraq after nearly a decade in exile.
"When I left in 1995, every day, it is years for me," Mr. Tamimi said. "But now when I leave I don't think I will be sorry. I leave because I cannot live in such conditions."
Dexter Filkins and Khalid al-Ansary contributed reporting from Baghdad for this article, and David S. Cloud from Washington.
WagNews: Disinfo: The Iran Invasion Drivel
WagNews: Disinfo: The Iran Invasion Drivel
It's hard to find a story more totally drivel than the idea that the U.S. is about to invade Iran. The whole CIA Fakes network has been having a hissy fit about this for months.
Back in January, 2005 Seymour Hersh kicked off the initial 'Oh my God' in his article 'The Coming Wars'. Then Scott Ritter fanned the flames in April with his prediction on disinfo site AlJazeera.com that by June, 2005 the U.S. was set to invade Iran. There are real good reasons why this is all drivel --besides the fact that the sources include Hersh and Ritter.
First, all this hype started just as the U.S. was getting mangled by the Iraq resistance. Which hardly put them in a position to open a new front twice the size. Actually, the short-term purpose of the Iran PsyOp was to camoflage the U.S. military weakness under a smokescreen of bluster about a new invasion.
But the big reason Iran is not going to be attacked is that it is no threat at all.
Iran is on the team, fer crikes sake! Our team. Sheesh!
Why do you think that there is no trouble in the Tehran-dominated Shia south of Iraq? Why do you think the U.S. invaded Iraq in the first place? Because they knew there would be no problem in the south. That's why the British got the easy job of occupying the region --while the GI's were sent north to demolish the Sunni, who were the real target of the invasion.
Yes, there were a few hotheads in the south, but nothing the combined wits of Sistani and Al-Sadr couldn't carefully defuse with the help of some well-timed, persuasive, military muscle from their friends in high places. Our high places.
The Iraqi Shia leadership have been in the bag from the get-go.
Because the Iranians are U.S./British/French tools in the region for a long, long time. The British and the French have been in on the whole Iranian revolution from the start. In the 1970's, Ayatollah Khomeini wasn't staying in Paris to see the nice pictures in the Louvre.
Our boys run Iran like they used to run the old Iraq -by means of intelligence-controlled stooges. That's why it was so easy to arrange the Iran-Iraq war.
A lot of people in Iraq and Iran are wise to all this.
Just don't expect Scott Ritter to tell you about it.
It's hard to find a story more totally drivel than the idea that the U.S. is about to invade Iran. The whole CIA Fakes network has been having a hissy fit about this for months.
Back in January, 2005 Seymour Hersh kicked off the initial 'Oh my God' in his article 'The Coming Wars'. Then Scott Ritter fanned the flames in April with his prediction on disinfo site AlJazeera.com that by June, 2005 the U.S. was set to invade Iran. There are real good reasons why this is all drivel --besides the fact that the sources include Hersh and Ritter.
First, all this hype started just as the U.S. was getting mangled by the Iraq resistance. Which hardly put them in a position to open a new front twice the size. Actually, the short-term purpose of the Iran PsyOp was to camoflage the U.S. military weakness under a smokescreen of bluster about a new invasion.
But the big reason Iran is not going to be attacked is that it is no threat at all.
Iran is on the team, fer crikes sake! Our team. Sheesh!
Why do you think that there is no trouble in the Tehran-dominated Shia south of Iraq? Why do you think the U.S. invaded Iraq in the first place? Because they knew there would be no problem in the south. That's why the British got the easy job of occupying the region --while the GI's were sent north to demolish the Sunni, who were the real target of the invasion.
Yes, there were a few hotheads in the south, but nothing the combined wits of Sistani and Al-Sadr couldn't carefully defuse with the help of some well-timed, persuasive, military muscle from their friends in high places. Our high places.
The Iraqi Shia leadership have been in the bag from the get-go.
Because the Iranians are U.S./British/French tools in the region for a long, long time. The British and the French have been in on the whole Iranian revolution from the start. In the 1970's, Ayatollah Khomeini wasn't staying in Paris to see the nice pictures in the Louvre.
Our boys run Iran like they used to run the old Iraq -by means of intelligence-controlled stooges. That's why it was so easy to arrange the Iran-Iraq war.
A lot of people in Iraq and Iran are wise to all this.
Just don't expect Scott Ritter to tell you about it.
jan mankes
close-up of philodendron leaf, resembling a tree, and reminding me of a painting by Jan Mankes, a Dutch painter that used similar colors, and painted trees as well.
9/11 Panel Members Ask Congress to Learn if Pentagon Withheld Files on Hijackers in 2000 - New York Times
9/11 Panel Members Ask Congress to Learn if Pentagon Withheld Files on Hijackers in 2000 - New York Times
The New York Times
August 10, 2005
9/11 Panel Members Ask Congress to Learn if Pentagon Withheld Files on Hijackers in 2000
By PHILIP SHENON and DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON, Aug. 9 - Members of the independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terror attacks called on Congress to determine whether the Pentagon withheld intelligence information showing that a secret American military unit had identified Mohammed Atta and three other hijackers as potential threats more than a year before the attacks.
The former commission members said the information, if true, could rewrite an important chapter of the history of the intelligence failures before Sept. 11, 2001.
"I think this is a big deal," said John F. Lehman, a Republican member of the commission who was Navy secretary in the Reagan administration. "The issue is whether there was in fact surveillance before 9/11 of Atta and, if so, why weren't we told about it? Who made the decision not to brief the commission's staff or the commissioners?"
Mr. Lehman and other commissioners said that because the panel had been formally disbanded for a year, the investigation would need to be taken up by Congress, possibly by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
"If this is true, somebody should be looking into it," said Thomas H. Kean, the commission chairman and a former Republican governor of New Jersey.
Detailed accounts about the findings of the secret operation, known as Able Danger, were offered this week by Representative Curt Weldon, the Pennsylvania Republican who is vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and by a former defense intelligence official.
Their comments are the first assertion by current or former officials that Mr. Atta, an Egyptian who was the lead hijacker, had been identified as a potential terrorist before the attacks.
Spokesmen for the commission members said this week that although the staff was informed by the Pentagon in late 2003 about the existence of a so-called data-mining operation called Able Danger, the panel was never told that it had identified Mr. Atta and the others as threats.
In a final report released last summer called the authoritative history of the attacks, the commission of five Democrats and five Republicans made no mention of the secret program or the possibility that a government agency had detected Mr. Atta's terrorist activities before Sept. 11.
The Pentagon has had no comment on the credibility of the accounts from Mr. Weldon and the intelligence official.
At a news briefing on Tuesday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said he could not comment on reports about Able Danger and suggested that he knew nothing about such an operation.
"I can't," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "I have no idea. I've never heard of it until this morning. I understand our folks are trying to look into it."
A spokesman for the Pentagon, Lt. Col. Christopher Conway, said later that "there were a number of intelligence operations prior to the attacks of 9/11" but that "it would be irresponsible for us to provide details in a way in which those who wish to do us harm would find beneficial."
An intelligence official said Tuesday that the office of John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, was "working closely with the Department of Defense to learn more" about Mr. Weldon's statements. The official confirmed that the congressman recently met with Mr. Negroponte, but declined to discuss the subject.
The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, said in an interview that although he could not comment on classified subjects, he had recently talked with Mr. Weldon and that "I do take seriously any issues that may be brought to light by other members of Congress."
A spokeswoman for Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that "the committee is aware of Congressman Weldon's concerns" and that it "is looking into it."
Mr. Weldon went public with his information after having talked with members of the unit in his research for a new book on terrorism. He said in a telephone interview on Tuesday that he had spoken with three team members, all still working in the government, including two in the military, and that they were consistent in asserting that Mr. Atta's affiliation with a Qaeda terrorism cell in the United States was known in the Defense Department by mid-2000 and was not acted on.
An outspoken member of Congress on military and intelligence questions, Mr. Weldon, a champion of military data mining like Able Danger, has helped arrange interviews for reporters with the former military intelligence official. The official insisted on anonymity, saying he did not want to jeopardize political support for future data mining in the military.
The official said in an interview Monday that the Able Danger team was created in 1999 under a directive signed by Gen. Hugh H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to assemble information about Al Qaeda networks around the world.
He said that by the middle of 2000 the operation had identified Mr. Atta and three of the other future hijackers as a member of an American-based cell and that the information was presented that summer in a chart to the Pentagon's Special Operations Command headquarters in Tampa, Fla.
The official said that the chart included the names and photographs of Mr. Atta and the others, Marwan al-Shehhi, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawar al-Hamzi. Mr. Weldon and the intelligence official said Able Danger members had recommended that the information be shared with the F.B.I., an the idea that was rejected.
The official said the information was also not shared with the C.I.A. or other civilian intelligence agencies. "This was a highly compartmented program with very limited distribution," he said.
General Shelton said Tuesday that he did not recall authorizing the creation of the unit but that "we had lots of initiatives to find out where Al Qaeda was."
The former intelligence official said he was among a group that briefed the former staff director of the Sept. 11 panel, Philip D. Zelikow, and at least three other staff members about Able Danger when the staff members visited the Afghanistan-Pakistan region in October 2003. The official said that he had explicitly mentioned Mr. Atta in the briefing as a member of the American terrorist cell.
Mr. Kean, the commission head, said the staff members were confident that Mr. Atta's name was not mentioned in the briefing or subsequent documents from the Pentagon.
"None of them recalls mention of the name Atta," he said. "I think if that had been mentioned, it would have been on the tips of their tongue."
Mr. Kean said he had asked the staff members to retrieve their classified notes from government storage to be certain about not overlooking any reference to Mr. Atta or to an American-based cell in any of the Pentagon material.
A State Department spokesman for Mr. Zelikow, who joined the department this year, had no immediate comment.
Eric Schmitt contributed reporting for this article.
The New York Times
August 10, 2005
9/11 Panel Members Ask Congress to Learn if Pentagon Withheld Files on Hijackers in 2000
By PHILIP SHENON and DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON, Aug. 9 - Members of the independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terror attacks called on Congress to determine whether the Pentagon withheld intelligence information showing that a secret American military unit had identified Mohammed Atta and three other hijackers as potential threats more than a year before the attacks.
The former commission members said the information, if true, could rewrite an important chapter of the history of the intelligence failures before Sept. 11, 2001.
"I think this is a big deal," said John F. Lehman, a Republican member of the commission who was Navy secretary in the Reagan administration. "The issue is whether there was in fact surveillance before 9/11 of Atta and, if so, why weren't we told about it? Who made the decision not to brief the commission's staff or the commissioners?"
Mr. Lehman and other commissioners said that because the panel had been formally disbanded for a year, the investigation would need to be taken up by Congress, possibly by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees.
"If this is true, somebody should be looking into it," said Thomas H. Kean, the commission chairman and a former Republican governor of New Jersey.
Detailed accounts about the findings of the secret operation, known as Able Danger, were offered this week by Representative Curt Weldon, the Pennsylvania Republican who is vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, and by a former defense intelligence official.
Their comments are the first assertion by current or former officials that Mr. Atta, an Egyptian who was the lead hijacker, had been identified as a potential terrorist before the attacks.
Spokesmen for the commission members said this week that although the staff was informed by the Pentagon in late 2003 about the existence of a so-called data-mining operation called Able Danger, the panel was never told that it had identified Mr. Atta and the others as threats.
In a final report released last summer called the authoritative history of the attacks, the commission of five Democrats and five Republicans made no mention of the secret program or the possibility that a government agency had detected Mr. Atta's terrorist activities before Sept. 11.
The Pentagon has had no comment on the credibility of the accounts from Mr. Weldon and the intelligence official.
At a news briefing on Tuesday, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said he could not comment on reports about Able Danger and suggested that he knew nothing about such an operation.
"I can't," Mr. Rumsfeld said. "I have no idea. I've never heard of it until this morning. I understand our folks are trying to look into it."
A spokesman for the Pentagon, Lt. Col. Christopher Conway, said later that "there were a number of intelligence operations prior to the attacks of 9/11" but that "it would be irresponsible for us to provide details in a way in which those who wish to do us harm would find beneficial."
An intelligence official said Tuesday that the office of John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, was "working closely with the Department of Defense to learn more" about Mr. Weldon's statements. The official confirmed that the congressman recently met with Mr. Negroponte, but declined to discuss the subject.
The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Peter Hoekstra, Republican of Michigan, said in an interview that although he could not comment on classified subjects, he had recently talked with Mr. Weldon and that "I do take seriously any issues that may be brought to light by other members of Congress."
A spokeswoman for Senator Pat Roberts, the Kansas Republican who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that "the committee is aware of Congressman Weldon's concerns" and that it "is looking into it."
Mr. Weldon went public with his information after having talked with members of the unit in his research for a new book on terrorism. He said in a telephone interview on Tuesday that he had spoken with three team members, all still working in the government, including two in the military, and that they were consistent in asserting that Mr. Atta's affiliation with a Qaeda terrorism cell in the United States was known in the Defense Department by mid-2000 and was not acted on.
An outspoken member of Congress on military and intelligence questions, Mr. Weldon, a champion of military data mining like Able Danger, has helped arrange interviews for reporters with the former military intelligence official. The official insisted on anonymity, saying he did not want to jeopardize political support for future data mining in the military.
The official said in an interview Monday that the Able Danger team was created in 1999 under a directive signed by Gen. Hugh H. Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to assemble information about Al Qaeda networks around the world.
He said that by the middle of 2000 the operation had identified Mr. Atta and three of the other future hijackers as a member of an American-based cell and that the information was presented that summer in a chart to the Pentagon's Special Operations Command headquarters in Tampa, Fla.
The official said that the chart included the names and photographs of Mr. Atta and the others, Marwan al-Shehhi, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawar al-Hamzi. Mr. Weldon and the intelligence official said Able Danger members had recommended that the information be shared with the F.B.I., an the idea that was rejected.
The official said the information was also not shared with the C.I.A. or other civilian intelligence agencies. "This was a highly compartmented program with very limited distribution," he said.
General Shelton said Tuesday that he did not recall authorizing the creation of the unit but that "we had lots of initiatives to find out where Al Qaeda was."
The former intelligence official said he was among a group that briefed the former staff director of the Sept. 11 panel, Philip D. Zelikow, and at least three other staff members about Able Danger when the staff members visited the Afghanistan-Pakistan region in October 2003. The official said that he had explicitly mentioned Mr. Atta in the briefing as a member of the American terrorist cell.
Mr. Kean, the commission head, said the staff members were confident that Mr. Atta's name was not mentioned in the briefing or subsequent documents from the Pentagon.
"None of them recalls mention of the name Atta," he said. "I think if that had been mentioned, it would have been on the tips of their tongue."
Mr. Kean said he had asked the staff members to retrieve their classified notes from government storage to be certain about not overlooking any reference to Mr. Atta or to an American-based cell in any of the Pentagon material.
A State Department spokesman for Mr. Zelikow, who joined the department this year, had no immediate comment.
Eric Schmitt contributed reporting for this article.
..Mort Kondracke, writing today about abortion and contraception
The Washington Monthly
EMBRYOS....Mort Kondracke, writing today about abortion and contraception, says that
there's ground for suspicion that some religious conservatives are as much about punishing illicit sexual activity as they are about saving "life."
Indeed there is. But Ramesh Ponnuru says Kondracke is nuts:
It's the bit about sex where he makes no sense at all. If punishing illicit sexual activity were the point, why would these religious conservatives care about embryonic stem-cell research at all? We're not talking about embryos created the old-fashioned way.
EMBRYOS....Mort Kondracke, writing today about abortion and contraception, says that
there's ground for suspicion that some religious conservatives are as much about punishing illicit sexual activity as they are about saving "life."
Indeed there is. But Ramesh Ponnuru says Kondracke is nuts:
It's the bit about sex where he makes no sense at all. If punishing illicit sexual activity were the point, why would these religious conservatives care about embryonic stem-cell research at all? We're not talking about embryos created the old-fashioned way.
USATODAY.com - Evolution lacks fossil link
USATODAY.com - Evolution lacks fossil link
"I realize that is a dramatic statement, so to be clear, let me restate: There is zero scientific fossil evidence that demonstrates organic evolutionary linkage between primates and man."
BG: So, is Buttars saying that most every other species on the planet is governed by evolution, but not MAN?
"I realize that is a dramatic statement, so to be clear, let me restate: There is zero scientific fossil evidence that demonstrates organic evolutionary linkage between primates and man."
BG: So, is Buttars saying that most every other species on the planet is governed by evolution, but not MAN?
Lowry baselessly pinned failures of Iraq postwa ... [Media Matters for America]
Lowry baselessly pinned failures of Iraq postwa ... [Media Matters for America]
Lowry baselessly pinned failures of Iraq postwar plan on faulty U.S. intelligence
Lowry baselessly pinned failures of Iraq postwar plan on faulty U.S. intelligence
Another Day in the Empire » Aswat and the False Flag Patsies at the Mall
Another Day in the Empire » Aswat and the False Flag Patsies at the Mall
Not to worry, says Arik Arad, the former head of Israel’s shopping mall security. “Arad told [mall] owners to forget about the stringent measures Israelis take to stave off bombings, including hand-held metal detectors, machine guns and explosives-sniffing dogs. Instead, he advised them to bolster security personnel’s ability to spot a would-be bomber, a measure more palatable to Americans,” reports NewsMax. “Suicide bombers commonly case a target before an attack to search for vulnerabilities or conduct a dry run. Homeland Security is also now offering courses on recognizing terrorist behavior to security companies that guard shopping malls.” And what exactly are the tell-tale signs of “terrorist behavior,” according to the Ministry of Homeland Security? Same as usual—”an overcoat on a warm day, a refusal to make eye contact or a tight grip on a backpack.” Of course, flagging this sort of behavior didn’t stop the London bombings, but then the subway bombs were under the train, not in backpacks, as passengers Bruce Lait and Crystal Main explained (only to be ignored by the corporate media who had a vested interest in pushing the “suicide bomber” campfire story).
On the one hand, we are told al-Qaeda is a threat to civilized nations, and on the other we learn from reading news reports that al-Qaeda “terrorists” (or rather al-CIA-duh patsies) are imbeciles who use cell phones easily tracked and clumsily attempt to light shoe bomb fuses on crowded airplanes. But none of this incompetence matters because patsy-terrorists such as Haroon Rashid Aswat are allowed to travel around the world (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Botswana, Mozambique, and South Africa) because they are intelligence assets (useful patsy idiots). Aswat “attended an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan” and supposedly became a “combat training expert” who “met Osama bin Laden,” according to the Times Online. Former Justice Department prosecutor and supposed terror expert John Loftus recently told Fox News that the so called al-Muhajiroun group, which we can safely categorize as another British intel terrorist-patsy-useful idiot group, was “the recruiting arm of Al-Qaeda in London; they specialized in recruiting kids whose families had emigrated to Britain but who had British passports. And they would use them for terrorist work.” As it turns out, al-Muhajiroun-cum-al-Qaeda (or al-CIA-duh or in this case al-MI6-duh) teamed up in Kosovo with the criminal drug-running and terrorist outfit the KLA, the preferred troublemakers and globalist agenda servants of NATO, the United States, and Britain in the Balkans.
“Many members of the Kosovo Liberation Army were sent for training in terrorist camps in Afghanistan,” James Bissett, former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia, told Isabel Vincent of the National Post. “The United States, which had originally trained the Afghan Arabs during the war in Afghanistan, supported them in Bosnia and then in Kosovo,” Vincent continues. “When NATO forces launched their military campaign against Yugoslavia … to unseat Mr. Milosevic, they entered the Kosovo conflict on the side of the KLA, which had already received ’substantial’ military and financial support from bin Laden’s network, analysts say.” In other words, since Osama was a known CIA asset (a false flag patsy who thought he was waging jihad against the Great Satan), and the training camps were bankrolled by the United States and micromanaged by Pakistan’s ISI (considered the CIA’s most successful operation to date), the mujahideen operation in the Balkans was a contract job and Haroon Rashid Aswat was an employee recruited by MI6 for the clash of civilizations game plan. Aswat was apparently doing such a good job recruiting fellow patsies and setting up so-called terrorist camps, “the US Justice Department ordered the Seattle prosecutors [who wanted to throw the book at Aswat for his part in setting up terrorist camps in the United States] not to touch Aswat,” according to Loftus.
Naturally, Fox News didn’t ask why the Justice Department would allow a terrorist who supposedly met Osama bin Laden to enter the country, instead taking the Brits to task for allowing radical Muslims to harbor in their country. Of course, this mystery is easy enough to address—Aswat, like his mentor Bin Laden (and dozens of other stefordized Islamic fanatics), works for the CIA-MI6-Mossad black op alliance and was, until very recently, a useful idiot. Now, with his cover blown, Aswat will suffer the fate of other patsies and useful idiots—yesterday he sat in Belmarsh prison, southeast of London, and was marched before Bow Street magistrates, having arrived not long before on a charter jet from Zambia, where he was arrested on immigration charges.
On June 20th, an FBI affidavit charged Aswat with attempting to set up a training camp in Bly, Oregon, to train jihadists. Of course, the FBI’s affidavit is nothing short of ludicrous, considering who employed the dupe Aswat. But then, thanks to the corporate media, Aswat’s checkered past as a faithful servant (and expendable pawn) for the clash of civilization gang will be swept under the rug.
Meanwhile, here in the United States, we can expect the Ministry of Homeland Security to use the Aswat case and the London bombings to hype its draconian plans to turn the country into a police state. “An unsettling ‘Security Alert’ report in the Wall Street Journal reveals that on July 18—less than two weeks after the London subway bombings—the Homeland Security Department disseminated a collection of CIA threat assessments that listed shopping malls as among the soft targets most at risk of bomb attacks,” NewsMax reports. “Security personnel [i.e., high school dropouts paid the minimum wage] at many of the nation’s 1,200 enclosed malls have been stepping up preparations for dealing with a bomber… They included limiting the number of people entering a mall, placing metal detectors at each door and screening shoppers for weapons.” Of course, this is nothing new. On December 30, 2003, a New Jersey Star-Ledger article announced that the “Short Hills shopping center [was] now off limits for pre-opening strolls.” On that day, the mall “suspended the pre-opening walks by VIP, or Very Important Pacers, amid heightened security over the Department of Homeland Security’s orange alert.”
It was another instance of the neocon Grinches who stole Christmas.
Not to worry, says Arik Arad, the former head of Israel’s shopping mall security. “Arad told [mall] owners to forget about the stringent measures Israelis take to stave off bombings, including hand-held metal detectors, machine guns and explosives-sniffing dogs. Instead, he advised them to bolster security personnel’s ability to spot a would-be bomber, a measure more palatable to Americans,” reports NewsMax. “Suicide bombers commonly case a target before an attack to search for vulnerabilities or conduct a dry run. Homeland Security is also now offering courses on recognizing terrorist behavior to security companies that guard shopping malls.” And what exactly are the tell-tale signs of “terrorist behavior,” according to the Ministry of Homeland Security? Same as usual—”an overcoat on a warm day, a refusal to make eye contact or a tight grip on a backpack.” Of course, flagging this sort of behavior didn’t stop the London bombings, but then the subway bombs were under the train, not in backpacks, as passengers Bruce Lait and Crystal Main explained (only to be ignored by the corporate media who had a vested interest in pushing the “suicide bomber” campfire story).
On the one hand, we are told al-Qaeda is a threat to civilized nations, and on the other we learn from reading news reports that al-Qaeda “terrorists” (or rather al-CIA-duh patsies) are imbeciles who use cell phones easily tracked and clumsily attempt to light shoe bomb fuses on crowded airplanes. But none of this incompetence matters because patsy-terrorists such as Haroon Rashid Aswat are allowed to travel around the world (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Botswana, Mozambique, and South Africa) because they are intelligence assets (useful patsy idiots). Aswat “attended an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan” and supposedly became a “combat training expert” who “met Osama bin Laden,” according to the Times Online. Former Justice Department prosecutor and supposed terror expert John Loftus recently told Fox News that the so called al-Muhajiroun group, which we can safely categorize as another British intel terrorist-patsy-useful idiot group, was “the recruiting arm of Al-Qaeda in London; they specialized in recruiting kids whose families had emigrated to Britain but who had British passports. And they would use them for terrorist work.” As it turns out, al-Muhajiroun-cum-al-Qaeda (or al-CIA-duh or in this case al-MI6-duh) teamed up in Kosovo with the criminal drug-running and terrorist outfit the KLA, the preferred troublemakers and globalist agenda servants of NATO, the United States, and Britain in the Balkans.
“Many members of the Kosovo Liberation Army were sent for training in terrorist camps in Afghanistan,” James Bissett, former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia, told Isabel Vincent of the National Post. “The United States, which had originally trained the Afghan Arabs during the war in Afghanistan, supported them in Bosnia and then in Kosovo,” Vincent continues. “When NATO forces launched their military campaign against Yugoslavia … to unseat Mr. Milosevic, they entered the Kosovo conflict on the side of the KLA, which had already received ’substantial’ military and financial support from bin Laden’s network, analysts say.” In other words, since Osama was a known CIA asset (a false flag patsy who thought he was waging jihad against the Great Satan), and the training camps were bankrolled by the United States and micromanaged by Pakistan’s ISI (considered the CIA’s most successful operation to date), the mujahideen operation in the Balkans was a contract job and Haroon Rashid Aswat was an employee recruited by MI6 for the clash of civilizations game plan. Aswat was apparently doing such a good job recruiting fellow patsies and setting up so-called terrorist camps, “the US Justice Department ordered the Seattle prosecutors [who wanted to throw the book at Aswat for his part in setting up terrorist camps in the United States] not to touch Aswat,” according to Loftus.
Naturally, Fox News didn’t ask why the Justice Department would allow a terrorist who supposedly met Osama bin Laden to enter the country, instead taking the Brits to task for allowing radical Muslims to harbor in their country. Of course, this mystery is easy enough to address—Aswat, like his mentor Bin Laden (and dozens of other stefordized Islamic fanatics), works for the CIA-MI6-Mossad black op alliance and was, until very recently, a useful idiot. Now, with his cover blown, Aswat will suffer the fate of other patsies and useful idiots—yesterday he sat in Belmarsh prison, southeast of London, and was marched before Bow Street magistrates, having arrived not long before on a charter jet from Zambia, where he was arrested on immigration charges.
On June 20th, an FBI affidavit charged Aswat with attempting to set up a training camp in Bly, Oregon, to train jihadists. Of course, the FBI’s affidavit is nothing short of ludicrous, considering who employed the dupe Aswat. But then, thanks to the corporate media, Aswat’s checkered past as a faithful servant (and expendable pawn) for the clash of civilization gang will be swept under the rug.
Meanwhile, here in the United States, we can expect the Ministry of Homeland Security to use the Aswat case and the London bombings to hype its draconian plans to turn the country into a police state. “An unsettling ‘Security Alert’ report in the Wall Street Journal reveals that on July 18—less than two weeks after the London subway bombings—the Homeland Security Department disseminated a collection of CIA threat assessments that listed shopping malls as among the soft targets most at risk of bomb attacks,” NewsMax reports. “Security personnel [i.e., high school dropouts paid the minimum wage] at many of the nation’s 1,200 enclosed malls have been stepping up preparations for dealing with a bomber… They included limiting the number of people entering a mall, placing metal detectors at each door and screening shoppers for weapons.” Of course, this is nothing new. On December 30, 2003, a New Jersey Star-Ledger article announced that the “Short Hills shopping center [was] now off limits for pre-opening strolls.” On that day, the mall “suspended the pre-opening walks by VIP, or Very Important Pacers, amid heightened security over the Department of Homeland Security’s orange alert.”
It was another instance of the neocon Grinches who stole Christmas.
The Kyle Hence-George Soros Connection
Wing TV - Connect The Dots
The Kyle Hence-George Soros Connection
by Lisa Guliani
So, let's be clear on this: Kyle Hence gets his face on C-Span yet again, is somehow afforded the opportunity to speak to Lee Hamilton and other members of the 9-11 Commission, and sure enough fails yet again to ask them why they omitted information in their report provided to them by David Ray Griffin in his book Omissions & Distortions that several of the purported "suicide hijackers" are still alive post-9/11. He also fails to mention that the official government "story" of the WTC collapses defies both common sense and accepted science, fails to mention that the fires never burned long enough or hot enough to melt the steel, mentions nothing about controlled demolition, and fails to broach any of the numerous inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Commission’s official version of events of 9-11. Furthermore, Hence fails to ask them to comment on the fact that Morgan Reynolds, a former Bush administration cabinet member, has been speaking out publicly about the case for WTC controlled demolition. According to the 9-11 Mafia (aka 911truth.org), we're supposed to consider Kyle Hence, King of the 9-11 Gatekeepers, a hero now. A hero? Let’s be serious, shall we?
Instead of asking any of the critical questions he could have asked, Gatekeeper Hence chose instead to ask a moronic question about wire transfers to alleged hijacker Mohammed Atta. Now you tell me, is this the most burning or immediate question that needs to be answered regarding 9-11? Yet for some unfathomable reason, 911Truth.org inexplicably calls Hence a hero, despite the glaring omissions he has made regarding 9-11 in every single one of his public discourses and interactions with the mainstream media. Every single one of them. Why is this self-appointed “9-11 Truth” spokesperson avoiding the crux issue of controlled demolition in these public/media forums? Why does he avoid serious discussion of the issue altogether? Is it more important for us to chase our tails asking inane questions about wire transfers to alleged hijackers, thereby promoting the government’s ridiculous version of the events of 9-11? How does this help the call for 9-11 Truth? How does this expose the government’s role in the mass murder of nearly 3000 people? How does this line of questioning expose the lies of 9-11 to the American public and to the world-at-large? Answer: it doesn’t. Yet hardly anybody is standing up and calling Hence out on this except WING TV. Why?
Over the last few years, Victor Thorn and I have stood back and closely observed how the 9-11 Gatekeeper crowd has repeatedly, deliberately, intentionally, and calculatedly avoided any public discussion of the CRUX ISSUE OF THE WTC event, which is the controlled demolition, in spite of our numerous attempts to engage them. We’ve watched various people - and particularly Kyle Hence - consciously skate around the central topics of 9-11, choosing instead to draw public attention away from the core issues and move them toward inconsequential, peripheral matters and irrelevant avenues of discussion. Essentially, the 9-11 Gatekeeper Mafia has served more as cheerleaders for the government 9-11 myth; moreover, their work serves as a major distraction and detriment rather than an asset to the so-called Truth movement. We’ve seen how they commandeered and co-opted public events devoted to 9-11 in the distant and recent past. Examples of this are found in the 9-11 International Inquiries held in San Francisco and Toronto, and the D.C. Truth convergence held in July, 2005 in Washington, D.C. We watched with great concern as speakers like Webster Tarpley, Jim Marrs, David Ray Griffin and Morgan Reynolds were ignored by the mainstream media at Lafayette Park, yet conveniently enough Kyle Hence managed to steer this same media toward a press conference after the rally to promote a new book authored by Nafeez Ahmed. Does the promotion of this book rate higher as a media priority than steering his mainstream media pals toward coverage of 9-11 Truthtellers such as Reynolds, Marrs, Griffin and Tarpley? If so, why is this? Is it more important to focus on peripheral issues, LIHOP theories, and shooting squirrels while avoiding the giant BEAR in the middle of the room? How does this advance the cause for 9-11 Truth? Furthermore, are we going to continue to allow the 9-11 Mafia to forge ahead in shaping public opinion in this fashion?
So, I started wondering, just who is this 9-11 Mafia puppet named Kyle Hence? His bio states:
Kyle F. Hence
- RYA Yachtmaster
- Freelance Researcher, Investigative Journalist, Photographer
- Former Director/Head Instructor, Adaptive Sailing Program, Shake-A-Leg
- Independent Producer/Director, Multi-media events/Electronic Field Trips
- Publications: Research for From the Wilderness, Open letter to Media at Centre for Research on Globalization., On Insider Trading
- Photography: see Issue #2 "Global Outlook"; published by Centre for Research on Globalization
What his bio doesn’t tell us is that he was employed by Jonathan Soros, nephew of George Soros, financial backer of Bill and Hillary Clinton. As of late 2003, Hence was still in contact with Jonathan Soros, according to a conversation he had with 9-11 researcher/activist Nico Haupt at a MoveOn.org event. It is interesting to note that Jonathan Soros hobnobs with the Rockefellers, evidence of which can be seen at the following:
# Jonathan Soros & the Rockefellers
Kyle Hence is also connected to a man named Danny Schechter, who spoke recently in July at the National Press Club in D.C. for the 9-11 Truth Convergence. In 2004, 9-11 researcher Brian Salter wrote: “Danny Schechter is currently working with Kyle Hence of 9-11 Citizen’s Watch to fund and produce a film about 9-11.” Schechter is the co-founder of an independent media production company named Globalvision, which expanded to the Internet under the name Globalvision New Media. “Globalvision's diverse clientele includes NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, The United Nations, The World Bank, Time Magazine, Reebok, Polygram, The Body Shop, Sierra Club, Universal Pictures, Amnesty International, Sony, Marie Claire Magazine, Turner Broadcasting, MTV, Nippon Television, and many others.”
Please note: All of the above are corporate mainstream media venues or globalist entities.
To continue, Globalvision’s New Media subsequently launched a subsidiary company named The Media Channel, of which Danny Schechter is the founder and executive editor. Of great interest is the fact that in 1999 George Soros' Open Society Institute gave a $126,000 grant to the International Center for Global Communications Foundation toward the launch of Media Channel, which calls itself the 'first global media and democracy supersite on the Internet.'
# George Soros' Parallel Anti-War Media/Movement
Schechter has also interviewed George Soros in 1997:
# George Soros Interview
Researcher Brian Salter further comments that:
“It is important for 9/11 activists to remember that Soros is currently taking a very active and high-profile role in funding the Democrats against President Bush. The fact that Schechter has received such crucial past support from Soros’ Open Society Institute could make the 9/11 Truth Movement vulnerable to charges of being tools of partisan politics if he comes to be seen as a prominent representative (the same obviously applies to other Soros funding recipients as well).
# Danny Schechter Background
So what we’re seeing here is a relationship between Kyle Hence and Jonathan Soros, nephew of George Soros, who hobnobs socially with Rockefellers. Soros is also a significant financial backer of the Clintons, who are behind many left-wing groups. We also find a close relationship between Kyle Hence and Danny Schechter, who is in turn also connected to George Soros. Could these connections explain Hence’s remarkable ability to garner media coverage for specific events, while at the same time dropping the ball at every turn? When you examine the major difficulties experienced by most of the 9-11 Truth Movement in getting mainstream media coverage for their speaking engagements, rallies, and protests, doesn't it pique your interest that Hence seems to have no trouble in this department whatsoever? It’s not only regrettable, but highly suspect, that he chooses to cover only those events that serve questionable purposes, such as the perpetuation of the peak oil ruse.
So, the most important thing we need to ask ourselves at this point is: why didn't Hence make the most of this opportunity when he had the ear of Lee Hamilton and two other panelists from the 9-11 Commission, as well as various members of the mainstream press. Furthermore, does Hence appear to be speaking truth to power, as Bill Douglas of 911 Truth.org asserts in an e-mail I recently received (excerpted below):
Bill Douglas e-mail Excerpt:
From: Wtcqd2000@aol.com
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 23:23:33 EDT
Subject: [911truthalliance] 9/11 Truth Action URGENT: Kyle Hence challenges Lee Hamilton live on C-SPAN today!
9/11 Truth Action URGENT: Kyle Hence challenges Lee Hamilton live on C-SPAN today !!!
"Kyle Hence of 9/11 Citizens Watch IS A HERO. View the video clip today of him speaking TRUTH TO POWER at the 9/11 Commission event on C-SPAN. PLEASE DO NOT LET KYLE'S COURAGE BE WASTED.“
I absolutely refute this assertion of Hence being characterized as a “hero” in any way, shape, or form regarding 9-11. Instead, he has shown himself to be - at the very least - nothing short of a coward; and considering his extremely disturbing associations with the Soros family, which is clearly tied to the evil NWO cabal, as well as Soros' minion Danny Schechter, why is former yachtsman Kyle Hence being paraded as a spokesman for the 9-11 Truth Movement in any public forum? Do these connections unsettle you at all? in my book, the 9-11 firemen who lost their lives in New York City are heroes. Are we now to expand the definition of “hero” to include shaky individuals such as Kyle Hence and his cronies who deliberately steer public attention away from any serious discussion of the crux issue of the WTC collapses, which is the controlled demolition? Along with peak oil scam artist Mike Ruppert, these 9-11 Mafia Gatekeepers are doing a colossal disservice toward the advancement of truth, and every single instance in which they are allowed to co-opt a public/media venue is one more instance in which they are essentially spitting upon the memory of 3000 people who were murdered on September 11, 2001. A hero rises above his fear and follows his conscience in doing the right thing. A hero doesn’t shy away from speaking TRUTH to power or to the public, no matter the personal risk involved. This is because true heroes make their courage greater than their fear. To afford the likes of Kyle Hence “hero” status is not only obscene and disgusting, but also demeans the real heroes of September 11, 2001. Think about that and listen to your conscience.
The Kyle Hence-George Soros Connection
by Lisa Guliani
So, let's be clear on this: Kyle Hence gets his face on C-Span yet again, is somehow afforded the opportunity to speak to Lee Hamilton and other members of the 9-11 Commission, and sure enough fails yet again to ask them why they omitted information in their report provided to them by David Ray Griffin in his book Omissions & Distortions that several of the purported "suicide hijackers" are still alive post-9/11. He also fails to mention that the official government "story" of the WTC collapses defies both common sense and accepted science, fails to mention that the fires never burned long enough or hot enough to melt the steel, mentions nothing about controlled demolition, and fails to broach any of the numerous inconsistencies and discrepancies in the Commission’s official version of events of 9-11. Furthermore, Hence fails to ask them to comment on the fact that Morgan Reynolds, a former Bush administration cabinet member, has been speaking out publicly about the case for WTC controlled demolition. According to the 9-11 Mafia (aka 911truth.org), we're supposed to consider Kyle Hence, King of the 9-11 Gatekeepers, a hero now. A hero? Let’s be serious, shall we?
Instead of asking any of the critical questions he could have asked, Gatekeeper Hence chose instead to ask a moronic question about wire transfers to alleged hijacker Mohammed Atta. Now you tell me, is this the most burning or immediate question that needs to be answered regarding 9-11? Yet for some unfathomable reason, 911Truth.org inexplicably calls Hence a hero, despite the glaring omissions he has made regarding 9-11 in every single one of his public discourses and interactions with the mainstream media. Every single one of them. Why is this self-appointed “9-11 Truth” spokesperson avoiding the crux issue of controlled demolition in these public/media forums? Why does he avoid serious discussion of the issue altogether? Is it more important for us to chase our tails asking inane questions about wire transfers to alleged hijackers, thereby promoting the government’s ridiculous version of the events of 9-11? How does this help the call for 9-11 Truth? How does this expose the government’s role in the mass murder of nearly 3000 people? How does this line of questioning expose the lies of 9-11 to the American public and to the world-at-large? Answer: it doesn’t. Yet hardly anybody is standing up and calling Hence out on this except WING TV. Why?
Over the last few years, Victor Thorn and I have stood back and closely observed how the 9-11 Gatekeeper crowd has repeatedly, deliberately, intentionally, and calculatedly avoided any public discussion of the CRUX ISSUE OF THE WTC event, which is the controlled demolition, in spite of our numerous attempts to engage them. We’ve watched various people - and particularly Kyle Hence - consciously skate around the central topics of 9-11, choosing instead to draw public attention away from the core issues and move them toward inconsequential, peripheral matters and irrelevant avenues of discussion. Essentially, the 9-11 Gatekeeper Mafia has served more as cheerleaders for the government 9-11 myth; moreover, their work serves as a major distraction and detriment rather than an asset to the so-called Truth movement. We’ve seen how they commandeered and co-opted public events devoted to 9-11 in the distant and recent past. Examples of this are found in the 9-11 International Inquiries held in San Francisco and Toronto, and the D.C. Truth convergence held in July, 2005 in Washington, D.C. We watched with great concern as speakers like Webster Tarpley, Jim Marrs, David Ray Griffin and Morgan Reynolds were ignored by the mainstream media at Lafayette Park, yet conveniently enough Kyle Hence managed to steer this same media toward a press conference after the rally to promote a new book authored by Nafeez Ahmed. Does the promotion of this book rate higher as a media priority than steering his mainstream media pals toward coverage of 9-11 Truthtellers such as Reynolds, Marrs, Griffin and Tarpley? If so, why is this? Is it more important to focus on peripheral issues, LIHOP theories, and shooting squirrels while avoiding the giant BEAR in the middle of the room? How does this advance the cause for 9-11 Truth? Furthermore, are we going to continue to allow the 9-11 Mafia to forge ahead in shaping public opinion in this fashion?
So, I started wondering, just who is this 9-11 Mafia puppet named Kyle Hence? His bio states:
Kyle F. Hence
- RYA Yachtmaster
- Freelance Researcher, Investigative Journalist, Photographer
- Former Director/Head Instructor, Adaptive Sailing Program, Shake-A-Leg
- Independent Producer/Director, Multi-media events/Electronic Field Trips
- Publications: Research for From the Wilderness, Open letter to Media at Centre for Research on Globalization., On Insider Trading
- Photography: see Issue #2 "Global Outlook"; published by Centre for Research on Globalization
What his bio doesn’t tell us is that he was employed by Jonathan Soros, nephew of George Soros, financial backer of Bill and Hillary Clinton. As of late 2003, Hence was still in contact with Jonathan Soros, according to a conversation he had with 9-11 researcher/activist Nico Haupt at a MoveOn.org event. It is interesting to note that Jonathan Soros hobnobs with the Rockefellers, evidence of which can be seen at the following:
# Jonathan Soros & the Rockefellers
Kyle Hence is also connected to a man named Danny Schechter, who spoke recently in July at the National Press Club in D.C. for the 9-11 Truth Convergence. In 2004, 9-11 researcher Brian Salter wrote: “Danny Schechter is currently working with Kyle Hence of 9-11 Citizen’s Watch to fund and produce a film about 9-11.” Schechter is the co-founder of an independent media production company named Globalvision, which expanded to the Internet under the name Globalvision New Media. “Globalvision's diverse clientele includes NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, The United Nations, The World Bank, Time Magazine, Reebok, Polygram, The Body Shop, Sierra Club, Universal Pictures, Amnesty International, Sony, Marie Claire Magazine, Turner Broadcasting, MTV, Nippon Television, and many others.”
Please note: All of the above are corporate mainstream media venues or globalist entities.
To continue, Globalvision’s New Media subsequently launched a subsidiary company named The Media Channel, of which Danny Schechter is the founder and executive editor. Of great interest is the fact that in 1999 George Soros' Open Society Institute gave a $126,000 grant to the International Center for Global Communications Foundation toward the launch of Media Channel, which calls itself the 'first global media and democracy supersite on the Internet.'
# George Soros' Parallel Anti-War Media/Movement
Schechter has also interviewed George Soros in 1997:
# George Soros Interview
Researcher Brian Salter further comments that:
“It is important for 9/11 activists to remember that Soros is currently taking a very active and high-profile role in funding the Democrats against President Bush. The fact that Schechter has received such crucial past support from Soros’ Open Society Institute could make the 9/11 Truth Movement vulnerable to charges of being tools of partisan politics if he comes to be seen as a prominent representative (the same obviously applies to other Soros funding recipients as well).
# Danny Schechter Background
So what we’re seeing here is a relationship between Kyle Hence and Jonathan Soros, nephew of George Soros, who hobnobs socially with Rockefellers. Soros is also a significant financial backer of the Clintons, who are behind many left-wing groups. We also find a close relationship between Kyle Hence and Danny Schechter, who is in turn also connected to George Soros. Could these connections explain Hence’s remarkable ability to garner media coverage for specific events, while at the same time dropping the ball at every turn? When you examine the major difficulties experienced by most of the 9-11 Truth Movement in getting mainstream media coverage for their speaking engagements, rallies, and protests, doesn't it pique your interest that Hence seems to have no trouble in this department whatsoever? It’s not only regrettable, but highly suspect, that he chooses to cover only those events that serve questionable purposes, such as the perpetuation of the peak oil ruse.
So, the most important thing we need to ask ourselves at this point is: why didn't Hence make the most of this opportunity when he had the ear of Lee Hamilton and two other panelists from the 9-11 Commission, as well as various members of the mainstream press. Furthermore, does Hence appear to be speaking truth to power, as Bill Douglas of 911 Truth.org asserts in an e-mail I recently received (excerpted below):
Bill Douglas e-mail Excerpt:
From: Wtcqd2000@aol.com
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 23:23:33 EDT
Subject: [911truthalliance] 9/11 Truth Action URGENT: Kyle Hence challenges Lee Hamilton live on C-SPAN today!
9/11 Truth Action URGENT: Kyle Hence challenges Lee Hamilton live on C-SPAN today !!!
"Kyle Hence of 9/11 Citizens Watch IS A HERO. View the video clip today of him speaking TRUTH TO POWER at the 9/11 Commission event on C-SPAN. PLEASE DO NOT LET KYLE'S COURAGE BE WASTED.“
I absolutely refute this assertion of Hence being characterized as a “hero” in any way, shape, or form regarding 9-11. Instead, he has shown himself to be - at the very least - nothing short of a coward; and considering his extremely disturbing associations with the Soros family, which is clearly tied to the evil NWO cabal, as well as Soros' minion Danny Schechter, why is former yachtsman Kyle Hence being paraded as a spokesman for the 9-11 Truth Movement in any public forum? Do these connections unsettle you at all? in my book, the 9-11 firemen who lost their lives in New York City are heroes. Are we now to expand the definition of “hero” to include shaky individuals such as Kyle Hence and his cronies who deliberately steer public attention away from any serious discussion of the crux issue of the WTC collapses, which is the controlled demolition? Along with peak oil scam artist Mike Ruppert, these 9-11 Mafia Gatekeepers are doing a colossal disservice toward the advancement of truth, and every single instance in which they are allowed to co-opt a public/media venue is one more instance in which they are essentially spitting upon the memory of 3000 people who were murdered on September 11, 2001. A hero rises above his fear and follows his conscience in doing the right thing. A hero doesn’t shy away from speaking TRUTH to power or to the public, no matter the personal risk involved. This is because true heroes make their courage greater than their fear. To afford the likes of Kyle Hence “hero” status is not only obscene and disgusting, but also demeans the real heroes of September 11, 2001. Think about that and listen to your conscience.
thetyee.ca Why 'War on Terror' Was Re-Branded
thetyee.ca Why 'War on Terror' Was Re-Branded
The 'war frame' helped Bush consolidate power, never fit reality of terrorism.
By George Lakoff
Published: August 3, 2005
email this article print this story
TheTyee.ca
The "War on Terror" is no more. It has been replaced by the "global struggle against violent extremism." The phrase "War on Terror" was chosen with care. "War" is a crucial term. It evokes a war frame, and with it, the idea that the nation is under military attack -- an attack that can only be defended militarily, by use of armies, planes, bombs, and so on. The war frame includes special war powers for the president, who becomes commander in chief. It evokes unquestioned patriotism, and the idea that lack of support for the war effort is treasonous. It forces Congress to give unlimited powers to the President, lest detractors be called unpatriotic. And the war frame includes an end to the war -- winning the war, mission accomplished!
The war frame is all-consuming. It takes focus away from other problems, from everyday troubles, from jobs, education, health care, a failing economy. It justifies the spending of huge sums, and sending raw recruits into battle with inadequate equipment. It justifies the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. It justifies torture, military tribunals, and no due process. It justifies scaring people, with yellow, orange, and red alerts. But, while it was politically useful, the war frame never fit the reality of terrorism. It was successful at consolidating power, but counterproductive in dealing with the real threat.
Terrorists as criminals
Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell had suggested "crime" as the frame to use. It justifies an international hunt for the criminals, allows "police actions" when the military is absolutely required, and places the focus and the funding on where it should go: intelligence, diplomacy, politics, economics, religion, banking, and so on. And it would have kept us militarily strong and in a better position to deal with cases like North Korea and Darfur.
But the crime frame comes with no additional power for the president, and no way to hide domestic troubles. It comes with trials at the international court, giving that court's sovereignty over purely American institutions. It couldn't win in the administration as constituted.
The abstract noun, "terror," names not a nation or even people, but an emotion and the acts that create it. A "war on terror" can only be metaphorical. Terror cannot be destroyed by weapons or signing a peace treaty. A war on terror has no end. The president's war powers have no end. The need for a Patriot Act has no end.
It is important to note the date on which the phrase "war on terror" died and was replaced by "global struggle against violent extremism." It was right after the London bombing. Using the War frame to think and talk about terrorism was becoming more difficult. The Iraq War was declared won and over, but it became clear that it was far from over and not at all won and that it created many new terrorists for every one it destroyed. The last justification - fighting the war on terror in Iraq so it wouldn't have to be fought at home -- died in the London bombing.
Orwellian nuances
And so the term "War on Terror" had to go. Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the head man in waging war, said he had objected to the term, "because, if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as the solution" Instead, the solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military."
That's what was said by those in the anti-war movement.
Donald Rumsfeld's spokesman, Lawrence DiRita, said that the change in language was "not a shift in thinking," like Nixon saying "I am not a crook." But when the war frame is crucial and evoked by the word "war," then dropping the "war" while addressing the public will result in a shift in thinking in the public mind: If the war frame is not evoked in the public mind, the failure of the president's war policy will be less visible.
The new phrase is less comprehensible, long, complicated. You almost have to memorize it: "global struggle against ...what was that exact wording again? Oh yeah, "violent extremism." It doesn't sound like poetry, but it a perverse way it is. It says the administration's policy is like the words for it: hard to comprehend, long, complicated. The new phrase is not memorable, and that's the point.
"Struggle" does not evoke a war frame. "Struggle" is more realistic in that it does not imply an end; it may not have a victory, the "mission" is vague, it is hard to say when it is accomplished, and it is difficult. Dropping war takes the blame for failure away from the war policy, takes the focus away from $200 billion and thousands of lives spent so far, with more to come. It also justifies bringing troops home next year. If there is no war, there is no war to lose.
"Global" takes it out of any particular location, and justifies going into any country anytime. It is diffuse, but confers a broader scope over which to exert power.
"Violent" is important. If they're violent, it justifies using violence against them. It's not just diplomatic, economic and political -- expect the US to use violence.
"Extremists" was chosen very carefully. It applies both abroad and at home. The Bush administration was using the designation "terrorist" for progressive activists and setting the FBI and the IRS on them: activists like, for instance, members of PETA who release minks raised in horrifying conditions. And the radical right has been using the word "extremist" for environmentalists. The term is set up for the suppression of opposition at home.
War without end
What is most important is what is not being said. The Bush administration is implicitly, through the use of language, admitting that war won't stop terrorism and that the war in Iraq had no justification. Important questions arise and must be asked: If this is not a "war," does the president still have the war powers given him by Congress? If there is no "war" anymore, how can there be "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo, whose imprisonment without due process is being justified by "war." If there is no "war," will we still need to call up the reserves and the National Guard? And is the new framing retroactive? Was there ever a "war" on terror? Was it just mistake to think so?
Language matters, because of the frames evoked -- and, just as importantly, the frames not evoked. "War on Terror" evoked a frame that embodied a policy claim, that war was the appropriate means to stop terrorists, and that the Iraq War was justified as a response to 9/11. "War on Terror" was a way to get the public to accept that frame and the policy it was mean to justify.
That policy is now being disowned, and so the words must be dropped. The hope is, in the absence of the old words and the presence of the new, a new frame will take hold and the old policy will be forgotten. The goal is that the public will no longer associate the Iraq War with terrorism and see the failure in Iraq as a failure to curb terrorism. That way most of the troops can be brought home before the midterm elections without the implication that the administration is giving up on stopping terrorism.
What should progressives do? Remind the public that there is still a war going on, that it was the wrong policy from the beginning, that the administration now agrees with the anti-war activists, and that you can't end a war just by stopping the use of the word. And remind the public of what Karl Rove said just weeks ago: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war." The conservatives were wrong; had they been right, they'd still be talking proudly about the "war."
George Lakoff is the author of Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate' (Chelsea Green). He is Professor of Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley and a Senior Fellow of the Rockridge Institute. This article is distributed by Alternet.org
The 'war frame' helped Bush consolidate power, never fit reality of terrorism.
By George Lakoff
Published: August 3, 2005
email this article print this story
TheTyee.ca
The "War on Terror" is no more. It has been replaced by the "global struggle against violent extremism." The phrase "War on Terror" was chosen with care. "War" is a crucial term. It evokes a war frame, and with it, the idea that the nation is under military attack -- an attack that can only be defended militarily, by use of armies, planes, bombs, and so on. The war frame includes special war powers for the president, who becomes commander in chief. It evokes unquestioned patriotism, and the idea that lack of support for the war effort is treasonous. It forces Congress to give unlimited powers to the President, lest detractors be called unpatriotic. And the war frame includes an end to the war -- winning the war, mission accomplished!
The war frame is all-consuming. It takes focus away from other problems, from everyday troubles, from jobs, education, health care, a failing economy. It justifies the spending of huge sums, and sending raw recruits into battle with inadequate equipment. It justifies the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. It justifies torture, military tribunals, and no due process. It justifies scaring people, with yellow, orange, and red alerts. But, while it was politically useful, the war frame never fit the reality of terrorism. It was successful at consolidating power, but counterproductive in dealing with the real threat.
Terrorists as criminals
Former US Secretary of State Colin Powell had suggested "crime" as the frame to use. It justifies an international hunt for the criminals, allows "police actions" when the military is absolutely required, and places the focus and the funding on where it should go: intelligence, diplomacy, politics, economics, religion, banking, and so on. And it would have kept us militarily strong and in a better position to deal with cases like North Korea and Darfur.
But the crime frame comes with no additional power for the president, and no way to hide domestic troubles. It comes with trials at the international court, giving that court's sovereignty over purely American institutions. It couldn't win in the administration as constituted.
The abstract noun, "terror," names not a nation or even people, but an emotion and the acts that create it. A "war on terror" can only be metaphorical. Terror cannot be destroyed by weapons or signing a peace treaty. A war on terror has no end. The president's war powers have no end. The need for a Patriot Act has no end.
It is important to note the date on which the phrase "war on terror" died and was replaced by "global struggle against violent extremism." It was right after the London bombing. Using the War frame to think and talk about terrorism was becoming more difficult. The Iraq War was declared won and over, but it became clear that it was far from over and not at all won and that it created many new terrorists for every one it destroyed. The last justification - fighting the war on terror in Iraq so it wouldn't have to be fought at home -- died in the London bombing.
Orwellian nuances
And so the term "War on Terror" had to go. Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the head man in waging war, said he had objected to the term, "because, if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as the solution" Instead, the solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military."
That's what was said by those in the anti-war movement.
Donald Rumsfeld's spokesman, Lawrence DiRita, said that the change in language was "not a shift in thinking," like Nixon saying "I am not a crook." But when the war frame is crucial and evoked by the word "war," then dropping the "war" while addressing the public will result in a shift in thinking in the public mind: If the war frame is not evoked in the public mind, the failure of the president's war policy will be less visible.
The new phrase is less comprehensible, long, complicated. You almost have to memorize it: "global struggle against ...what was that exact wording again? Oh yeah, "violent extremism." It doesn't sound like poetry, but it a perverse way it is. It says the administration's policy is like the words for it: hard to comprehend, long, complicated. The new phrase is not memorable, and that's the point.
"Struggle" does not evoke a war frame. "Struggle" is more realistic in that it does not imply an end; it may not have a victory, the "mission" is vague, it is hard to say when it is accomplished, and it is difficult. Dropping war takes the blame for failure away from the war policy, takes the focus away from $200 billion and thousands of lives spent so far, with more to come. It also justifies bringing troops home next year. If there is no war, there is no war to lose.
"Global" takes it out of any particular location, and justifies going into any country anytime. It is diffuse, but confers a broader scope over which to exert power.
"Violent" is important. If they're violent, it justifies using violence against them. It's not just diplomatic, economic and political -- expect the US to use violence.
"Extremists" was chosen very carefully. It applies both abroad and at home. The Bush administration was using the designation "terrorist" for progressive activists and setting the FBI and the IRS on them: activists like, for instance, members of PETA who release minks raised in horrifying conditions. And the radical right has been using the word "extremist" for environmentalists. The term is set up for the suppression of opposition at home.
War without end
What is most important is what is not being said. The Bush administration is implicitly, through the use of language, admitting that war won't stop terrorism and that the war in Iraq had no justification. Important questions arise and must be asked: If this is not a "war," does the president still have the war powers given him by Congress? If there is no "war" anymore, how can there be "enemy combatants" in Guantanamo, whose imprisonment without due process is being justified by "war." If there is no "war," will we still need to call up the reserves and the National Guard? And is the new framing retroactive? Was there ever a "war" on terror? Was it just mistake to think so?
Language matters, because of the frames evoked -- and, just as importantly, the frames not evoked. "War on Terror" evoked a frame that embodied a policy claim, that war was the appropriate means to stop terrorists, and that the Iraq War was justified as a response to 9/11. "War on Terror" was a way to get the public to accept that frame and the policy it was mean to justify.
That policy is now being disowned, and so the words must be dropped. The hope is, in the absence of the old words and the presence of the new, a new frame will take hold and the old policy will be forgotten. The goal is that the public will no longer associate the Iraq War with terrorism and see the failure in Iraq as a failure to curb terrorism. That way most of the troops can be brought home before the midterm elections without the implication that the administration is giving up on stopping terrorism.
What should progressives do? Remind the public that there is still a war going on, that it was the wrong policy from the beginning, that the administration now agrees with the anti-war activists, and that you can't end a war just by stopping the use of the word. And remind the public of what Karl Rove said just weeks ago: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war." The conservatives were wrong; had they been right, they'd still be talking proudly about the "war."
George Lakoff is the author of Don't Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate' (Chelsea Green). He is Professor of Linguistics at the University of California at Berkeley and a Senior Fellow of the Rockridge Institute. This article is distributed by Alternet.org
Yo! New Yorkers: Get A ***king Clue!
Yo! New Yorkers: Get A ***king Clue!
The four year anniversary of the World Trade Center Demolition occurs next month.
Notice I used the word "demolition" rather than attack. Buildings get demolished, knocked down, imploded, as do nations. What happened on September 11th, 2001 was a clever yet diabolical demolition to destroy several structures, a few tall buildings and a couple of nations. Very likely we'll see more of the same--but different variations--in the months to come.
Looking at New York from outside the city, one could be excused for thinking it the Capitol of The Clueless, the Epicenter of The Uninformed. One could be excused for thinking badly of New Yorkers, stupid sheep too dumb to know they got sheared by Man-of-The-Year, former mayor Rudy Giuliani and wealthy cadaver, Larry Silverstein. Sheared and sent to the slaughter, 3,000 of them, including 350 firefighters. Seems like everyone but New Yorkers believes 9-11 was an Inside job.
Because how many New Yorkers have protested to their local newspapers?
How many New Yorkers have written letters to the editors of the New York Times, Daily News, Newsday, Post or Observer, as I have, protesting the official (whitewash) version of the WTC collpase? Peruse the pages of these newspapers and a reader may deduce an overwhelming concern for the collapse of aging retaining walls but little concern for the inexplicable collapse of a 47 story building.
Yo! New Yorkers: Get A Fucking Clue! Not one of your vaunted architectural firms has written an intelligent rebuttal to the official (whitewash) version of the mysterious collapse of WTC-7. By contrast, a California computer programmer, Eric Hufschmid, using his own funds, composed an intelligent premise for why it was a controlled demolition! Am I to believe your architecture degrees from Ivy-League schools are entirely bogus? Am I to believe your Masters degrees in Engineering allow you no insight into the structural integrity of steel skyscrapers? Or is it that your own integrity has collapsed, you pathetic and cowardly New Yorkers?
As for your much lauded Columbia School of Journalism, you are all accomplices to a crime, every one of the so-called journalists who do not speak out. What do they teach you there at Columbia? What sort of myopic professors instruct you? How many of you have bothered to look critically--open your goddamn eyes!--and see the obvious fraud of the WTC "attack." How many New York firefighters are sitting at home, disgusted and chagrined and embittered, waiting for some investigative journalist to call them and get their story? They witnessed the murder of 350 of their brothers, they heard the explosions and saw the demolition, and still you will not interview them?
As for you, New York City lawyers: suppose your law firm, your colleagues, your friends had been exterminated in the WTC? Would you sit at home watching the Mets and Yankees? What sort of gutless frauds are you? Is Stanley Hilton the only man among you with balls? He filed a RICO suit while the rest of you are studying your stock portfolios. Pompous asses, street pigeons have more integrity than you.
Tough guy New York filmmaker, Martin Scorsese,("Gangs of New York"), took nearly three hours to tell the saga of Irish immigrant street gangs in 19th century Manhattan but only devoted five minutes to the bigger issue of anti-draft riots in NYC that opposed the Civil War. Left to tough guy New York filmmakers like Scorsese, any film about the World Trade Center demolition would undoubtedly focus on Man-of-the-Year mayor Giuliani, some trapped stockbrokers, and the heroic firefighters (betrayed and then slaughtered). Probably we would learn nothing about the controlled demolitions, put options, or those five dancing Israelis. Maybe tough guy New York filmmakers aren't tough enough to tackle the really big issues of today. Maybe in a hundred years some brave New York playwright or filmmaker might find the courage to reveal what really happened on Tuesday, September 11th, 2001 and why. Until then, New Yorkers, like most American, remain distracted by special effects.
Obviously, four years later, the whitewash continues intact. Not a single murmur of dissent is heard from the educated New York "professional" classes--editors, publishers, lawyers, judges, architects and engineers. I suppose all of the Yale grads, NYU grads, and Columbia grads have better things to do than to question a massive insurance fraud, a diabolical sabotage of their city.
An objective observer can only conclude: maybe New Yorkers have such a surplus of skyscrapers that the inexpilicable collapse of three of the strongest ones ever built is of no great concern. Of course, if I were a New York firefighter I might conclude that fighting fires above the first floor was altogether unsafe. Tall buildings henceforth collapse in the 21st century, don't you know?
Yo! New Yorkers: get a fucking clue! No steel frame skyscraper has ever collapsed before! Don't you get it? Your city is now the World Capitol of Badly Built Buildings. Your architects are either bumbling idiots or fools, your building inspectors either corrupt or incompetent, your politicians either morons or co-conspirators. Either that or you have all been duped by the nefarious Neocons. If I were an architect or engineer in New York, I'd certainly want to investigate how WTC 7 fell, simply to clear my reputation.
Four long years later, we're still waiting. But as my friend, the Scarlet Pimpernel discovered, letters to the editor serve no purpose. And the Ivy-League-educated, professional class serves only itself. Those of you who have little power, unlike the accomplices named above, must either take to the streets or take to the courts. If the courts are corrupt you must take to the streets, as SP did.
How many of you have stood on a Manhattan street with a sign, "WTC- An Inside Job? Honk If You Agree?" as the FreewayBlogger does almost everyday in Los Angeles? If New York is the media center of the world, you must bring your message to the manipulators down in the streets below. Guilt the motherfuckers! Let them know you know. How many people stood on the courthouse steps when Larry Silverstein argued his insurance (fraud) case? A huge sign--Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, "Pull It"--would have drawn a curious crowd, local newsreporters, cops, CNN and a whole lot of discussion.
Yo, New Yorkers: I love you; I love your city. I admire all those who marched before the war, despite massive police harassment. But sympathy for your plight hasn't worked. Now we need some tough love. Remember, it's not a conspiracy if it's a fact. And if a "terrorist attack" happened once before, without any dissent from you, another will surely happen again.
_____
Amateur historian, USAF veteran and essayist, Douglas Herman writes regularly for Rense. He is the author of the recent suspense novel, Guns of Dallas, available online.
The four year anniversary of the World Trade Center Demolition occurs next month.
Notice I used the word "demolition" rather than attack. Buildings get demolished, knocked down, imploded, as do nations. What happened on September 11th, 2001 was a clever yet diabolical demolition to destroy several structures, a few tall buildings and a couple of nations. Very likely we'll see more of the same--but different variations--in the months to come.
Looking at New York from outside the city, one could be excused for thinking it the Capitol of The Clueless, the Epicenter of The Uninformed. One could be excused for thinking badly of New Yorkers, stupid sheep too dumb to know they got sheared by Man-of-The-Year, former mayor Rudy Giuliani and wealthy cadaver, Larry Silverstein. Sheared and sent to the slaughter, 3,000 of them, including 350 firefighters. Seems like everyone but New Yorkers believes 9-11 was an Inside job.
Because how many New Yorkers have protested to their local newspapers?
How many New Yorkers have written letters to the editors of the New York Times, Daily News, Newsday, Post or Observer, as I have, protesting the official (whitewash) version of the WTC collpase? Peruse the pages of these newspapers and a reader may deduce an overwhelming concern for the collapse of aging retaining walls but little concern for the inexplicable collapse of a 47 story building.
Yo! New Yorkers: Get A Fucking Clue! Not one of your vaunted architectural firms has written an intelligent rebuttal to the official (whitewash) version of the mysterious collapse of WTC-7. By contrast, a California computer programmer, Eric Hufschmid, using his own funds, composed an intelligent premise for why it was a controlled demolition! Am I to believe your architecture degrees from Ivy-League schools are entirely bogus? Am I to believe your Masters degrees in Engineering allow you no insight into the structural integrity of steel skyscrapers? Or is it that your own integrity has collapsed, you pathetic and cowardly New Yorkers?
As for your much lauded Columbia School of Journalism, you are all accomplices to a crime, every one of the so-called journalists who do not speak out. What do they teach you there at Columbia? What sort of myopic professors instruct you? How many of you have bothered to look critically--open your goddamn eyes!--and see the obvious fraud of the WTC "attack." How many New York firefighters are sitting at home, disgusted and chagrined and embittered, waiting for some investigative journalist to call them and get their story? They witnessed the murder of 350 of their brothers, they heard the explosions and saw the demolition, and still you will not interview them?
As for you, New York City lawyers: suppose your law firm, your colleagues, your friends had been exterminated in the WTC? Would you sit at home watching the Mets and Yankees? What sort of gutless frauds are you? Is Stanley Hilton the only man among you with balls? He filed a RICO suit while the rest of you are studying your stock portfolios. Pompous asses, street pigeons have more integrity than you.
Tough guy New York filmmaker, Martin Scorsese,("Gangs of New York"), took nearly three hours to tell the saga of Irish immigrant street gangs in 19th century Manhattan but only devoted five minutes to the bigger issue of anti-draft riots in NYC that opposed the Civil War. Left to tough guy New York filmmakers like Scorsese, any film about the World Trade Center demolition would undoubtedly focus on Man-of-the-Year mayor Giuliani, some trapped stockbrokers, and the heroic firefighters (betrayed and then slaughtered). Probably we would learn nothing about the controlled demolitions, put options, or those five dancing Israelis. Maybe tough guy New York filmmakers aren't tough enough to tackle the really big issues of today. Maybe in a hundred years some brave New York playwright or filmmaker might find the courage to reveal what really happened on Tuesday, September 11th, 2001 and why. Until then, New Yorkers, like most American, remain distracted by special effects.
Obviously, four years later, the whitewash continues intact. Not a single murmur of dissent is heard from the educated New York "professional" classes--editors, publishers, lawyers, judges, architects and engineers. I suppose all of the Yale grads, NYU grads, and Columbia grads have better things to do than to question a massive insurance fraud, a diabolical sabotage of their city.
An objective observer can only conclude: maybe New Yorkers have such a surplus of skyscrapers that the inexpilicable collapse of three of the strongest ones ever built is of no great concern. Of course, if I were a New York firefighter I might conclude that fighting fires above the first floor was altogether unsafe. Tall buildings henceforth collapse in the 21st century, don't you know?
Yo! New Yorkers: get a fucking clue! No steel frame skyscraper has ever collapsed before! Don't you get it? Your city is now the World Capitol of Badly Built Buildings. Your architects are either bumbling idiots or fools, your building inspectors either corrupt or incompetent, your politicians either morons or co-conspirators. Either that or you have all been duped by the nefarious Neocons. If I were an architect or engineer in New York, I'd certainly want to investigate how WTC 7 fell, simply to clear my reputation.
Four long years later, we're still waiting. But as my friend, the Scarlet Pimpernel discovered, letters to the editor serve no purpose. And the Ivy-League-educated, professional class serves only itself. Those of you who have little power, unlike the accomplices named above, must either take to the streets or take to the courts. If the courts are corrupt you must take to the streets, as SP did.
How many of you have stood on a Manhattan street with a sign, "WTC- An Inside Job? Honk If You Agree?" as the FreewayBlogger does almost everyday in Los Angeles? If New York is the media center of the world, you must bring your message to the manipulators down in the streets below. Guilt the motherfuckers! Let them know you know. How many people stood on the courthouse steps when Larry Silverstein argued his insurance (fraud) case? A huge sign--Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, "Pull It"--would have drawn a curious crowd, local newsreporters, cops, CNN and a whole lot of discussion.
Yo, New Yorkers: I love you; I love your city. I admire all those who marched before the war, despite massive police harassment. But sympathy for your plight hasn't worked. Now we need some tough love. Remember, it's not a conspiracy if it's a fact. And if a "terrorist attack" happened once before, without any dissent from you, another will surely happen again.
_____
Amateur historian, USAF veteran and essayist, Douglas Herman writes regularly for Rense. He is the author of the recent suspense novel, Guns of Dallas, available online.
The Lancet Study (ZNet Blog)
The Lancet Study (ZNet Blog)
It’s correct that the Lancet study, by far the most authoritative available, deliberately excluded Fallujah, because that would have raised the estimates much higher—recall that as in all scientific inquiries in related areas (technically, anywhere), this one is based on extrapolation from samples, and they wanted to err on the side of conservatism. For the same reason, they included Kurdish regions where there was very little conflict, thereby reducing the estimates.
You are also correct that the study ended before the devastating attack on Fallujah, a major war crime. For this and many other reasons, their 100,000 “most probable” estimate would be considerably higher if a similar study were done today.
Judging by news reports (not in the US, as far as I saw), a later study of a Swiss research institute basically confirmed the Lancet study, in their case investigating only direct killings.
The Iraq Body Count studies have been useful, but as the investigators explain, these are considerable underestimates, relying solely on newspaper reports of deaths and official figures. The Lancet study was a much more serious inquiry, and therefore has been ignored or attacked regularly in the US (and to a less extreme extent, England).
Any mention of it is usually accompanied by the statement that the “controversial” Lancet report estimates that extra deaths resulting from the invasion “may have been as high as 100,000,” or something similar. Every such study—e.g., the effects of cancer surgery on longevity—is “controversial.” And the 98,000 estimate was “most probable, so that an honest report would add “may have been as low as 100,000.
What is amazing about these studies is that they have been undertaken.
In the past, atrocities carried out by the US and its clients rarely are investigated. Take Vietnam. Apart from completely fraudulent “body counts,” there was essentially no inquiry. We do not know, literally within millions, how many people died as the result of the US attacks on Indochina. Same in case after case. Crimes of enemies have to be scrupulously investigated, with massive forensic inquiries, etc. One’s own have to no less scrupulously ignored (or simply denied).
It’s correct that the Lancet study, by far the most authoritative available, deliberately excluded Fallujah, because that would have raised the estimates much higher—recall that as in all scientific inquiries in related areas (technically, anywhere), this one is based on extrapolation from samples, and they wanted to err on the side of conservatism. For the same reason, they included Kurdish regions where there was very little conflict, thereby reducing the estimates.
You are also correct that the study ended before the devastating attack on Fallujah, a major war crime. For this and many other reasons, their 100,000 “most probable” estimate would be considerably higher if a similar study were done today.
Judging by news reports (not in the US, as far as I saw), a later study of a Swiss research institute basically confirmed the Lancet study, in their case investigating only direct killings.
The Iraq Body Count studies have been useful, but as the investigators explain, these are considerable underestimates, relying solely on newspaper reports of deaths and official figures. The Lancet study was a much more serious inquiry, and therefore has been ignored or attacked regularly in the US (and to a less extreme extent, England).
Any mention of it is usually accompanied by the statement that the “controversial” Lancet report estimates that extra deaths resulting from the invasion “may have been as high as 100,000,” or something similar. Every such study—e.g., the effects of cancer surgery on longevity—is “controversial.” And the 98,000 estimate was “most probable, so that an honest report would add “may have been as low as 100,000.
What is amazing about these studies is that they have been undertaken.
In the past, atrocities carried out by the US and its clients rarely are investigated. Take Vietnam. Apart from completely fraudulent “body counts,” there was essentially no inquiry. We do not know, literally within millions, how many people died as the result of the US attacks on Indochina. Same in case after case. Crimes of enemies have to be scrupulously investigated, with massive forensic inquiries, etc. One’s own have to no less scrupulously ignored (or simply denied).
TvNewsLIES.org » Blog Archive » More About Those Nuclear Attack Speculations
TvNewsLIES.org » Blog Archive » More About Those Nuclear Attack Speculations
Before I get to the current rumor mill, I want you to think about why it might be important to pay attention to rumors even if they never pan out.
Consider the rumors that can serve us well financially. When we come across buzz about a corporate takeover or a drug about to be approved by the FDA, what do we do? Many of us do the smart thing, we inquire. We call our broker or we talk to knowledgeable friends, just in case there is something to the rumor. If there is a way to take advantage of what we heard, we do not want to miss a good opportunity. Some of us will even skip an intensive validation process before we put in a buy or sell order with a trusted, low fee, on-line brokerage service. Sometimes it’s worth risking a little in order to gain a lot.
It seems that when it comes to personal gain or profit, we are willing follow through on rumors. Even more interesting, we also are willing to admit that others know more than we do. When it comes to making a buck, we seem more ready to listen to people who have some knowledge about things we know little or nothing about. We will seek out people with some expertise in areas in which we have absolutely no experience. When we come across stock “tips” on the financial rumor mill, we have no problem placing our trust in other sources. If some of these tips fall flat and disappoint us, we don’t stop trusting these more informed sources. We continue to have faith in their good intentions and we wait eagerly for the next bit of market gossip to come along.
Why, then, do the attitudes of most people change so dramatically when the “tips” are rumors that involve their government? Most, and I repeat most of us do not understand the powerful factors that control the governments of the world. Most people have a view of the world as it is presented in school books. They have no idea that a handful of very wealth, very powerful, and very well entrenched people wield enormous power over most of us. There is no room here to discuss this huge and complicated topic in detail. Suffice it to say that some very powerful people have inordinate power to influence the agendas of many governments of the world. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is fact. Before you pass judgment, do some reading and find out for yourself. Spend some time looking up the private adjuncts to our governmental bodies: the Bilderberg Group, the Illuminati and the World Bank. Research the Tri-Lateral Commission, the National Security Council and the Council on Foreign Relations. Then ask yourself why these unelected bodies are so closely and consistently entangled in so many aspects of so many governments. Then ask yourself why do the members of these groups also have deep ties to many multi-national corporations; many of which are energy, defense and media related. We are not just talking about one or two conflicts of interest here. We are talking about people who sit on the boards of multiple companies and who are involved in these secretive yet powerful organizations. Who do they actually represent; the corporations or the organizations? Why is it that only that extremely wealthy and corporately connected individuals are involved in these organizations?
But let’s do some of your homework right here. One example is a power group with inordinate influence over the policies of the Bush administration, yet totally hidden to most Americans.. This group is one of the most easily researched and verifiable of all: the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). The motives and goals of this organization are not secret. They are not some mythical theory. They are not the paranoid fabrication of a tinfoil hat conspiracy nut. The agenda of this organization is available for all to see. Their plans and visions are clearly detailed on their own website. Their activities, past and present, are recorded and archived for everyone to examine. These are the people who proposed war with Afghanistan and Iraq long before 9/11. These are the people who designed the doctrine for global military superiority long before George Bush was even a candidate for the presidency. And today, these are the people who hold an extraordinary number of key positions in every major foreign policy department of the US government. They are seen and heard over and over on the corporate media. They are invited to offer advice and give opinions to an unsuspecting public that never hears a single word about their relationship to PNAC.
Thanks to the controlled corporate media, most Americans have no idea who these people are. PNAC members hold dozens of key positions in the Bush administration. They are never identified as being members of PNAC. There is never mention of their common affiliation and history. Oddly, the one non PNAC person in the White House is George W. Bush. He is the outsider.
Research this group and you will find that many of these key members of the Bush administration were once known in Washington as “The Crazies!” These men - and women, who have been connected to several past administrations, supported agendas that were so radical that that they were kept out of positions in which they could really do some harm. Today, they direct, and control the foreign & military policies of the United States. That is not an exaggeration. Keep this in mind when you get to the rumor mill portion of this blog.
This being said, let’s understand there is a pretty good chance that there are people who know a great deal more about the power brokers behind our government than the average American. Many of you might be ahead of the curve on this and may have read up on the topics I mentioned. You may also have listened to or read the works of Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, Meria Heller, Whatreallyhappened.com, David Ickey or others on the Internet. There is a great deal of information about these power brokers out there for those who really want to know.
Sadly, many people simply dismiss these sources as the ranting of crackpots or conspiracy theorists whose information is not credible. They do this without ever considering the validity of what is claimed. By doing this, they place themselves in the same class of those who dismissed the round-world theorists. These people could not and would not open their minds to any idea that refuted their belief that the world was flat. They ridiculed and denigrated the findings of people who, in fact, knew what they were saying, and who knew more than their deriders. This made no sense at the time, and makes no sense now. It is self defeating and possibly dangerous to ignore the words of informed sources. It makes even less sense to dismiss them outright before they ever have a chance to be heard.
It makes a great deal more sense to have an open mind about information that has been researched and documented, especially when that information directly affects your life. This is not unlike accepting, or at least considering information about your health given to you by a doctor. You may not have a clue about the technical facts leading to the diagnosis, but you listen to what is being said. When you go home, you might research the condition that was described. You might get a second professional opinion and ask others about the condition. Finally, after listening and asking and reading and thinking, you discern the validity of what the doctor told you. You would not simply dismiss the claims made by your doctor because you were unable deal with what you heard. Even if the diagnosis was bizarre and too extreme to accept at the moment,. you would not dismiss it outright. You would not allow your lack of medical knowledge to get in the way of accepting life saving information. Obviously, that close-minded approach could very well endanger, if not end your life. By the time you figure out that the doctor was right, it might be too late to use what he had to say.
So, why not take this approach with other vital issues such as those involving the government? It might be an essential strategy for becoming more open-minded and ultimately more aware of what goes on in this very complex and confusing world. It also might be helpful in finding ways to distinguish legitimate information from unfounded rumor. You really can’t lose if you listen and think about things you are tempted to dismiss or ignore. At worst, you will have wasted some time. But at best you might be on the receiving end of some very valuable information. Bear in mind what was just said: a close-minded approach could endanger your life. You really wouldn’t want to start listening when it was too late to use the information.
Okay. I think I’ve made my point, so on with the rumors:
As some of you know, there are many rumors afoot about state-sponsored, false flag, nuclear terror attacks right here in the good old USA. You can catch up on these rumors by reading my last piece on the topic by clicking here.
Recent events are adding fuel to the rumors, and suggest that the final pieces of the puzzle may be falling into place. Here is some background:
1. The entire rumor is based on the concept that elements within the government (and their adjuncts, see above) are intent on creating a New World Order in the form of a single world government.
2. In order for the people to go along with these plans events have to take place that create an atmosphere of great fear. Frightened citizens will permit their government to do anything so long as they believe it is for their own safety. This is an old psychological ploy that has been used successfully by governments in the past. At present, the American government promotes and engenders constant fear in the public. In part this is done, as it was during the Cold War years, to finance the military industrial complex. When the Cold War ended, military budgets needed new life - so along came the international terrorist. For war profiteers there is no better enemy than one that can not be seen or identified, and ultimately can never be defeated. There can be no end to a war on the catch phrase, “Terrorism” . Terrorists are not an enemy that can surrender, so there is no way to tell when the military effort has succeeded. The war that is being waged today is the perfect never-ending war that will provide a never-ending flow of funds. It is the perfect business plan for the military industrial complex. An enemy that can not be identified can not be defeated. Everlasting war is the result. Everlasting war funding is the goal.
3. The PNAC crew, formerly know as the Crazies, control a virtual dictatorship. As we speak, there is no oversight or accountability in the Bush administration. Those in power do pretty much whatever they want. Their march into Iraq was a prime example of the way they do business. The world stood still as the administration, with the help of their corporate adjunct, the mainstream media, convinced the American people that Iraq was to be feared. This was a ludicrous claim that was almost laughable. Iraq was a smashed and defeated nation with no military to speak of, that had undergone 12 years of crippling embargoes and 12 years of bombing raids and they were the ideological enemy of Al Qaeda. There was nothing to fear, but fear we did so that phase one of the PNAC plan could go into action.
4. Don’t believe for a moment that the PNAC crew that took control of our government will ever let go of that power. They waited too long and planned too hard to stop in their tracks. They assumed power by stealing elections and reaping the benefits of the “new Pearl Harbor” they themselves said they needed. On September 11th, 2001, these not-so-crazy men went into full gear. The oil pipelines to the Caspian could be fully in their hands if Afghanistan and Iraq were under their control A rapid defeat of these countries would lead to domination of the region. Despite the setbacks to their poorly laid, albeit ambitious plans, these people are here for the duration. There is no way this long awaited power is going to slip through their hands. This is a now or never opportunity for to achieve the goals they openly laid out year before.
5. There is no possible argument to refute the reality that the people in power today needed a tragedy like 9/11 to take place. Without it, there would have been no oppor...
Before I get to the current rumor mill, I want you to think about why it might be important to pay attention to rumors even if they never pan out.
Consider the rumors that can serve us well financially. When we come across buzz about a corporate takeover or a drug about to be approved by the FDA, what do we do? Many of us do the smart thing, we inquire. We call our broker or we talk to knowledgeable friends, just in case there is something to the rumor. If there is a way to take advantage of what we heard, we do not want to miss a good opportunity. Some of us will even skip an intensive validation process before we put in a buy or sell order with a trusted, low fee, on-line brokerage service. Sometimes it’s worth risking a little in order to gain a lot.
It seems that when it comes to personal gain or profit, we are willing follow through on rumors. Even more interesting, we also are willing to admit that others know more than we do. When it comes to making a buck, we seem more ready to listen to people who have some knowledge about things we know little or nothing about. We will seek out people with some expertise in areas in which we have absolutely no experience. When we come across stock “tips” on the financial rumor mill, we have no problem placing our trust in other sources. If some of these tips fall flat and disappoint us, we don’t stop trusting these more informed sources. We continue to have faith in their good intentions and we wait eagerly for the next bit of market gossip to come along.
Why, then, do the attitudes of most people change so dramatically when the “tips” are rumors that involve their government? Most, and I repeat most of us do not understand the powerful factors that control the governments of the world. Most people have a view of the world as it is presented in school books. They have no idea that a handful of very wealth, very powerful, and very well entrenched people wield enormous power over most of us. There is no room here to discuss this huge and complicated topic in detail. Suffice it to say that some very powerful people have inordinate power to influence the agendas of many governments of the world. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is fact. Before you pass judgment, do some reading and find out for yourself. Spend some time looking up the private adjuncts to our governmental bodies: the Bilderberg Group, the Illuminati and the World Bank. Research the Tri-Lateral Commission, the National Security Council and the Council on Foreign Relations. Then ask yourself why these unelected bodies are so closely and consistently entangled in so many aspects of so many governments. Then ask yourself why do the members of these groups also have deep ties to many multi-national corporations; many of which are energy, defense and media related. We are not just talking about one or two conflicts of interest here. We are talking about people who sit on the boards of multiple companies and who are involved in these secretive yet powerful organizations. Who do they actually represent; the corporations or the organizations? Why is it that only that extremely wealthy and corporately connected individuals are involved in these organizations?
But let’s do some of your homework right here. One example is a power group with inordinate influence over the policies of the Bush administration, yet totally hidden to most Americans.. This group is one of the most easily researched and verifiable of all: the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). The motives and goals of this organization are not secret. They are not some mythical theory. They are not the paranoid fabrication of a tinfoil hat conspiracy nut. The agenda of this organization is available for all to see. Their plans and visions are clearly detailed on their own website. Their activities, past and present, are recorded and archived for everyone to examine. These are the people who proposed war with Afghanistan and Iraq long before 9/11. These are the people who designed the doctrine for global military superiority long before George Bush was even a candidate for the presidency. And today, these are the people who hold an extraordinary number of key positions in every major foreign policy department of the US government. They are seen and heard over and over on the corporate media. They are invited to offer advice and give opinions to an unsuspecting public that never hears a single word about their relationship to PNAC.
Thanks to the controlled corporate media, most Americans have no idea who these people are. PNAC members hold dozens of key positions in the Bush administration. They are never identified as being members of PNAC. There is never mention of their common affiliation and history. Oddly, the one non PNAC person in the White House is George W. Bush. He is the outsider.
Research this group and you will find that many of these key members of the Bush administration were once known in Washington as “The Crazies!” These men - and women, who have been connected to several past administrations, supported agendas that were so radical that that they were kept out of positions in which they could really do some harm. Today, they direct, and control the foreign & military policies of the United States. That is not an exaggeration. Keep this in mind when you get to the rumor mill portion of this blog.
This being said, let’s understand there is a pretty good chance that there are people who know a great deal more about the power brokers behind our government than the average American. Many of you might be ahead of the curve on this and may have read up on the topics I mentioned. You may also have listened to or read the works of Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, Meria Heller, Whatreallyhappened.com, David Ickey or others on the Internet. There is a great deal of information about these power brokers out there for those who really want to know.
Sadly, many people simply dismiss these sources as the ranting of crackpots or conspiracy theorists whose information is not credible. They do this without ever considering the validity of what is claimed. By doing this, they place themselves in the same class of those who dismissed the round-world theorists. These people could not and would not open their minds to any idea that refuted their belief that the world was flat. They ridiculed and denigrated the findings of people who, in fact, knew what they were saying, and who knew more than their deriders. This made no sense at the time, and makes no sense now. It is self defeating and possibly dangerous to ignore the words of informed sources. It makes even less sense to dismiss them outright before they ever have a chance to be heard.
It makes a great deal more sense to have an open mind about information that has been researched and documented, especially when that information directly affects your life. This is not unlike accepting, or at least considering information about your health given to you by a doctor. You may not have a clue about the technical facts leading to the diagnosis, but you listen to what is being said. When you go home, you might research the condition that was described. You might get a second professional opinion and ask others about the condition. Finally, after listening and asking and reading and thinking, you discern the validity of what the doctor told you. You would not simply dismiss the claims made by your doctor because you were unable deal with what you heard. Even if the diagnosis was bizarre and too extreme to accept at the moment,. you would not dismiss it outright. You would not allow your lack of medical knowledge to get in the way of accepting life saving information. Obviously, that close-minded approach could very well endanger, if not end your life. By the time you figure out that the doctor was right, it might be too late to use what he had to say.
So, why not take this approach with other vital issues such as those involving the government? It might be an essential strategy for becoming more open-minded and ultimately more aware of what goes on in this very complex and confusing world. It also might be helpful in finding ways to distinguish legitimate information from unfounded rumor. You really can’t lose if you listen and think about things you are tempted to dismiss or ignore. At worst, you will have wasted some time. But at best you might be on the receiving end of some very valuable information. Bear in mind what was just said: a close-minded approach could endanger your life. You really wouldn’t want to start listening when it was too late to use the information.
Okay. I think I’ve made my point, so on with the rumors:
As some of you know, there are many rumors afoot about state-sponsored, false flag, nuclear terror attacks right here in the good old USA. You can catch up on these rumors by reading my last piece on the topic by clicking here.
Recent events are adding fuel to the rumors, and suggest that the final pieces of the puzzle may be falling into place. Here is some background:
1. The entire rumor is based on the concept that elements within the government (and their adjuncts, see above) are intent on creating a New World Order in the form of a single world government.
2. In order for the people to go along with these plans events have to take place that create an atmosphere of great fear. Frightened citizens will permit their government to do anything so long as they believe it is for their own safety. This is an old psychological ploy that has been used successfully by governments in the past. At present, the American government promotes and engenders constant fear in the public. In part this is done, as it was during the Cold War years, to finance the military industrial complex. When the Cold War ended, military budgets needed new life - so along came the international terrorist. For war profiteers there is no better enemy than one that can not be seen or identified, and ultimately can never be defeated. There can be no end to a war on the catch phrase, “Terrorism” . Terrorists are not an enemy that can surrender, so there is no way to tell when the military effort has succeeded. The war that is being waged today is the perfect never-ending war that will provide a never-ending flow of funds. It is the perfect business plan for the military industrial complex. An enemy that can not be identified can not be defeated. Everlasting war is the result. Everlasting war funding is the goal.
3. The PNAC crew, formerly know as the Crazies, control a virtual dictatorship. As we speak, there is no oversight or accountability in the Bush administration. Those in power do pretty much whatever they want. Their march into Iraq was a prime example of the way they do business. The world stood still as the administration, with the help of their corporate adjunct, the mainstream media, convinced the American people that Iraq was to be feared. This was a ludicrous claim that was almost laughable. Iraq was a smashed and defeated nation with no military to speak of, that had undergone 12 years of crippling embargoes and 12 years of bombing raids and they were the ideological enemy of Al Qaeda. There was nothing to fear, but fear we did so that phase one of the PNAC plan could go into action.
4. Don’t believe for a moment that the PNAC crew that took control of our government will ever let go of that power. They waited too long and planned too hard to stop in their tracks. They assumed power by stealing elections and reaping the benefits of the “new Pearl Harbor” they themselves said they needed. On September 11th, 2001, these not-so-crazy men went into full gear. The oil pipelines to the Caspian could be fully in their hands if Afghanistan and Iraq were under their control A rapid defeat of these countries would lead to domination of the region. Despite the setbacks to their poorly laid, albeit ambitious plans, these people are here for the duration. There is no way this long awaited power is going to slip through their hands. This is a now or never opportunity for to achieve the goals they openly laid out year before.
5. There is no possible argument to refute the reality that the people in power today needed a tragedy like 9/11 to take place. Without it, there would have been no oppor...
TAPPED: August 2005 Archives
TAPPED: August 2005 Archives
SPIN-POLLING. Today's op-ed in The Wall Street Journal by pollster John Zogby didn't smell right. His subject was how trade unionists have lost confidence in their unions. His source was one of his own polls. A sample: "Among unionized likely voters, just 27 percent said the AFL-CIO spoke for them all or most of the time. This was lower than the 32 percent of unionized voters who said the NRA spoke for them!."
SPIN-POLLING. Today's op-ed in The Wall Street Journal by pollster John Zogby didn't smell right. His subject was how trade unionists have lost confidence in their unions. His source was one of his own polls. A sample: "Among unionized likely voters, just 27 percent said the AFL-CIO spoke for them all or most of the time. This was lower than the 32 percent of unionized voters who said the NRA spoke for them!."
The FCC Keeps Using that Word. I do not Think it Means What the FCC Thinks it Means § Lean Left
The FCC Keeps Using that Word. I do not Think it Means What the FCC Thinks it Means § Lean Left
The FCC Keeps Using that Word. I do not Think it Means What the FCC Thinks it Means
Posted by Kevin
The FCC has relieved phone companies of the obligation of opening their lines to competing DSL companies:
The Federal Communications Commission ruled Friday that Internet DSL providers like SBC will no longer be required to lease high-speed lines to independent rivals.
(snip)
“I believe that, with the actions we take today, consumers will reap the benefits of increased Internet access competition and enjoy innovative high- speed services at lower prices,” said Kevin Martin, the FCC chairman, in a statement.
I love that quote. It is so brazen, so obnoxious in its complete disconnect from reality, such utter and unapologetic bullshit that it almost approaches the level of art. PR people will be studying that quote for decades. Young press spokespeople will speak of it in voices hushed with awe. The name Kevin Martin will forever be known as the finest and bravest bullshit artist this country has produced. Scott McClellan has a new hero.
This decision will do nothing but allow phone companies to extend their government supported monopoly to an area where no monopoly could be justified. It will destroy competition, limit consumer choice, drive up prices, and further retard the growth of broadband access in this country. In an economy that increasingly depends upon information and information based services, this decision is an attack upon the foundations of the economy. Phone lines are a public utility. The FCC should have mandated that phone companies make the upgrades necessary to facilitate high speed internet access, force them out of the access provision business, and forced them to open their lines to third party companies at lease rates sufficient to support the upgrades. That way, consumers get better service, lower prices, and the economy is protected from the phone companies natural desire to monopolize a new market for itself.
That would take a little bit of creative thinking on the FCC’s part. But that shouldn’t be a problem — base don the quality of their bullshit, we know they have some fairly smart people working for them. All they have to do is to concentrate their efforts on serving the public instead of serving the phone companies. Surely, that cannot be so hard a task.
Surely?
The FCC Keeps Using that Word. I do not Think it Means What the FCC Thinks it Means
Posted by Kevin
The FCC has relieved phone companies of the obligation of opening their lines to competing DSL companies:
The Federal Communications Commission ruled Friday that Internet DSL providers like SBC will no longer be required to lease high-speed lines to independent rivals.
(snip)
“I believe that, with the actions we take today, consumers will reap the benefits of increased Internet access competition and enjoy innovative high- speed services at lower prices,” said Kevin Martin, the FCC chairman, in a statement.
I love that quote. It is so brazen, so obnoxious in its complete disconnect from reality, such utter and unapologetic bullshit that it almost approaches the level of art. PR people will be studying that quote for decades. Young press spokespeople will speak of it in voices hushed with awe. The name Kevin Martin will forever be known as the finest and bravest bullshit artist this country has produced. Scott McClellan has a new hero.
This decision will do nothing but allow phone companies to extend their government supported monopoly to an area where no monopoly could be justified. It will destroy competition, limit consumer choice, drive up prices, and further retard the growth of broadband access in this country. In an economy that increasingly depends upon information and information based services, this decision is an attack upon the foundations of the economy. Phone lines are a public utility. The FCC should have mandated that phone companies make the upgrades necessary to facilitate high speed internet access, force them out of the access provision business, and forced them to open their lines to third party companies at lease rates sufficient to support the upgrades. That way, consumers get better service, lower prices, and the economy is protected from the phone companies natural desire to monopolize a new market for itself.
That would take a little bit of creative thinking on the FCC’s part. But that shouldn’t be a problem — base don the quality of their bullshit, we know they have some fairly smart people working for them. All they have to do is to concentrate their efforts on serving the public instead of serving the phone companies. Surely, that cannot be so hard a task.
Surely?
greatscat! The online magazine: Mind Boggling
greatscat! The online magazine: Mind Boggling
Four of the 9/11 hijackers were identified as members of an al-Qaida cell in the United States over a year before the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon:
"A Pentagon spokesman said members of the commission on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks looked into the matter during their investigation but chose not to include it in their final report."
posted by desi at 6:46 PM
Four of the 9/11 hijackers were identified as members of an al-Qaida cell in the United States over a year before the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon:
"A Pentagon spokesman said members of the commission on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks looked into the matter during their investigation but chose not to include it in their final report."
posted by desi at 6:46 PM
BlondeSense: YOU JUST GOT THE FOLLOWING NEWS ITEM FROM WHERE?
BlondeSense: YOU JUST GOT THE FOLLOWING NEWS ITEM FROM WHERE?
I almost didn't believe my eyes. FOXnews has the following:
"Rep.: Officials Monitored Hijackers Before 9/11 Attacks"
"U.S. law enforcement never received information on Sept. 11 ringleader Mohammed Atta and his possible connections to Al Qaeda, even though that information was known more than a year before the attacks that left more than 3,000 people dead, Rep. Curt Weldon said Tuesday.
"Weldon, a Pennsylvania Republican and vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, said the hijackers were identified in 1999 by a classified military intelligence unit known as "Able Danger", which determined they could be members of an Al Qaeda cell. A military spokesman would not confirm or deny the unit's existence to FOX News.
I almost didn't believe my eyes. FOXnews has the following:
"Rep.: Officials Monitored Hijackers Before 9/11 Attacks"
"U.S. law enforcement never received information on Sept. 11 ringleader Mohammed Atta and his possible connections to Al Qaeda, even though that information was known more than a year before the attacks that left more than 3,000 people dead, Rep. Curt Weldon said Tuesday.
"Weldon, a Pennsylvania Republican and vice chairman of the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, said the hijackers were identified in 1999 by a classified military intelligence unit known as "Able Danger", which determined they could be members of an Al Qaeda cell. A military spokesman would not confirm or deny the unit's existence to FOX News.
NY DAILY NEWS: Report: U.S. traced Atta before 9/11 :: 9/11 CitizensWatch :: We are concerned citizens challenging the official story of 9/11
NY DAILY NEWS: Report: U.S. traced Atta before 9/11 :: 9/11 CitizensWatch :: We are concerned citizens challenging the official story of 9/11
A U.S. military intelligence unit knew 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta was running a terrorist cell in Brooklyn a year before the World Trade Center attacks - but did nothing about it, it was reported yesterday.
Atta escaped arrest even though investigators in an Army intel program called Able Danger got the goods on him and recommended the FBI be called in to "take out that cell." A hands-off order was slapped on the cell because, at the time, intelligence agencies were prohibited from spying on Americans, and the military believed that prohibition extended to foreigners with green cards, the Government Security News said in a story posted on its Web site.
GSN said the stunning revelation that authorities botched an opportunity to nab Atta and possibly prevent the attacks that claimed nearly 2,800 lives was made by Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.).
Weldon is vice chairman of both the Homeland Security and House Armed Services committees.
In a little-noticed House speech in June, Weldon said, "So now, Mr. Speaker, for the first time I can tell our colleagues that one of our agencies not only identified the New York cell of Mohamed Atta and two of the terrorists, but actually made a recommendation to bring the FBI in to take out that cell."
A former Able Danger officer corroborated the details of Weldon's claims for GSN.
He recalled carrying documents to the offices of Able Danger, which was being run by the Special Operations Command, headquartered in Tampa.
The documents included a photo of Atta supplied by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, and they described Atta's relationship with terror mastermind Osama Bin Laden.
"We were directed to take those 3M yellow stickers and place them over the faces of Atta and the other terrorists and pretend they didn't exist," the intelligence officer told GSN.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/335744p-286804c.html This coming from a Republican and with the Commission on the defensive relative to why this information was not included in the Report, plus given the recent story from the CIA relative to the DoD letting Bin Laden escape we have just witnessed folks and friend a most significant sea-change. Now is the time to mount the most aggresive public relations and education campaign on the omissions and distortions of the 9/11 Report. CitizensWatch encourages you to take your own initiative as well as join us with ours as we outline them in the coming days and weeks.
-Editor
A U.S. military intelligence unit knew 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta was running a terrorist cell in Brooklyn a year before the World Trade Center attacks - but did nothing about it, it was reported yesterday.
Atta escaped arrest even though investigators in an Army intel program called Able Danger got the goods on him and recommended the FBI be called in to "take out that cell." A hands-off order was slapped on the cell because, at the time, intelligence agencies were prohibited from spying on Americans, and the military believed that prohibition extended to foreigners with green cards, the Government Security News said in a story posted on its Web site.
GSN said the stunning revelation that authorities botched an opportunity to nab Atta and possibly prevent the attacks that claimed nearly 2,800 lives was made by Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.).
Weldon is vice chairman of both the Homeland Security and House Armed Services committees.
In a little-noticed House speech in June, Weldon said, "So now, Mr. Speaker, for the first time I can tell our colleagues that one of our agencies not only identified the New York cell of Mohamed Atta and two of the terrorists, but actually made a recommendation to bring the FBI in to take out that cell."
A former Able Danger officer corroborated the details of Weldon's claims for GSN.
He recalled carrying documents to the offices of Able Danger, which was being run by the Special Operations Command, headquartered in Tampa.
The documents included a photo of Atta supplied by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, and they described Atta's relationship with terror mastermind Osama Bin Laden.
"We were directed to take those 3M yellow stickers and place them over the faces of Atta and the other terrorists and pretend they didn't exist," the intelligence officer told GSN.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/335744p-286804c.html This coming from a Republican and with the Commission on the defensive relative to why this information was not included in the Report, plus given the recent story from the CIA relative to the DoD letting Bin Laden escape we have just witnessed folks and friend a most significant sea-change. Now is the time to mount the most aggresive public relations and education campaign on the omissions and distortions of the 9/11 Report. CitizensWatch encourages you to take your own initiative as well as join us with ours as we outline them in the coming days and weeks.
-Editor
Fomer CIA Analyst Mel Goodman: Rep. McKinney Hearing Addressed Issues of Substance :: 9/11 CitizensWatch :: We are concerned citizens challenging the
Fomer CIA Analyst Mel Goodman: Rep. McKinney Hearing Addressed Issues of Substance :: 9/11 CitizensWatch :: We are concerned citizens challenging the official story of 9/11
Letter to Editor: Atlanta Journal Constitution
Conspiracy theories: Responses to "McKinney reopens 9/11," News, July 23
Hearing addressed issues of substance
Bob Kemper's article was unfair to Rep. Cynthia McKinney, the hearing's participants and his readers.
Most of the testimony dealt with the flaws of the 9/11 commission and the reform proposals, the reform legislation of 2004 and the policies of the Bush administration that have led to a tragic, unnecessary war in Iraq. Testimony from family members of Sept. 11 victims concentrated on the need for further investigation, not on conspiracy theory. My testimony criticized the commission for ignoring issues of accountability and promoting reforms that merely redesigned the architecture of the intelligence community. None of the reforms would have prevented the intelligence abuses of the run-up to the Iraq war, let alone another terrorist attack.
References to conspiracy theory came from questions to the participants, most of whom strongly disagreed with the emphasis on conspiracy. The hearing concluded that much work needed to be done on the Sept. 11 attacks, noted areas for continued research and query, and outlined a new U.S. national security policy.
MELVIN A. GOODMAN
Goodman, of Bethesda, Md., is a senior fellow at the Center for
International Policy and a former CIA analyst.
Speculation and theory had no place in a forum making the foundational case against key elements of the official story and the flawed or deficient findings of facts and circumstances produced in the 9/11 Commission's 9/11 Report. Of course the same applies to the briefings of July 22nd on the Hill that took issue with and critiqued the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. That the Atlanta-Journal Constitution printed such a distorted and inaccurate picture of the very substantive and fact focused briefings paints a clear picture for us of the complicity of big corporate media in cover-up and underhanded smear attacks.
The AJC in effect spit in the faces of Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Monica Gabrielle who simply catalogued key areas of inquiry and their own findings which either ran counter to Commission findings or were left altogether of their 9/11 Report. Shame on the Atlanta Journal Constitution. They are not practicing journalism rather they are grinding their axe in an effort to discredit the voices gathering on the Hill and elsewhere that shed new light on the attacks and the 9/11 Commission's cover-up and wholesale exoneration
Letter to Editor: Atlanta Journal Constitution
Conspiracy theories: Responses to "McKinney reopens 9/11," News, July 23
Hearing addressed issues of substance
Bob Kemper's article was unfair to Rep. Cynthia McKinney, the hearing's participants and his readers.
Most of the testimony dealt with the flaws of the 9/11 commission and the reform proposals, the reform legislation of 2004 and the policies of the Bush administration that have led to a tragic, unnecessary war in Iraq. Testimony from family members of Sept. 11 victims concentrated on the need for further investigation, not on conspiracy theory. My testimony criticized the commission for ignoring issues of accountability and promoting reforms that merely redesigned the architecture of the intelligence community. None of the reforms would have prevented the intelligence abuses of the run-up to the Iraq war, let alone another terrorist attack.
References to conspiracy theory came from questions to the participants, most of whom strongly disagreed with the emphasis on conspiracy. The hearing concluded that much work needed to be done on the Sept. 11 attacks, noted areas for continued research and query, and outlined a new U.S. national security policy.
MELVIN A. GOODMAN
Goodman, of Bethesda, Md., is a senior fellow at the Center for
International Policy and a former CIA analyst.
Speculation and theory had no place in a forum making the foundational case against key elements of the official story and the flawed or deficient findings of facts and circumstances produced in the 9/11 Commission's 9/11 Report. Of course the same applies to the briefings of July 22nd on the Hill that took issue with and critiqued the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. That the Atlanta-Journal Constitution printed such a distorted and inaccurate picture of the very substantive and fact focused briefings paints a clear picture for us of the complicity of big corporate media in cover-up and underhanded smear attacks.
The AJC in effect spit in the faces of Lorie Van Auken, Mindy Kleinberg and Monica Gabrielle who simply catalogued key areas of inquiry and their own findings which either ran counter to Commission findings or were left altogether of their 9/11 Report. Shame on the Atlanta Journal Constitution. They are not practicing journalism rather they are grinding their axe in an effort to discredit the voices gathering on the Hill and elsewhere that shed new light on the attacks and the 9/11 Commission's cover-up and wholesale exoneration
Atlanta Journal Rejects Rep. McKinney Op-ed Penned in Response to Paper's Smear :: 9/11 CitizensWatch :: We are concerned citizens challenging the off
Atlanta Journal Rejects Rep. McKinney Op-ed Penned in Response to Paper's Smear :: 9/11 CitizensWatch :: We are concerned citizens challenging the official story of 9/11
t's a shame that the Atlanta Journal and Constitution seems incapable of running factual coverage of important events for the people in the Atlanta area. Their coverage of our historic Capitol Hill 9-11 briefing, laden with commentary and innuendo, bore no resemblance to the content of the actual event. They refuse to retract that story--as I have requested them to do--or to even print this op ed signed by many of the panelists and me. Please share this op ed with your friends; post it widely as an example of the way serious issues are treated by the corporate media in Atlanta.
Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA)
August 2, 2005
Editor
Atlanta Journal Constitution
55 Marietta Street, Ste. 1500
Atlanta, GA 30303
OP-ED TO THE EDITOR:
Your recent article ("McKinney reopens 9/11" July 23, 2005, by Bob Kemper) covering a day-long Congressional briefing on July 22 was totally misleading in claiming that it consisted of "conspiracy theories implicating president [Bush]." The actual title was ""The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later: A Citizens' Response – Did They Get it Right?" and not a single panelist at the event, which included 9/11 family members, former intelligence and government workers, whistleblowers and academic experts, raised any allegations that the Bush administration arranged the 9/11 attacks.
The eight hours of testimony included a powerful statement from New Jersey 9/11 widow Lorie van Auken speaking for other family members about their questions that remain unanswered to date, and their frustration that no one has been held accountable at any level for what was not an "institutional failure" nor a "failure of imagination" in relation to the 9/11 attacks, but personal failures to heed multiple and explicit advance warnings of just such an event in the
United States.
Your reporter has done the concerned family members and scholars present a disservice by his defamatory remarks which continue to hide from the American public the many unexplored facts and unanswered questions that mark our understanding of and response to 9/11. I hope the public and the citizens in my district in Georgia will take the opportunity to hear this new evidence through C-SPAN, Pacifica Radio, and my own website.
Certainly the dozens of panelists who spoke about post-9/11 violations of civil rights and liberties, the rise of secrecy and the hidden costs of covert operations and consolidation of intelligence, and the rise of the neoconservative view in foreign policy and a new "Pax Americana" and permanent warfare that ignore international law or the alternatives of restoring justice and peace cannot be called "conspiracy theorists" because they question the immediate response and flawed recommendations that now guide legislation and a new security paradigm.
Historians and researchers who discover glaring errors or omissions in the Commission's report, or the lack of historical framework to their comprehension of the sources of terrorism can't be called "contrarians" for unearthing facts that contradict faulty conclusions or assumptions in the official version of events.
This calls for another look at the government's account of 9/11, which guides so much of what has happened since. Mistakes of fact, intentional or not, have changed and guided America into costly wars and increased insecurity at home. They need to be addressed and scrutinized, not dismissed and used to attack those who discover or raise them.
Your writer further implies that the issues I raised in 2002 regarding 9/11 and its aftermath "helped to spur my ouster from Congress" and that this event merely revisited the questions I raised then. To the contrary, my legitimate questions of 2002 have been taken up since by many others in Congress and the public. Many 9/11 victims' families share these concerns as well. My re-election calls the question to such claims, since my credibility with the electorate in my district is intact.
In the end, public consideration of important new facts regarding all aspects of the 9/11 tragedy is my responsibility to my constituents, the victims of 9/11, and the oath I took to defend our Constitution.
The presenters listed below, who were at the July 22 briefing, join me in this response.
Rep. Cynthia McKinney
4th District, Georgia
Peter Dale Scott, Ph.D.
Ray McGovern
David MacMichael
Paul Thompson
Nafeez Ahmed
Elaine Cassell
C. William Michaels, Esq.
Dr. John Nutter
Anne Norton
Dr. William F. Pepper
t's a shame that the Atlanta Journal and Constitution seems incapable of running factual coverage of important events for the people in the Atlanta area. Their coverage of our historic Capitol Hill 9-11 briefing, laden with commentary and innuendo, bore no resemblance to the content of the actual event. They refuse to retract that story--as I have requested them to do--or to even print this op ed signed by many of the panelists and me. Please share this op ed with your friends; post it widely as an example of the way serious issues are treated by the corporate media in Atlanta.
Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA)
August 2, 2005
Editor
Atlanta Journal Constitution
55 Marietta Street, Ste. 1500
Atlanta, GA 30303
OP-ED TO THE EDITOR:
Your recent article ("McKinney reopens 9/11" July 23, 2005, by Bob Kemper) covering a day-long Congressional briefing on July 22 was totally misleading in claiming that it consisted of "conspiracy theories implicating president [Bush]." The actual title was ""The 9/11 Commission Report One Year Later: A Citizens' Response – Did They Get it Right?" and not a single panelist at the event, which included 9/11 family members, former intelligence and government workers, whistleblowers and academic experts, raised any allegations that the Bush administration arranged the 9/11 attacks.
The eight hours of testimony included a powerful statement from New Jersey 9/11 widow Lorie van Auken speaking for other family members about their questions that remain unanswered to date, and their frustration that no one has been held accountable at any level for what was not an "institutional failure" nor a "failure of imagination" in relation to the 9/11 attacks, but personal failures to heed multiple and explicit advance warnings of just such an event in the
United States.
Your reporter has done the concerned family members and scholars present a disservice by his defamatory remarks which continue to hide from the American public the many unexplored facts and unanswered questions that mark our understanding of and response to 9/11. I hope the public and the citizens in my district in Georgia will take the opportunity to hear this new evidence through C-SPAN, Pacifica Radio, and my own website.
Certainly the dozens of panelists who spoke about post-9/11 violations of civil rights and liberties, the rise of secrecy and the hidden costs of covert operations and consolidation of intelligence, and the rise of the neoconservative view in foreign policy and a new "Pax Americana" and permanent warfare that ignore international law or the alternatives of restoring justice and peace cannot be called "conspiracy theorists" because they question the immediate response and flawed recommendations that now guide legislation and a new security paradigm.
Historians and researchers who discover glaring errors or omissions in the Commission's report, or the lack of historical framework to their comprehension of the sources of terrorism can't be called "contrarians" for unearthing facts that contradict faulty conclusions or assumptions in the official version of events.
This calls for another look at the government's account of 9/11, which guides so much of what has happened since. Mistakes of fact, intentional or not, have changed and guided America into costly wars and increased insecurity at home. They need to be addressed and scrutinized, not dismissed and used to attack those who discover or raise them.
Your writer further implies that the issues I raised in 2002 regarding 9/11 and its aftermath "helped to spur my ouster from Congress" and that this event merely revisited the questions I raised then. To the contrary, my legitimate questions of 2002 have been taken up since by many others in Congress and the public. Many 9/11 victims' families share these concerns as well. My re-election calls the question to such claims, since my credibility with the electorate in my district is intact.
In the end, public consideration of important new facts regarding all aspects of the 9/11 tragedy is my responsibility to my constituents, the victims of 9/11, and the oath I took to defend our Constitution.
The presenters listed below, who were at the July 22 briefing, join me in this response.
Rep. Cynthia McKinney
4th District, Georgia
Peter Dale Scott, Ph.D.
Ray McGovern
David MacMichael
Paul Thompson
Nafeez Ahmed
Elaine Cassell
C. William Michaels, Esq.
Dr. John Nutter
Anne Norton
Dr. William F. Pepper
Yokohama @ Night
This is the view from Kishamichi Promenade. This 500 m of promenade over the sea is the original Harbour railroad track opened to trafiic in 1911. You get a fine view of Minato Mirai 21 district from here.
P.S: Sorry for the overdose of night shots from my trip. The truth is that it is too hot to be out in the day, so I end up going out late and ending my day late too. By the way, this is a first trip I travel with a tripod. I am making so good use of it that one of the legs of my tripod gave way tonight. :(((
P.S: Sorry for the overdose of night shots from my trip. The truth is that it is too hot to be out in the day, so I end up going out late and ending my day late too. By the way, this is a first trip I travel with a tripod. I am making so good use of it that one of the legs of my tripod gave way tonight. :(((
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)