Monday, November 07, 2005
Democrats Are Blinded to Our Common Enemies
Democrats Are Blinded to Our Common Enemies
D. Limbaugh and Newsmax doesn't realise the lies they tell, and how they cooperate in cover up of treason.
D. Limbaugh and Newsmax doesn't realise the lies they tell, and how they cooperate in cover up of treason.
that's my boy
happy little gooberhead in the woods.
on every single hike it warms my heart to know that i have been able to offer him such freedom and life after 9 yrs of who-knows-what? this old man has probably lived more life in the past 16 months living here than he had in all his years prior. ....and he just seems to know it.
on every single hike it warms my heart to know that i have been able to offer him such freedom and life after 9 yrs of who-knows-what? this old man has probably lived more life in the past 16 months living here than he had in all his years prior. ....and he just seems to know it.
Mr Prayingmantis
Another macro of this unique, intersting and beautiful insect. My favourite insect !
Disinformation :: Am I My Brothel's Keeper?
Disinformation :: Am I My Brothel's Keeper?
Author and former sex worker Tracy Quan talks with Reason's Kerry Howley about the Bush Administration's non-action on sex trafficking, zoning, sex labor, and anti-prostutition activists: 'Anti-prostitution activists have found an issue, human trafficking, that they can exploit and that pushes a lot of peoples' buttons. We're living in a time when we don't think slavery is acceptable. Which I would agree with. But people who are naive, who have never worked with a prostitute or hired a prostitute, people who have no natural organic contact with prostitutes, are easily manipulated into believing anything about prostitution.'
Author and former sex worker Tracy Quan talks with Reason's Kerry Howley about the Bush Administration's non-action on sex trafficking, zoning, sex labor, and anti-prostutition activists: 'Anti-prostitution activists have found an issue, human trafficking, that they can exploit and that pushes a lot of peoples' buttons. We're living in a time when we don't think slavery is acceptable. Which I would agree with. But people who are naive, who have never worked with a prostitute or hired a prostitute, people who have no natural organic contact with prostitutes, are easily manipulated into believing anything about prostitution.'
Drudge Retort: DeLay Apologizes for Highway Bill
Drudge Retort: DeLay Apologizes for Highway Bill
Former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), who was instrumental in shaping the highway bill in the House, apologized for its excesses during an appearance on Thursday before the Heritage Foundation.The highway bill seemed like such a good idea when it sailed through Congress this summer. But now Republicans who assembled the record spending package are suffering buyer's remorse.
The $286 billion legislation was stuffed with 6,000 pet projects for lawmakers' districts, including what critics denounce as a $223 million "Bridge to Nowhere" that would replace a 7-minute ferry ride in a sparsely populated area of Alaska. Usually members of Congress cannot wait to rush home and brag about such bounty -- a staggering number of parking lots, bus depots, bike paths and new interchanges for just about every congressional district in the country that added $24 billion to the overall cost of maintaining the nation's highways and bridges in the coming years.
But with spiraling war and hurricane recovery costs, the pork-laden bill has become a political albatross for Republicans, who have been promising since President Bush took office to get rid of wasteful spending.
"Does it make all the difference in the world? No," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), one of four senators who voted against the highway bill. "But there's a great deal of symbolism associated with whether we're going to add $24 billion to the debt in unwanted and unnecessary pork-barrel projects."
Size matters, critics say Conservative groups, government watchdogs and ordinary folks around the country are so offended by the size of the legislation -- signed into law by Bush in early August -- that efforts are underway in the House and the Senate to rescind or reallocate a portion of its funds.
Lawmakers say voters are stopping them back home to ask whether the "Bridge to Nowhere" is a joke or whether it actually exists. It is no joke. The project, championed by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), would link tiny Ketchikan, with a population of 8,900, with its airport on Gravina Island -- population 50.
Former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), who was instrumental in shaping the highway bill in the House, apologized for its excesses during an appearance on Thursday before the Heritage Foundation.
In a speech to a group of conservative academics and policy experts, DeLay blamed the runaway spending of recent years on minority Democrats. When he took questions, the first came from a senior official at the American Conservative Union, who asked DeLay, "How large does the Republican majority in the House and Senate need to be before Republicans act like the fiscal conservative I thought we were?"
"I'm not here to defend the highway bill," DeLay responded. He described the overall 1,000-page legislation, which funds major interstate, bridge and mass transit projects and distributes gasoline tax revenue to states according to a formula, as an important economic development tool. He conceded that Congress may have gone a bit overboard.
"Our responsibility, that frankly we didn't perform very well, is to make sure those are legitimate earmarks for legitimate reasons," DeLay said, referring to the pet projects.
Some advocate for freedom of choice McCain and six other Senate Republicans want to reallocate the pork dollars in the bill to help pay for the damage caused by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of eight House members who opposed the legislation, and who declined any special projects for his district, wants to rescind 10 percent of the bill's total cost and allow states to disregard the pet projects authorized by the legislation, and spend the money as they wish.
"My guess is that most states would gladly forgo 10 percent of their funding for the ability to make funding decisions," Flake said.
The Senate has already considered one proposal to scale back the legislation -- an amendment offered by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to cut funding for some of the projects special-ordered by Alaskan lawmakers and use the money saved to rebuild the Interstate 10 bridge over Lake Pontchartrain outside New Orleans. The I-10 bridge, a major transportation corridor, was shattered during the Katrina storm surge.
Coburn's bid failed, but it gained widespread attention and attracted 15 Senate "yes" votes, a landslide, considering the political clout of Stevens, a former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and a formidable force in Congress. In a display of outrage, Stevens threatened to resign from the Senate if Coburn's measure succeeded.
Pork has fiscal conservatives fuming Stevens and other Alaska lawmakers have been masterful at steering federal aid to their thinly populated state. According to a tally by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan budget watchdog group, Alaska received $1 billion for 120 special projects. In total funding, it ranks third, behind California and Illinois.
The highway bill has long been a reliable source of pork-barrel spending, and it has been used by Republican and Democratic leaders to reward or punish rank-and-file members. President Ronald Reagan once vetoed a highway bill because it contained 152 pet projects. Despite the pork inflation, Bush had no complaints about the current package when he signed it on Aug. 10. "This bill upgrades our transportation infrastructure," he declared. "And it accomplishes goals in a fiscally responsible way."
That was before Katrina devastated New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast, leaving tens of thousands homeless and requiring billions of dollars in unanticipated rebuilding costs. Trying to live within a tight budget, Republican leaders in the House and the Senate are in the process of pushing through politically difficult cuts in Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, farm subsidies and student loans.
The Club for Growth, a conservative group that funds like-minded candidates for Congress, has turned the highway legislation into a bumper sticker for the GOP's fiscal failings. "Too many Congressional Republicans have veered away from the limited government agenda that got them elected to the majority in Congress. They have approved pork-barrel highway bills worse than the Democrats used to give us," says one appeal to supporters.
Former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), who was instrumental in shaping the highway bill in the House, apologized for its excesses during an appearance on Thursday before the Heritage Foundation.The highway bill seemed like such a good idea when it sailed through Congress this summer. But now Republicans who assembled the record spending package are suffering buyer's remorse.
The $286 billion legislation was stuffed with 6,000 pet projects for lawmakers' districts, including what critics denounce as a $223 million "Bridge to Nowhere" that would replace a 7-minute ferry ride in a sparsely populated area of Alaska. Usually members of Congress cannot wait to rush home and brag about such bounty -- a staggering number of parking lots, bus depots, bike paths and new interchanges for just about every congressional district in the country that added $24 billion to the overall cost of maintaining the nation's highways and bridges in the coming years.
But with spiraling war and hurricane recovery costs, the pork-laden bill has become a political albatross for Republicans, who have been promising since President Bush took office to get rid of wasteful spending.
"Does it make all the difference in the world? No," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), one of four senators who voted against the highway bill. "But there's a great deal of symbolism associated with whether we're going to add $24 billion to the debt in unwanted and unnecessary pork-barrel projects."
Size matters, critics say Conservative groups, government watchdogs and ordinary folks around the country are so offended by the size of the legislation -- signed into law by Bush in early August -- that efforts are underway in the House and the Senate to rescind or reallocate a portion of its funds.
Lawmakers say voters are stopping them back home to ask whether the "Bridge to Nowhere" is a joke or whether it actually exists. It is no joke. The project, championed by Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), would link tiny Ketchikan, with a population of 8,900, with its airport on Gravina Island -- population 50.
Former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), who was instrumental in shaping the highway bill in the House, apologized for its excesses during an appearance on Thursday before the Heritage Foundation.
In a speech to a group of conservative academics and policy experts, DeLay blamed the runaway spending of recent years on minority Democrats. When he took questions, the first came from a senior official at the American Conservative Union, who asked DeLay, "How large does the Republican majority in the House and Senate need to be before Republicans act like the fiscal conservative I thought we were?"
"I'm not here to defend the highway bill," DeLay responded. He described the overall 1,000-page legislation, which funds major interstate, bridge and mass transit projects and distributes gasoline tax revenue to states according to a formula, as an important economic development tool. He conceded that Congress may have gone a bit overboard.
"Our responsibility, that frankly we didn't perform very well, is to make sure those are legitimate earmarks for legitimate reasons," DeLay said, referring to the pet projects.
Some advocate for freedom of choice McCain and six other Senate Republicans want to reallocate the pork dollars in the bill to help pay for the damage caused by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of eight House members who opposed the legislation, and who declined any special projects for his district, wants to rescind 10 percent of the bill's total cost and allow states to disregard the pet projects authorized by the legislation, and spend the money as they wish.
"My guess is that most states would gladly forgo 10 percent of their funding for the ability to make funding decisions," Flake said.
The Senate has already considered one proposal to scale back the legislation -- an amendment offered by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to cut funding for some of the projects special-ordered by Alaskan lawmakers and use the money saved to rebuild the Interstate 10 bridge over Lake Pontchartrain outside New Orleans. The I-10 bridge, a major transportation corridor, was shattered during the Katrina storm surge.
Coburn's bid failed, but it gained widespread attention and attracted 15 Senate "yes" votes, a landslide, considering the political clout of Stevens, a former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and a formidable force in Congress. In a display of outrage, Stevens threatened to resign from the Senate if Coburn's measure succeeded.
Pork has fiscal conservatives fuming Stevens and other Alaska lawmakers have been masterful at steering federal aid to their thinly populated state. According to a tally by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan budget watchdog group, Alaska received $1 billion for 120 special projects. In total funding, it ranks third, behind California and Illinois.
The highway bill has long been a reliable source of pork-barrel spending, and it has been used by Republican and Democratic leaders to reward or punish rank-and-file members. President Ronald Reagan once vetoed a highway bill because it contained 152 pet projects. Despite the pork inflation, Bush had no complaints about the current package when he signed it on Aug. 10. "This bill upgrades our transportation infrastructure," he declared. "And it accomplishes goals in a fiscally responsible way."
That was before Katrina devastated New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast, leaving tens of thousands homeless and requiring billions of dollars in unanticipated rebuilding costs. Trying to live within a tight budget, Republican leaders in the House and the Senate are in the process of pushing through politically difficult cuts in Medicaid, Medicare, food stamps, farm subsidies and student loans.
The Club for Growth, a conservative group that funds like-minded candidates for Congress, has turned the highway legislation into a bumper sticker for the GOP's fiscal failings. "Too many Congressional Republicans have veered away from the limited government agenda that got them elected to the majority in Congress. They have approved pork-barrel highway bills worse than the Democrats used to give us," says one appeal to supporters.
ABC News: Supreme Court to Hear Tribunals Challenge
ABC News: Supreme Court to Hear Tribunals Challenge
Supreme Court Agrees to Consider Challenge to U.S. Military Tribunals for Foreign Terror Suspects
By GINA HOLLAND
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider a challenge to the Bush administration's military tribunals for foreign terror suspects, a major test of the government's wartime powers and a case presenting the first conflict for new Chief Justice John Roberts.
Justices will decide whether Osama bin Laden's driver can be tried for war crimes before military officers in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Roberts, as an appeals court judge, joined a summer ruling against Salim Ahmed Hamdan.
He did not participate in Monday's action, which put him in the difficult situation of sitting in judgment of one of his own rulings. Lawyers for Hamdan were expected to ask Roberts to participate in the case, to avoid a 4-4 tie.
The court's intervention was a surprise. In 2004 justices took the first round of cases stemming from the government's war on terrorism. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring, wrote in one case that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."
The announcement of the court's move came shortly after President Bush, asked about reports of secret U.S. prisons in Eastern Europe for terrorism suspects, declared anew that his administration does not torture suspects.
"There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again," Bush said during a joint news conference in Panama City with President Martin Torrijos. "So you bet we will aggressively pursue them but we will do so under the law."
Hamdan's case brought a new issue to the court the rights of foreigners who have been charged and face a military trial in a type of proceeding resurrected from World War II. Trials of Hamdan and three other low-level suspects were interrupted last fall when a judge in Washington said the proper process had not been followed.
The men are among about 500 foreigners, many swept up in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, who have been held at the U.S. military prison in Cuba. The government had planned to proceed with a military trial for another foreigner, Australian David M. Hicks, with a pre-trial hearing later this month, but that will likely be stalled now.
Guantanamo Bay has become a flash point for criticism of America overseas and by civil libertarians. Initially, the Bush administration refused to let the men see attorneys or challenge their imprisonment. The high court in 2004 said U.S. courts were open to filings from the men, who had been designated enemy combatants.
Retired military leaders, foreign legislators, historians and other groups had pressed the Supreme Court to review the case of Hamdan, who like many Guantanamo inmates began a hunger strike over the summer.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright © 2005 ABC News Internet Ventures
Supreme Court Agrees to Consider Challenge to U.S. Military Tribunals for Foreign Terror Suspects
By GINA HOLLAND
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider a challenge to the Bush administration's military tribunals for foreign terror suspects, a major test of the government's wartime powers and a case presenting the first conflict for new Chief Justice John Roberts.
Justices will decide whether Osama bin Laden's driver can be tried for war crimes before military officers in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Roberts, as an appeals court judge, joined a summer ruling against Salim Ahmed Hamdan.
He did not participate in Monday's action, which put him in the difficult situation of sitting in judgment of one of his own rulings. Lawyers for Hamdan were expected to ask Roberts to participate in the case, to avoid a 4-4 tie.
The court's intervention was a surprise. In 2004 justices took the first round of cases stemming from the government's war on terrorism. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who is retiring, wrote in one case that "a state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."
The announcement of the court's move came shortly after President Bush, asked about reports of secret U.S. prisons in Eastern Europe for terrorism suspects, declared anew that his administration does not torture suspects.
"There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again," Bush said during a joint news conference in Panama City with President Martin Torrijos. "So you bet we will aggressively pursue them but we will do so under the law."
Hamdan's case brought a new issue to the court the rights of foreigners who have been charged and face a military trial in a type of proceeding resurrected from World War II. Trials of Hamdan and three other low-level suspects were interrupted last fall when a judge in Washington said the proper process had not been followed.
The men are among about 500 foreigners, many swept up in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, who have been held at the U.S. military prison in Cuba. The government had planned to proceed with a military trial for another foreigner, Australian David M. Hicks, with a pre-trial hearing later this month, but that will likely be stalled now.
Guantanamo Bay has become a flash point for criticism of America overseas and by civil libertarians. Initially, the Bush administration refused to let the men see attorneys or challenge their imprisonment. The high court in 2004 said U.S. courts were open to filings from the men, who had been designated enemy combatants.
Retired military leaders, foreign legislators, historians and other groups had pressed the Supreme Court to review the case of Hamdan, who like many Guantanamo inmates began a hunger strike over the summer.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright © 2005 ABC News Internet Ventures
ABC News: Bush Defends U.S. Interrogation Policy
ABC News: Bush Defends U.S. Interrogation Policy
President Bush Defends Administration's Policy on Detention of Terrorism Suspects, Says 'We Do Not Torture'
By DEB RIECHMANN
The Associated Press
PANAMA CITY, Panama - President Bush on Monday vigorously defended U.S. attempts to interrogate suspected terrorists after the public disclosure of secret CIA prisoner camps in eastern European countries. "We do not torture," he declared.
"There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again," Bush said. "So you bet we will aggressively pursue them but we will do so under the law."
Over White House opposition, the Senate has passed legislation banning torture. With Vice President Dick Cheney as the point man, the administration is seeking an exemption for the CIA. It was recently disclosed that the agency maintains a network of prisons in eastern Europe and Asia, where it holds terrorist suspects.
The European Union is investigating the reports, which have not been confirmed by the White House.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright © 2005 ABC News Internet Ventures
President Bush Defends Administration's Policy on Detention of Terrorism Suspects, Says 'We Do Not Torture'
By DEB RIECHMANN
The Associated Press
PANAMA CITY, Panama - President Bush on Monday vigorously defended U.S. attempts to interrogate suspected terrorists after the public disclosure of secret CIA prisoner camps in eastern European countries. "We do not torture," he declared.
"There's an enemy that lurks and plots and plans and wants to hurt America again," Bush said. "So you bet we will aggressively pursue them but we will do so under the law."
Over White House opposition, the Senate has passed legislation banning torture. With Vice President Dick Cheney as the point man, the administration is seeking an exemption for the CIA. It was recently disclosed that the agency maintains a network of prisons in eastern Europe and Asia, where it holds terrorist suspects.
The European Union is investigating the reports, which have not been confirmed by the White House.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright © 2005 ABC News Internet Ventures
Neo-Con/Fascist Provocateurs Behind French Riots?
Neo-Con/Fascist Provocateurs Behind French Riots?
Neo-Con/Fascist
Provocateurs Behind
French Riots?
By Wayne Madsen
11-6-5
As is the case with other European countries where fascist and Islamist fundamentalist forces have joined forces, there is increasing evidence that the riots that have swept France for a week and a half have been far more than spontaneous reactions to the electrocution at a Paris electrical sub-station of two Muslim teens who were escaping police. With an ailing President Jacques Chirac stepping down in 2007, the battle lines have been drawn between two conservative presidential candidates -- Interior Minister Nicolas Sarzoky (nicknamed "Sarko"), a confirmed neo-con in the tradition of fellow travelers in Italy, Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Israel, and Spain, and Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin. Sarkozy has inflamed Muslims and other minorities in France by describing ghetto youths in broad pejorative terms such as "riff-raff" and "scum." While Sarkozy has inflamed the situation with his anti-immigrant rhetoric, de Villepin has sought to mollify the situation by not wanting to overreact and create more turmoil.
However, with rioting spreading beyond Paris to the north and south of the country and extending beyond young Muslims to unemployed African, Afro-Caribbean, and white young people, the situation is being used by Sarkozy to blame "Jihadist conspiracists" for coordinating the rioting. Sarkozy has strong links to the Likud Party in Israel and the neo-cons in the Bush administration and the Blair government in London. The neo-con media conglomerates such as Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation and the Hollinger Group are blaming the violence on France's relative tolerance of its large Muslim population. The neo-con media is also playing up reports that French rioters are proclaiming that they are turning Paris into "Baghdad." The always reprehensible neo-con racist Mark Steyn, who pens his vile hate-filled garbage for the Chicago Sun Times and other neo-con rags, writes that the rioting youths are not really French but Arabs taking advantage of Jacques Chirac's "weakness" on Iraq. Funny, but this editor never met too many Arabs from Cayenne, Fort-de-France, Basse-Terre, Abidjan, Antananarivo, Porto Novo, or Brazzaville. Too bad about the neo-cons, geography and history don't seem to be their strong points. Racist talking points, on the other hand, are their stock in trade.
What is happening in France has all the signs of yet another possible neo-con "false flag" operation in the same category as the Niger fraudulent uranium documents, the provocative actions of Israeli agents in New Jersey who were dressed up as Arabs during the morning of 9-11, unexplained Spanish and British government activities surrounding the train bombings in Madrid and London, and recent deadly bombings in Delhi during Hindu and Muslim holidays attributed to a previously unknown Kashmiri group. The neo-cons have been unhappy about India's Congress government (a government the neo-cons are trying to link to the UN Oil-for-Food scandal), which unlike the previous Hindu nationalist government, is making peace overtures to neighboring Pakistan. As with France, India immediately suspected closely coordinated planning in the bombings and sought to analyze intercepts of thousands of cell phone calls placed in the Indian capital shortly before the bombings.
The French politician who benefits the most from this explosion of violence in a country where Muslim citizens constitute a significant minority is Sarkozy. The losers stand to be de Villepin's faction of the Gaullist RPR party and a newly-resurgent Socialist Party, which rejects the neo-con international agenda. It is not coincidental that the rioting is mainly plaguing cities and towns governed by Socialist and Communist mayors -- leaders who are now caught between addressing the social problems that helped spark the violence and responding to calls for a return to law and order.
The Socialists, Greens, and Communists are charging Sarkozy with inciting greater violence and then failing to respond to it adequately, thus ensuring the rioting would spread beyond mainly Muslim areas in Paris to wealthier Parisian neighborhoods and beyond Paris to Rouen, Lille, Nice, Dijon, Strasbourg, Marseilles, Bordeaux, Rennes, Pau, Orleans, and Toulouse. Later, the closely coordinated rioting spread further to Lyon, Roubaix, Avignon, Saint-Dizier, Drancy, Evreux, Nantes, Dunkirk, Montpellier, Valenciennes, Cannes, and Tourcoing.
As in Italy, Britain, Switzerland, and Germany, there are strong links in France between Islamist fundamentalist provocateurs and neo-Nazis. For example, French National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen is close to Achmed Huber, formerly of Al Taqwa, a Swiss and Italian financial group linked by the United States Treasury Department to Al Qaeda. Informed sources in Germany and the United States have also linked Huber to the activities of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega during the Iran-Contra covert operations conducted by the Reagan-Bush administration. Interestingly, French intelligence and law enforcement are reporting that the riots in France involve international narcotics smugglers.
The possibility that neo-cons and their fascist allies are manipulating the violence in France to their own advantage has the net result of bringing France into the neo-con's oft-stated goal of a "Clash of Civilizations" between the West and the Muslim world. The likes of Mark Steyn are already insidiously referring to the Frankish-Muslim 732 Battle of Tours between a Moorish army and the forces of Charles Martel. Reasonable political leaders in France should realize that France is being used to ratchet up tension in Europe and distract attention away from recent reports of US secret prison camps and torture centers in Eastern Europe and additional proof that the neo-cons conspired to push the United States into a disastrous war in Iraq. Already, the neo-con media is blaming the violence in France on Islamic terrorists -- a stock phrase for the neo-cons in Washington, London, Jerusalem, Rome, and the French Interior Ministry allies of Sarkozy. However, most of the rioters, mostly from North Africa and Western Africa, are not even practicing Muslims, making the possibility of "Fifth Column" provocateurs being behind the violence all the more likely. French officials are increasingly suggesting that the violence has been closely coordinated and that the primary targets -- trains, police stations, youth centers, banks, libraries, post offices, municipal buildings, schools -- have all been connected to the French government and not to ethnic or religious groups.
Muslim rioting has also spread to Arhus, Denmark and police in predominantly Muslim neighborhoods in Brussels are on full alert. The Danish rioting conveniently broke out as a parliamentary inquiry is due to get underway on the lying by the neo-con influenced government of Anders Fogh Rasmussen on bogus Iraqi WMD intelligence. Neo-con media organs in Europe and North America are suspiciously blaming the Muslim violence on Europe's "welfare state."
The National Security Agency and other signals intelligence agencies that monitor French communications are likely in possession of intercepts that would point to interesting outside interference in coordinating and promoting the French violence and the resultant counter-actions by Sarkozy. It would be interesting to read the transcripts of Sarkozy's recent telephone conversations with his co-ideologists in Washington, London, Brussels, Jerusalem, and Rome. A few years ago, a senior inspector with the French DST (FBI) told this editor that his agency's wiretaps of Richard Perle's home in the south of France had yielded some interesting information, all of which was passed to the FBI in Washington. Perhaps it is time that raw intercepts of international phone calls and e-mail among the neo-cons be leaked in order to hang them using their own past tactics. With their fingerprints beginning to appear on the French rioting, the neo-cons are proving that they will not be put down easily.
http://waynemadsenreport.com/
Neo-Con/Fascist
Provocateurs Behind
French Riots?
By Wayne Madsen
11-6-5
As is the case with other European countries where fascist and Islamist fundamentalist forces have joined forces, there is increasing evidence that the riots that have swept France for a week and a half have been far more than spontaneous reactions to the electrocution at a Paris electrical sub-station of two Muslim teens who were escaping police. With an ailing President Jacques Chirac stepping down in 2007, the battle lines have been drawn between two conservative presidential candidates -- Interior Minister Nicolas Sarzoky (nicknamed "Sarko"), a confirmed neo-con in the tradition of fellow travelers in Italy, Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Israel, and Spain, and Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin. Sarkozy has inflamed Muslims and other minorities in France by describing ghetto youths in broad pejorative terms such as "riff-raff" and "scum." While Sarkozy has inflamed the situation with his anti-immigrant rhetoric, de Villepin has sought to mollify the situation by not wanting to overreact and create more turmoil.
However, with rioting spreading beyond Paris to the north and south of the country and extending beyond young Muslims to unemployed African, Afro-Caribbean, and white young people, the situation is being used by Sarkozy to blame "Jihadist conspiracists" for coordinating the rioting. Sarkozy has strong links to the Likud Party in Israel and the neo-cons in the Bush administration and the Blair government in London. The neo-con media conglomerates such as Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation and the Hollinger Group are blaming the violence on France's relative tolerance of its large Muslim population. The neo-con media is also playing up reports that French rioters are proclaiming that they are turning Paris into "Baghdad." The always reprehensible neo-con racist Mark Steyn, who pens his vile hate-filled garbage for the Chicago Sun Times and other neo-con rags, writes that the rioting youths are not really French but Arabs taking advantage of Jacques Chirac's "weakness" on Iraq. Funny, but this editor never met too many Arabs from Cayenne, Fort-de-France, Basse-Terre, Abidjan, Antananarivo, Porto Novo, or Brazzaville. Too bad about the neo-cons, geography and history don't seem to be their strong points. Racist talking points, on the other hand, are their stock in trade.
What is happening in France has all the signs of yet another possible neo-con "false flag" operation in the same category as the Niger fraudulent uranium documents, the provocative actions of Israeli agents in New Jersey who were dressed up as Arabs during the morning of 9-11, unexplained Spanish and British government activities surrounding the train bombings in Madrid and London, and recent deadly bombings in Delhi during Hindu and Muslim holidays attributed to a previously unknown Kashmiri group. The neo-cons have been unhappy about India's Congress government (a government the neo-cons are trying to link to the UN Oil-for-Food scandal), which unlike the previous Hindu nationalist government, is making peace overtures to neighboring Pakistan. As with France, India immediately suspected closely coordinated planning in the bombings and sought to analyze intercepts of thousands of cell phone calls placed in the Indian capital shortly before the bombings.
The French politician who benefits the most from this explosion of violence in a country where Muslim citizens constitute a significant minority is Sarkozy. The losers stand to be de Villepin's faction of the Gaullist RPR party and a newly-resurgent Socialist Party, which rejects the neo-con international agenda. It is not coincidental that the rioting is mainly plaguing cities and towns governed by Socialist and Communist mayors -- leaders who are now caught between addressing the social problems that helped spark the violence and responding to calls for a return to law and order.
The Socialists, Greens, and Communists are charging Sarkozy with inciting greater violence and then failing to respond to it adequately, thus ensuring the rioting would spread beyond mainly Muslim areas in Paris to wealthier Parisian neighborhoods and beyond Paris to Rouen, Lille, Nice, Dijon, Strasbourg, Marseilles, Bordeaux, Rennes, Pau, Orleans, and Toulouse. Later, the closely coordinated rioting spread further to Lyon, Roubaix, Avignon, Saint-Dizier, Drancy, Evreux, Nantes, Dunkirk, Montpellier, Valenciennes, Cannes, and Tourcoing.
As in Italy, Britain, Switzerland, and Germany, there are strong links in France between Islamist fundamentalist provocateurs and neo-Nazis. For example, French National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen is close to Achmed Huber, formerly of Al Taqwa, a Swiss and Italian financial group linked by the United States Treasury Department to Al Qaeda. Informed sources in Germany and the United States have also linked Huber to the activities of Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega during the Iran-Contra covert operations conducted by the Reagan-Bush administration. Interestingly, French intelligence and law enforcement are reporting that the riots in France involve international narcotics smugglers.
The possibility that neo-cons and their fascist allies are manipulating the violence in France to their own advantage has the net result of bringing France into the neo-con's oft-stated goal of a "Clash of Civilizations" between the West and the Muslim world. The likes of Mark Steyn are already insidiously referring to the Frankish-Muslim 732 Battle of Tours between a Moorish army and the forces of Charles Martel. Reasonable political leaders in France should realize that France is being used to ratchet up tension in Europe and distract attention away from recent reports of US secret prison camps and torture centers in Eastern Europe and additional proof that the neo-cons conspired to push the United States into a disastrous war in Iraq. Already, the neo-con media is blaming the violence in France on Islamic terrorists -- a stock phrase for the neo-cons in Washington, London, Jerusalem, Rome, and the French Interior Ministry allies of Sarkozy. However, most of the rioters, mostly from North Africa and Western Africa, are not even practicing Muslims, making the possibility of "Fifth Column" provocateurs being behind the violence all the more likely. French officials are increasingly suggesting that the violence has been closely coordinated and that the primary targets -- trains, police stations, youth centers, banks, libraries, post offices, municipal buildings, schools -- have all been connected to the French government and not to ethnic or religious groups.
Muslim rioting has also spread to Arhus, Denmark and police in predominantly Muslim neighborhoods in Brussels are on full alert. The Danish rioting conveniently broke out as a parliamentary inquiry is due to get underway on the lying by the neo-con influenced government of Anders Fogh Rasmussen on bogus Iraqi WMD intelligence. Neo-con media organs in Europe and North America are suspiciously blaming the Muslim violence on Europe's "welfare state."
The National Security Agency and other signals intelligence agencies that monitor French communications are likely in possession of intercepts that would point to interesting outside interference in coordinating and promoting the French violence and the resultant counter-actions by Sarkozy. It would be interesting to read the transcripts of Sarkozy's recent telephone conversations with his co-ideologists in Washington, London, Brussels, Jerusalem, and Rome. A few years ago, a senior inspector with the French DST (FBI) told this editor that his agency's wiretaps of Richard Perle's home in the south of France had yielded some interesting information, all of which was passed to the FBI in Washington. Perhaps it is time that raw intercepts of international phone calls and e-mail among the neo-cons be leaked in order to hang them using their own past tactics. With their fingerprints beginning to appear on the French rioting, the neo-cons are proving that they will not be put down easily.
http://waynemadsenreport.com/
Group: Azerbaijan Vote Not Up to Standards
BellSouth - NEWS
Group: Azerbaijan Vote Not Up to Standards
BAKU, Azerbaijan (AP) - An international election observer mission in Azerbaijan said Monday that the weekend's parliamentary balloting did not meet its standards, citing irregularities in the vote count and restrictions on freedom of assembly.
The assessment by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is likely to bolster the anger of opposition parties, who allege the vote was fraudulent and have called for a massive public protest Wednesday.
Sunday's balloting, which came amid mounting tension between the government and opposition, was closely watched for signs of improvement on flawed past elections that sparked violence and destabilized the oil-rich, strategically located ex-Soviet republic. The West has a strong interest in stability in the Caspian Sea nation, which sits on a critical axis between Russia and Iran.
With votes from nearly 93 percent of the precincts counted, candidates from President Ilham Aliev's ruling New Azerbaijan Party were leading in 62 races, with independents - who could include ruling party loyalists - ahead in 42 races and opposition candidates in 10, according to the Central Election Commission. Most of those set to win seats were members of the current parliament.
The OSCE, Europe's leading security body, cited some improvements over previous post-Soviet votes in Azerbaijan, but "the shortcomings that were observed, particularly during election day, have led us to conclude that the elections did not meet Azerbaijan's international commitments on elections," OSCE parliamentary assembly president Alcee L. Hastings said. "It pains me to report that progress noted in the pre-election period was undermined by significant deficiencies in the count."
The OSCE statement said observers witnessed attempts to influence voter choices, unauthorized people directing or interfering in the voting process, and examples of ballot stuffing. It said the checking of voters' fingers for traces of ink in order to prevent multiple voting, were not followed in 11 percent of polling stations its observers visited.
Domestic observers and members of polling station commissions were expelled from some polling stations, the OSCE said.
Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Group: Azerbaijan Vote Not Up to Standards
BAKU, Azerbaijan (AP) - An international election observer mission in Azerbaijan said Monday that the weekend's parliamentary balloting did not meet its standards, citing irregularities in the vote count and restrictions on freedom of assembly.
The assessment by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is likely to bolster the anger of opposition parties, who allege the vote was fraudulent and have called for a massive public protest Wednesday.
Sunday's balloting, which came amid mounting tension between the government and opposition, was closely watched for signs of improvement on flawed past elections that sparked violence and destabilized the oil-rich, strategically located ex-Soviet republic. The West has a strong interest in stability in the Caspian Sea nation, which sits on a critical axis between Russia and Iran.
With votes from nearly 93 percent of the precincts counted, candidates from President Ilham Aliev's ruling New Azerbaijan Party were leading in 62 races, with independents - who could include ruling party loyalists - ahead in 42 races and opposition candidates in 10, according to the Central Election Commission. Most of those set to win seats were members of the current parliament.
The OSCE, Europe's leading security body, cited some improvements over previous post-Soviet votes in Azerbaijan, but "the shortcomings that were observed, particularly during election day, have led us to conclude that the elections did not meet Azerbaijan's international commitments on elections," OSCE parliamentary assembly president Alcee L. Hastings said. "It pains me to report that progress noted in the pre-election period was undermined by significant deficiencies in the count."
The OSCE statement said observers witnessed attempts to influence voter choices, unauthorized people directing or interfering in the voting process, and examples of ballot stuffing. It said the checking of voters' fingers for traces of ink in order to prevent multiple voting, were not followed in 11 percent of polling stations its observers visited.
Domestic observers and members of polling station commissions were expelled from some polling stations, the OSCE said.
Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
WSJ.com - Rioting Across France Hits a New Peak
WSJ.com - Rioting Across France Hits a New Peak
Rioting Across FranceHits a New Peak
More Than 1,400 Vehicles Are BurnedIn 11th Night of Violence, Police Chief Says
A WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE NEWS ROUNDUPNovember 7, 2005 7:34 a.m.
PARIS – Rioting across France hit a new peak with 1,408 vehicles burned in an 11th night of rioting, France's national police chief said Monday.
The figure was a sharp increase from the night before, when 1,295 vehicles were burned, Michel Gaudin told a news conference. He said police made 395 arrests overnight Sunday to Monday, up from 345 the night before.
Later Monday, French police said a man beaten during riots has died, becoming the first fatality since the unrest started.
"We are witnessing a sort of shock wave that is spreading across the country," Mr. Gaudin said, noting that the violence appeared to be sliding away from Paris and worsening elsewhere in France.
In the rioting, youths fired birdshot at police and hurled Molotov cocktails at churches, schools and a daycare center. Ten riot police officers were injured by fine-grain birdshot in a clash with rioters late Sunday in the southern Paris suburb of Grigny, with two of them hospitalized, national police spokesman Patrick Hamon said. The two officers' lives were not in danger.
French President Jacques Chirac promised to arrest and punish those who "sow violence or fear."
"The law must have the last word," Mr. Chirac said Sunday after a security meeting with top ministers, making his first public address on the riots. France is determined "to be stronger than those who want to sow violence or fear, and they will be arrested, judged and punished," he said.
Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin promised speeded-up trials for rioters and extra security during France's worst civil unrest in at least a decade.
From an outburst of anger in suburban Paris housing projects, the violence has fanned out into a nationwide show of disdain for French authority from youths, including the children of Arabs and black Africans angered by high unemployment, poor housing and discrimination. The president said France would promote "respect for all, justice and equal opportunities." But the priority for now is "restoring security and public order," he said.
Arsonists burned two schools and a bus in the central city of Saint-Etienne and its suburbs, and two people were injured in a bus attack. Churches were set ablaze in northern Lens and southern Sete, Mr. Hamon, the police spokesman, said. The extent of damage was not yet clear.
In Colombes in suburban Paris, youths pelted rocks at a bus, sending a 13-month-old child to the hospital with a head injury, Mr. Hamon said. In another Paris suburb, Saint-Maurice, a daycare center burned.
Much of the youths' anger has focused on law-and-order Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who inflamed passions by referring to troublemakers as "scum." In Strasbourg, youths stole a car and rammed it into a housing project, setting the vehicle and the building on fire.
"We'll stop when Sarkozy steps down," said the defiant 17-year-old driver, who gave his name only as Murat. Under arrest, he and several others awaited a ride to the police station as smoke poured from the windows of the housing project behind them.
Mr. Sarkozy said he planned to visit the two hospitalized police officers. It was unclear whether they were shot with hunting rifles or a less lethal weapon, an Interior Ministry spokesman said. One was wounded in the neck, the other in the legs.
The tough-talking interior minister said police must restore law and order to France, or gangs and extremists would fill the void. "We will take the time we need, but order must return," Mr. Sarkozy said.
The human toll has been modest relative to the stark scenes of vandalism being beamed around the world. No rioters or police had died in the violence as of Sunday. Rather than confronting the well-armed police, most of the rioters are dodging them, working in small bands and quickly vandalizing vehicles and public buildings. Life in central Paris went on as usual, with tourists and residents clogging the streets, parks and museums.
The unchecked violence is a blunt reminder that reaching an accommodation with its Muslim minorities is one of Europe's most pressing long-term problems, along with reviving a long-sluggish economy and dealing with an aging populace. Muslims account for an estimated 5% or more of the populations of France, the Netherlands, Germany and Britain and are heavily concentrated in big cities. In France, home to an estimated five million Muslims, the largest community in Western Europe, the rioters have been young men of Arab and African origin.
Italian opposition leader Romano Prodi warned that his country could fall prey to similar unrest in its poor areas. "Italy has the worst suburbs in Europe," he told reporters over the weekend. "Let's not think we're any different than Paris. It's only a matter of time."
This year is proving to be a watershed in the history of modern Europe's encounter with Islam. As a host of events have shown -- from the homegrown terrorists who bombed the London subways in July to the European Union's near rejection of a membership bid from Muslim Turkey and now the Paris riots -- Europe has failed to cope with the Muslims within and on its borders.
The rioting began Oct. 27 in Clichy-sous-Bois -- one of the many poor, immigrant suburbs that surround Paris -- after two teenagers of North African origin accidentally were electrocuted when they hid in a power substation after they thought they were being chased by police. The boys died. No other deaths have been reported.
The riots are turning into a leadership crisis for President Chirac. Some French observers are comparing the unrest to the student demonstrations that paralyzed France in 1968. Jean-Louis Debré, president of the French National Assembly and mayor of Evreux, Sunday called the rioting in his town "an episode of urban guerrilla warfare'' and called on the government "to make a great show of firmness'' in response.
Mr. Chirac's team has so far failed to get a grip on the mobs -- and is being accused by many of making things worse. The unrest quickly spread from Clichy-sous-Bois to other Paris suburbs after Mr. Sarkozy called the rioters "thugs" and "scum" in an appearance on television news.
Despite the harsh words he aimed at rioters, Mr. Sarkozy is one of France's few mainstream politicians who champion greater rights for immigrants. He recently stirred controversy in his own center-right ruling party by proposing to let immigrants vote in local elections. He also was one of the first French politicians to call for affirmative action to help immigrants gain a role alongside France's all-white elite.
In France, frank public discussion of the plight of minorities is made difficult by the state's republican ideology. In official French thinking, the only thing that matters is whether a resident is a French citizen or not. The French census doesn't tally people by creed or ethnic background.
In reality, minority groups suffer much greater rates of joblessness than the white majority, and France has no national political leaders of Arab or African origin. A few businesses and schools have only just begun experimenting, cautiously, with small affirmative-action programs.
Rioting Across FranceHits a New Peak
More Than 1,400 Vehicles Are BurnedIn 11th Night of Violence, Police Chief Says
A WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE NEWS ROUNDUPNovember 7, 2005 7:34 a.m.
PARIS – Rioting across France hit a new peak with 1,408 vehicles burned in an 11th night of rioting, France's national police chief said Monday.
The figure was a sharp increase from the night before, when 1,295 vehicles were burned, Michel Gaudin told a news conference. He said police made 395 arrests overnight Sunday to Monday, up from 345 the night before.
Later Monday, French police said a man beaten during riots has died, becoming the first fatality since the unrest started.
"We are witnessing a sort of shock wave that is spreading across the country," Mr. Gaudin said, noting that the violence appeared to be sliding away from Paris and worsening elsewhere in France.
In the rioting, youths fired birdshot at police and hurled Molotov cocktails at churches, schools and a daycare center. Ten riot police officers were injured by fine-grain birdshot in a clash with rioters late Sunday in the southern Paris suburb of Grigny, with two of them hospitalized, national police spokesman Patrick Hamon said. The two officers' lives were not in danger.
French President Jacques Chirac promised to arrest and punish those who "sow violence or fear."
"The law must have the last word," Mr. Chirac said Sunday after a security meeting with top ministers, making his first public address on the riots. France is determined "to be stronger than those who want to sow violence or fear, and they will be arrested, judged and punished," he said.
Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin promised speeded-up trials for rioters and extra security during France's worst civil unrest in at least a decade.
From an outburst of anger in suburban Paris housing projects, the violence has fanned out into a nationwide show of disdain for French authority from youths, including the children of Arabs and black Africans angered by high unemployment, poor housing and discrimination. The president said France would promote "respect for all, justice and equal opportunities." But the priority for now is "restoring security and public order," he said.
Arsonists burned two schools and a bus in the central city of Saint-Etienne and its suburbs, and two people were injured in a bus attack. Churches were set ablaze in northern Lens and southern Sete, Mr. Hamon, the police spokesman, said. The extent of damage was not yet clear.
In Colombes in suburban Paris, youths pelted rocks at a bus, sending a 13-month-old child to the hospital with a head injury, Mr. Hamon said. In another Paris suburb, Saint-Maurice, a daycare center burned.
Much of the youths' anger has focused on law-and-order Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, who inflamed passions by referring to troublemakers as "scum." In Strasbourg, youths stole a car and rammed it into a housing project, setting the vehicle and the building on fire.
"We'll stop when Sarkozy steps down," said the defiant 17-year-old driver, who gave his name only as Murat. Under arrest, he and several others awaited a ride to the police station as smoke poured from the windows of the housing project behind them.
Mr. Sarkozy said he planned to visit the two hospitalized police officers. It was unclear whether they were shot with hunting rifles or a less lethal weapon, an Interior Ministry spokesman said. One was wounded in the neck, the other in the legs.
The tough-talking interior minister said police must restore law and order to France, or gangs and extremists would fill the void. "We will take the time we need, but order must return," Mr. Sarkozy said.
The human toll has been modest relative to the stark scenes of vandalism being beamed around the world. No rioters or police had died in the violence as of Sunday. Rather than confronting the well-armed police, most of the rioters are dodging them, working in small bands and quickly vandalizing vehicles and public buildings. Life in central Paris went on as usual, with tourists and residents clogging the streets, parks and museums.
The unchecked violence is a blunt reminder that reaching an accommodation with its Muslim minorities is one of Europe's most pressing long-term problems, along with reviving a long-sluggish economy and dealing with an aging populace. Muslims account for an estimated 5% or more of the populations of France, the Netherlands, Germany and Britain and are heavily concentrated in big cities. In France, home to an estimated five million Muslims, the largest community in Western Europe, the rioters have been young men of Arab and African origin.
Italian opposition leader Romano Prodi warned that his country could fall prey to similar unrest in its poor areas. "Italy has the worst suburbs in Europe," he told reporters over the weekend. "Let's not think we're any different than Paris. It's only a matter of time."
This year is proving to be a watershed in the history of modern Europe's encounter with Islam. As a host of events have shown -- from the homegrown terrorists who bombed the London subways in July to the European Union's near rejection of a membership bid from Muslim Turkey and now the Paris riots -- Europe has failed to cope with the Muslims within and on its borders.
The rioting began Oct. 27 in Clichy-sous-Bois -- one of the many poor, immigrant suburbs that surround Paris -- after two teenagers of North African origin accidentally were electrocuted when they hid in a power substation after they thought they were being chased by police. The boys died. No other deaths have been reported.
The riots are turning into a leadership crisis for President Chirac. Some French observers are comparing the unrest to the student demonstrations that paralyzed France in 1968. Jean-Louis Debré, president of the French National Assembly and mayor of Evreux, Sunday called the rioting in his town "an episode of urban guerrilla warfare'' and called on the government "to make a great show of firmness'' in response.
Mr. Chirac's team has so far failed to get a grip on the mobs -- and is being accused by many of making things worse. The unrest quickly spread from Clichy-sous-Bois to other Paris suburbs after Mr. Sarkozy called the rioters "thugs" and "scum" in an appearance on television news.
Despite the harsh words he aimed at rioters, Mr. Sarkozy is one of France's few mainstream politicians who champion greater rights for immigrants. He recently stirred controversy in his own center-right ruling party by proposing to let immigrants vote in local elections. He also was one of the first French politicians to call for affirmative action to help immigrants gain a role alongside France's all-white elite.
In France, frank public discussion of the plight of minorities is made difficult by the state's republican ideology. In official French thinking, the only thing that matters is whether a resident is a French citizen or not. The French census doesn't tally people by creed or ethnic background.
In reality, minority groups suffer much greater rates of joblessness than the white majority, and France has no national political leaders of Arab or African origin. A few businesses and schools have only just begun experimenting, cautiously, with small affirmative-action programs.
Why did I go to the Adirondacks two weekends in a row? Here's why.
Why did I go to the Adirondacks two weekends in a row? Here's why.
Originally uploaded by carpeicthus.
UPDATE: This photo has a meta-photo
UPDATE UPDATE: Flickr calls this the Most Interesting Photo of July 31, 2005 at the moment.
So Much Lost
This sculpture sits in Lakeview Cemetery, Cleveland, Ohio. I'm not sure if it is a woman or a man. In the wider shots - which I will post soon - you can see that the person is sitting, depressed, with their hands resting on a very prominent sword. It's quite striking and quite sad.
George Washington's Blog: Newsday Does 9/11
George Washington's Blog: Newsday Does 9/11
Newsday Does 9/11
Today, November 6th, Newsday published a story admitting that questioning the "official" 9/11 story is becoming mainstream, but trying to write off all such questioning as being another conspiracy theory.Here's a letter I wrote to the editor. You can use it if you wish to send your own letter. The address is:Letters Editor, Newsday, 235 Pinelawn Rd., Melville, NY 11747-4250Fax: 631-843-2986E-Mail: letters@newsday.comDear Editor,I am writing regarding Mary Voboril's November 6th article entitled "Conspiracy Theories: The truth is out there - maybe". While Ms. Voboril may have consulted a couple of experts regarding conspiracy theories in general, it does not appear that she has investigated the first thing about 9/11 itself. Ms. Voboril might be surprised to learn that the following high-ranking current and former U.S. Government officials have questioned the official 9/11 story, and many of them have directly stated that elements of the government were complicit in the attacks:Current U.S. congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney;Former chief economist for the Department of Labor under George W. Bush, who was also director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis, Morgan Reynolds;Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, listed by Who's Who in America as one of the 1,000 most influential political thinkers in the world, Paul Craig Roberts;Former director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (who is also a Catholic Archbishop), Dr. Robert M. Bowman;Former senior CIA analyst, who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents, Ray McGovern;Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter, Morton Goulder;Former US Ambassador and Chief of Mission to Iraq, and Former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer, Edward L. Peck;Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson; andPentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, as well as a who's who of liberals, conservatives and independents.See http://www.911proof.com/I would urge Ms. Voboril to look at the facts for herself. In addition, while I applaud Ms. Voboril for noting the kernel of truth in some conspiracy theories, I would remind her of the following quote: "If you tell a big enough Lie, and keep on repeating it, in the end people will come to believe it". Josef Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda chief. Many Nazis went to their graves believing that Hitler was a good guy and that the Nazis carried out no wars of foreign aggression and possessed no concentration camps. Why? Because they could not conceive that their leaders could tell such a "big lie".9/11 was, similarly, such a "big lie" that even bright reporters like Ms. Voboril might not be willing to even look at whether the official story concerning 9/11 could be untrue. As a reporter, however, I would urge Ms. Voboril to look into the facts for herself, rather than discussing conspiracy theories in the abstract. Very Truly Yours,George Washington
posted by George Washington at 11:25 AM
1 Comments:
Anonymous said...
Here is just ONE rebuttal to the assertion you must be a "Crazed Conspiracy Theorist" to doubt the official account of 911. "No Tinfoil Hat Required"http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
Newsday Does 9/11
Today, November 6th, Newsday published a story admitting that questioning the "official" 9/11 story is becoming mainstream, but trying to write off all such questioning as being another conspiracy theory.Here's a letter I wrote to the editor. You can use it if you wish to send your own letter. The address is:Letters Editor, Newsday, 235 Pinelawn Rd., Melville, NY 11747-4250Fax: 631-843-2986E-Mail: letters@newsday.comDear Editor,I am writing regarding Mary Voboril's November 6th article entitled "Conspiracy Theories: The truth is out there - maybe". While Ms. Voboril may have consulted a couple of experts regarding conspiracy theories in general, it does not appear that she has investigated the first thing about 9/11 itself. Ms. Voboril might be surprised to learn that the following high-ranking current and former U.S. Government officials have questioned the official 9/11 story, and many of them have directly stated that elements of the government were complicit in the attacks:Current U.S. congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney;Former chief economist for the Department of Labor under George W. Bush, who was also director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis, Morgan Reynolds;Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, listed by Who's Who in America as one of the 1,000 most influential political thinkers in the world, Paul Craig Roberts;Former director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (who is also a Catholic Archbishop), Dr. Robert M. Bowman;Former senior CIA analyst, who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents, Ray McGovern;Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter, Morton Goulder;Former US Ambassador and Chief of Mission to Iraq, and Former US Department of State Foreign Service Officer, Edward L. Peck;Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson; andPentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, as well as a who's who of liberals, conservatives and independents.See http://www.911proof.com/I would urge Ms. Voboril to look at the facts for herself. In addition, while I applaud Ms. Voboril for noting the kernel of truth in some conspiracy theories, I would remind her of the following quote: "If you tell a big enough Lie, and keep on repeating it, in the end people will come to believe it". Josef Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda chief. Many Nazis went to their graves believing that Hitler was a good guy and that the Nazis carried out no wars of foreign aggression and possessed no concentration camps. Why? Because they could not conceive that their leaders could tell such a "big lie".9/11 was, similarly, such a "big lie" that even bright reporters like Ms. Voboril might not be willing to even look at whether the official story concerning 9/11 could be untrue. As a reporter, however, I would urge Ms. Voboril to look into the facts for herself, rather than discussing conspiracy theories in the abstract. Very Truly Yours,George Washington
posted by George Washington at 11:25 AM
1 Comments:
Anonymous said...
Here is just ONE rebuttal to the assertion you must be a "Crazed Conspiracy Theorist" to doubt the official account of 911. "No Tinfoil Hat Required"http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
TWA Flight 800 and the 9/11 Commission Cover Up: An Interview With Peter Lance -- ReadersRead.com
TWA Flight 800 and the 9/11 Commission Cover Up: An Interview With Peter Lance -- ReadersRead.com
TWA Flight 800 and the 9/11 Commission Cover Up: An Interview With Peter Lanceby Claire E. White (September, 2004) Was the 9/11 Commission Report a cover up? Were we lied to when we were told that 9/11 was the first time that Al-Qaeda hijacked and destroyed an American jetliner? Five time Emmy® award-winning investigative journalist
Journalist Peter Lanceand bestselling author Peter Lance asserts just that in his blockbuster new book Cover Up: What the Government is Still Hiding About the War on Terror (HarperCollins). In his 2003 bestselling nonfiction work, 1000 Years for Revenge (HarperCollins), Lance laid bare the plotting and events that led to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. After reading 1000 Years for Revenge, Governor Kean, Co-Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, asked Peter Lance to testify in front of the Commission. His story of his experiences with the Commission and the 9/11 widows is absolutely fascinating. So far, Lance's new book, Cover Up: What The Government Is Still Hiding About The War On Terror, a meticulously researched and entertainingly written expose, has been embraced by the right, the left and the middle. Partisan interests seem to see the facts that Lance has brought to light through the lens of their beliefs. Lance has already appeared on Fox News, CNN and many other major news programs to discuss his insights. Lance lays out the amazing blunders and cover ups which began in the Clinton Administration and which continue to this day with officials in the current Department of Justice. As a journalist, Lance says he is just following the trail of facts regardless of where they lead. He is adamant that "If we are truly to be safe, we have to de-politicize the debate over terrorism." But his trail of incendiary facts would seem to have some major political implications -- especially in an election year. Lance provides evidence that Ramzi Yousef, the Al-Qaeda perpetrator of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was likely responsible for the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996, with the help of his uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- the originator of the 9/11 plot. Lance also raises some disurbing questions about the events of 9/11 itself. For instance, it is not common knowledge that the morning of September 11, 2001, there were three war games simulations was taking place. One was being conducted near Dulles Airport in Washington to test the response of the National Reconnaissance Office in case a plane was flown into the NRO building. At the time of the attacks, two F-16s were actually in the air practicing bombing runs, within eight minutes flying time, yet they were never called by NORAD to intercept the attackers. The 9/11 Commission heard sworn testimony about these and many other facts, but failed to mention them in its Final Report which, generally speaking, did not place blame. In fact, much of the most important testimony was never made public, much to the anger of the "Jersey Girls," the 9/11 widows who lobbied for the creation of the 9/11 Commission. Peter spoke with us about testifying in front of the 9/11 Commission and discusses some of the immensely disturbing facts he uncovered while writing Cover Up. He also addresses the growing threat of terrorism and why Americans need to be informed about the facts before the upcoming presidential election. What was it like to testify in front of the 9/11 Commission? This is a short question that will require a long answer. As one who had set out to do a book on the Commission’s work, my “testimony” before the Commission on March 15th was an eye opener.
Click here for ordering information. For one, it took place in a closed door session at the Commission’s New York office inside 26 Federal Plaza; the FBI’s building in Lower Manhattan. A source inside the Commission had warned me that more than 90% of the witness intake was anecdotal, i.e., not on the record or under oath, so I prepared my “testimony” ahead of time. You can read it as an Appendix to Cover Up and get it via my website at peterlance.com. I had sent my book to Governor Kean (the chairman) over Christmas and he had responded, saying that he wanted to hear my findings. I had only two conditions: first that I not be forced to reveal confidential sources and second, that my information be made a part of the permanent Commission record. When Gov Kean referred me to Philip Zelikow, the staff director, who had co-written a book with Condi Rice and served on the Bush transition team, Zelikow wrote via email in January that I would be contacted by Dietrich “Dieter” Snell, one of the Team Leaders and a senior counsel to the Commission. As soon as I heard Snell’s name I suspected that what my source had been telling me was true: that the Commission staff was limiting the scope of the investigation and cherry picking evidence. Snell had been the Assistant U.S. attorney who co-prosecuted Ramzi Yousef for the “Bojinka” case in 1996. In my first book 1000 Years For Revenge I recounted how the Justice Department, during Snell’s tenure, had limited the scope of the Bojinka case. In April, 2002 I went to the Philippines where I interviewed Colonel Rodolfo B. Mendoza, the “Richard Clarke of the Philippines,” an expert on al Qaeda and its reach in Southeast Asia. Colonel Mendoza, aka Boogie, had interrogated the lifelong friend and cohort of Yousef: Abdul Hakim Murad. A pilot trained in four U.S. flight schools in the early 1990’s Murad had confessed to Boogie three plots that had been set into motion by Yousef’s cell in Manila as early as 1994. The first plot was a scheme to kill the Pope due to arrive in mid January, 1995. The second plot was the hijack airliners-fly-them-into-buildings scenario that was fulfilled on 9/11 and plot three was “Bojinka;” reportedly named by Yousef after the Serbo Croation word for “Big Noise.” This was a non-suicide plot in which Yousef and his three cohorts, Murad, Wali Khan Amin Shah (a confident of bin Laden’s) and Ramzi’s uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed would board the first leg of a series of U.S. bound flights heading from Asia. On the initial leg of each flight they would smuggle on the innocuous components of an ingenious “bomb trigger” Yousef had designed. Powered by a Casio watch and utilizing diluted nitroglycerine to be ignited via a broken bulb initiator, the IEDs (improvised explosive devices) were to be placed under seats (in the lifejacket pouches) located above the center fuel tanks of 747’s. The plotters would then exit after the planes touched down and the IED’s would blow hours later as the planes jetted back across the Pacific. Yousef had intended this to happen on 11 flights and he even “wet tested” one of the Casio-nitro devices on Philippines Airlines Flight 434 on the first leg of a flight from Manila to Cebu in the Southern Philippines on December 11, 1994. At the time he planted the device under seat 26K, in a row just shy of the center fuel tank. On its way to Japan the bomb blew, killing (Haruki Ikegami) the passenger in 26K and blowing a hole in the cabin floor, but it missed the fuel tank and the plane landed safely. But Yousef realized that if he just moved the devices a few rows forward they would serve as “blasting caps” to rip open the fuel tanks so he plotted with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Murad and Shah to plant the Casio-nitro bomb triggers aboard up to 11 jumbo jets exiting Asia. Yousef was captured in February 1995 after a fire in his Manila bomb factory. Murad was captured a month before and Shah was eventually arrested after first escaping from custody. By the spring of 1996, Dietrich Snell and his partner AUSA Mike Garcia were preparing to prosecute Yousef, Murad and Shah for the plot they dubbed “48 HOURS OF TERROR.”
"Knowledge is power. If you want to make the right choice in November you simply have to get educated. Terrorism is the new Cold War but it presents complex threats that are distinct from the Mutually Assured Destruction of thermonuclear combat. Ironically, the average citizens may be at greater risk now than at the darkest hours of the U.S.-Soviet struggle." I had mentioned in 1000 Years For Revenge how during the entire three month Bojinka trial Colonel Mendoza’s name had never surfaced even though he told me in a videotaped interview in 2002 that as early as the Spring of 1995 he had given the information on what was to become the 9/11 plot to the U.S. Embassy in Manila. In 1000 Years I questioned why Snell and Garcia had limited the scope of the Bojinka trial, never mentioned this suicide hijacking scenario, or Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and never brought Col. Mendoza to the U.S. to testify even though they flew over 11 other PNP officials. Further Khalid Shaikh Mohammed had been secretly indicted with Yousef in 1996 but his name had never surfaced in the press until January of 1998 when it appeared on the inside “jump” page of a NYT story on Yousef’s sentencing for both Bojinka and the WTC bombing. Dietrich Snell was one of the few ex-Department of Justice officials who would know why the Justice Dept. limited the scope of the Bojinka trial and why they kept the hunt for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed -- the man the FBI calls “the mastermind of 9/11” -- so secret. His nephew Ramzi had been captured after a very public hue and cry via a tip to the State Dept’s Rewards for Justice Program. Yousef’s want poster had been distributed world wide. It was even on matchbook covers. Yet the DOJ kept Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s identity quiet. If anybody knew why, it was an ex-DOJ prosecutor like Dietrich Dieter Snell. As I saw it, he should have been a witness before the 9/11 Commission, vs. one of its lead interrogators. Now on March 15th as my closed door “testimony” progressed I asked him a number of questions, to which he would reply, “that’s classified,” or “I can’t discuss that.” Variations on those responses. Why does this matter? Because the limitation of Colonel Mendoza’s evidence by the Justice Department that Snell worked for would come to have dire consequences on 9/11. Later Snell ran the 9/11 Commission team that wrote Staff Statement #16 on the origin of the 9/11 plot. Despite the evidence that I sent him following my testimony including files from the PNP and the audio and video of my interview with Colonel Mendoza, Snell took the position that the plot was not hatched by Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in 1994 (as I had found) but by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed alone in 1996. The Commission even implied that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was not a member of al Qaeda at the time. This was absolutely ridiculous since Yousef, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Murad, Shah, Blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and a dozen other New York based cell members had been part of an active al Qaeda funded cell operating in New York City since the early 1990’s. In fact the FBI had many of them under surveillance as early as July of 1989. 1000 Years had a 32 page timeline in the middle. Your readers can access it right now by going to my website and clicking on "Terrorism." In year by year detail (illustrated with pictures) the three part timeline proves that Yousef was bin Laden’s chief point man on terror from 1992 through his capture in 1995. But one of the most stunning revelations of my new Harper Collins book Cover Up, is that Yousef and his uncle Khalid Shaikh Mohammed may have also been behind the downing of TWA Flight #800 in July of 1996. We know that the 9/11 Commission had knowledge of this possible Yousef tie to TWA 800 as early as April 7th, 2004, but for unknown reasons, they left this startling revelation out of their Final Report. In concluding, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed alone conceived the 9/11 plot in 1996 and separating Yousef from it, Snell removed a significant amount of culpability from the Department of Justice and the FBI; since my last book showed that they could have stopped Yousef in 1992 before he set the WTC bomb which killed six and injured 1000. If the FBI’s New York Office (NYO) had stopped him then, they would have interdicted the Yousef-Khalid Shaikh Mohammed spawned 9/11 plot. But Snell took Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s own word for his conclusion that the plot was generated in 1996 and that he had acted alone. To me that’s like taking the word of David Berkowitz for the date of his first Son of Sam Murder. I believe Dietrich Snell should answer publicly: a) Why the last official body looking into the biggest mass murder in U.S. history left out probative evidence of an al Qaeda connection to the second biggest: TWA #800. b) Why the DOJ initially kept the hunt for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed so secret and c) Why they buried evidence that the 9/11 plot was created by Ramzi Yousef (the original WTC bomber) and his uncle as early as the fall of 1994. What surprised you the most about the experience? What was the most frustrating aspect of the experience? The frustrating part was sitting across from Dieter Snell who wouldn’t answer why he and his partner limited the scope of the Bojinka trial and never called Col. Mendoza. In the end, the Commission reduced my findings to an end note and, still never mentioned Colonel Mendoza’s name. Why? I'd like to talk about your new book, Cover Up: What the Government is Still Hiding About the War on Terror, which contains a number of shocking revelations. One of the most disturbing facts revealed is the true cause of the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996 which killed 230 people. The evidence linking Al Qaeda member Ramzi Yousef (architect of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) to the crash of Flight 800 appears indisputable. So, to me, the key question here is: why hasn't the American public been told that Al Qaeda blew up a U.S. airliner in 1996, killing 230 people? If we had known that, surely airline security would have been stepped up considerably in 1996 -- not in 2001? I have stated that members of the Justice Department covered up the evidence linking al Qaeda to the crash of TWA #800 and Dietrich Snell was a party to that cover up. Go to http://www.peterlance.com and click #FBI #302’s. Then click on the one for 3/7/96 and you’ll find an internal FBI memo showing that Snell and two other senior Department of Justice officials (Valerie Caproni, chief of the criminal division for the EDNY (Eastern District of New York) and Patrick Fitzgerald, head of terrorism and organized crime in the SDNY (Southern District of New York) knew of the intelligence coming from Yousef, in the spring of 1996. Their source was Gregory Scarpa, Jr. a Mafia informant at the MCC (federal jail) in Lower Manhattan. Yousef passed Scarpa Jr. notes through a hole in the wall between their cells. In addition to intricate bomb schematics identical to the device Yousef used in the PAL #434 “wet test,” and other details only Yousef could know, the notes offered the high explosive RDX as an alternative to nitro glycerin in the manufacture of one of the “bomb triggers.” These #302’s repeatedly warn that Yousef was going to get his “people” to put a bomb on a plane to get a mistrial in the Bojinka case. As it turned out, TWA 800 went down on July 17, 1996, the eve of the most damning evidence versus Yousef being admitted at trial; namely Murad’s confession to Colonel Mendoza. Further, in the weeks that followed, the FBI found RDX, PETN and nitroglycerine in the area of the center fuel tank between rows 17-25 in the plane’s wreckage dredged from Long Island Sound. This was the precise area where Yousef planned to plant devices for Bojinka following his PAL “wet test.” The 9/11 Commission Report was noteworthy in the fact that it didn't blame anyone for 9/11. Not one person has lost his job because 9/11 happened; even though high-ranking witness after high-ranking witness to the Commission described blunders and missed opportunities leading up the attacks. Why did the Commission do that? Are the 9/11 widows unhappy with the findings? Was it a whitewash? Five of the leading widows -- “The Jersey Girls” Kristen Breitweiser, Mindy Kleinberg, Patty Casazza and Lorie van Auken along with Monica Gabrielle of Connecticut -- were extremely upset that the Commission failed to assess blame. That was one of their central goals in fighting for the creation of the Commission. Last week the five of them endorsed John Kerry. There’s no doubt in my mind that the 9/11 Commission Report was a whitewash. It’s well documented in Cover Up. Among the astonishing lapses left out of the final report: the fact that two F-16’s from the 177th Fighter Wing of the New Jersey Air National Guard were practicing bombing runs over the Pinelands of Southern Jersey, eight minutes from Manhattan, but they were never notified by NORAD or the FAA.
Click here for ordering information. Governor Kean and John Farmer, his former Attorny General who was the Commission team leader who wrote the “day of” report and delivered it on June 17th, knew about these fighters. In fact, they were quoted in a Bergen (N.J.) Record story on December 5, 2003. But not a word of their airborne presence was brought up at the public hearings and nothing got into the Final Report. How could the 9/11 Commission leave out an act of negligence by FAA and NORAD in not contacting two airborne fighters who were close enough to have interdicted the UA flight before it struck the South Tower? It’s an example of one of the many, many lapses and contradictions in the Commission’s report. I believe that the 9/11 Commissioners intentionally limited the scope of the investigation because, one way or another, they all had conflicts of interest. 32 of the 75 staff members were alumni of the very agencies they were charged with investigating: FBI, CIA, NSA –- or they worked on The Hill on one of the intelligence committees that had failed in its oversight role with respect to 9/11. Douglas MacEachin, who co-wrote at least two of the staff statements dealing with the CIA was deputy director of intelligence for the Agency until 1995. I’ve noted staff director Zelikow’s conflict and that of Dieter Snell. Commissioner Jamie Gorelick was deputy A.G. in 1996 at a time when I contend the Department of Justice engaged in a cover up of the al Qaeda links to TWA #800. She and Zelikow were the only representatives of the Commission (beyond the chair and co chair) who were given FULL access to all of the classified docs. Gorelick, a Democrat, stated in April, 2002 what had become obvious: that the Commission was focusing its investigation on the last few years: from 1998 forward. That serves the Department of Justice’s apparent goal of removing Yousef from the plot since he was in jail by 1996. But the new evidence in Cover Up from the FBI’s own #302 memos shows that Yousef was still able to communicate with active al Qaeda members abroad, including his uncle Khalid Shaikh Mohammed –- in fact, the FBI actually helped him by setting up a phony Mafia front company called “Roma Corp.” to which Yousef was allowed to make outside calls from the MCC. The FBI then patched the calls to Yousef’s cohorts here and abroad. But the genius bomb maker was able to circumvent the Feds. While they apparently had a translator listening in who spoke Arabic, Yousef spoke Urdu, Balochi or one of the six languages he was fluent in. The evidence now suggests that this “pass through” third party calling system set up by the Feds, may have actually facilitated the bombing of TWA #800. In your book you state that "Based on two years of extensive research on the growing al Qaeda threat, it seems clear that the invasion of Baghdad was a mistake of catastrophic dimensions." You also state that this is not a political position; it's simply a statement of the facts as they stand today. There’s no question about it. Further, by ripping open the country and deposing Saddam, the U.S. has allowed al Qaeda members of infiltrate and link with Baathists and other Islamic extremists they might have spit on prior to the invasion. If the best minds in this Administration had sat around in January, 2001 when they first hit the White House and brainstormed for the worst possible policy initiative –- one that would unite the Arab street against the U.S. and one that would put us into an open ended multi-billion dollar protracted occupation with brave Americans and innocent Iraqis dying each day, they could not have picked a better move than the “shock and awe” invasion of Iraq. Which presidential candidate do you think Osama bin Laden is supporting? On the morning of 9/11, President Bush was in an elementary school classroom in Sarasota, Florida reading "My Pet Goat." According to your book, the President stated that he didn't make any major decisions about how to respond to the 9/11 attacks until he was in his airborne command center, which would be 50 minutes after being informed that "America is under attack."
Click here for ordering information. The President on another occasion stated that he implemented the government's emergency response plans "immediately following the first attack." Both of these statements can't be true. Did the 9/11 Commission ask President Bush to reconcile those two conflicting statements? We don’t know the answer to that because Bush and Cheney talked to the Commissioners behind closed doors in the White House, when they should have been compelled to testify under oath in open session as Condi Rice was forced to do. The fact that two Democrats on the panel, Bob Kerrey the ex-Senator and Congressman Lee Hamilton, the co-chair, bailed early for appointments showed how seriously they took the questioning. Think about it: the 9/11 attack was arguably the worse defense failure in U.S. history and the Commander In Chief, who was effectively incommunicado (and thus unable to issue a shoot down order) was never called into an open session to explain his actions to the American people. If Clinton’s Lewinsky scandal testimony was ultimately made public, why shouldn’t George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, have been compelled by the full Commission to explain their actions on “the day of” in public session and under oath. Have we ever gotten an answer as to why President Bush would only testify in private, not under oath and only if Vice President Cheney were there with him? No. Because of the fact that this is an election year -- and a particularly contentious one at that -- the issue of the government's handling of terrorism is a volatile one. As an award-winning journalist, how do you keep clear of the incendiary political implications of this book? Or do you just follow the facts where they lead, regardless of the consequences?
"Five of the leading widows, 'The Jersey Girls', Kristen Breitweiser, Mindy Kleinberg, Patty Casazza and Lorie van Auken along with Monica Gabrielle of Connecticut, were extremely upset that the Commission failed to assess blame. That was one of their central goals in fighting for the creation of the Commission. Last week the five of them endorsed John Kerry." I follow the facts where they lead me. My new book is a devastating analysis of a cover up that happened on Clinton’s watch, but two of the principals involved (Caproni and Fitzgerald) are senior Department of Justice officials under George W. Bush. If we are truly to be safe, we have to de-politicize the debate over terrorism. Knowledge is power. If you want to make the right choice in November you simply have to get educated. Terrorism is the new Cold War but it presents complex threats that are distinct from the Mutually Assured Destruction of thermonuclear combat. Ironically, the average citizens may be at greater risk now than at the darkest hours of the U.S.-Soviet struggle. If only 10% of the people that read the 9/11 Report read my “minority report,” in Cover Up I will feel that I have done my job. I ask anyone reading this to go to my website and spend a half hour reading the color, illustrated Timeline. It will give them a quick overview of the road to 9/11 and the danger that lies ahead.
TWA Flight 800 and the 9/11 Commission Cover Up: An Interview With Peter Lanceby Claire E. White (September, 2004) Was the 9/11 Commission Report a cover up? Were we lied to when we were told that 9/11 was the first time that Al-Qaeda hijacked and destroyed an American jetliner? Five time Emmy® award-winning investigative journalist
Journalist Peter Lanceand bestselling author Peter Lance asserts just that in his blockbuster new book Cover Up: What the Government is Still Hiding About the War on Terror (HarperCollins). In his 2003 bestselling nonfiction work, 1000 Years for Revenge (HarperCollins), Lance laid bare the plotting and events that led to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. After reading 1000 Years for Revenge, Governor Kean, Co-Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, asked Peter Lance to testify in front of the Commission. His story of his experiences with the Commission and the 9/11 widows is absolutely fascinating. So far, Lance's new book, Cover Up: What The Government Is Still Hiding About The War On Terror, a meticulously researched and entertainingly written expose, has been embraced by the right, the left and the middle. Partisan interests seem to see the facts that Lance has brought to light through the lens of their beliefs. Lance has already appeared on Fox News, CNN and many other major news programs to discuss his insights. Lance lays out the amazing blunders and cover ups which began in the Clinton Administration and which continue to this day with officials in the current Department of Justice. As a journalist, Lance says he is just following the trail of facts regardless of where they lead. He is adamant that "If we are truly to be safe, we have to de-politicize the debate over terrorism." But his trail of incendiary facts would seem to have some major political implications -- especially in an election year. Lance provides evidence that Ramzi Yousef, the Al-Qaeda perpetrator of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, was likely responsible for the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996, with the help of his uncle, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- the originator of the 9/11 plot. Lance also raises some disurbing questions about the events of 9/11 itself. For instance, it is not common knowledge that the morning of September 11, 2001, there were three war games simulations was taking place. One was being conducted near Dulles Airport in Washington to test the response of the National Reconnaissance Office in case a plane was flown into the NRO building. At the time of the attacks, two F-16s were actually in the air practicing bombing runs, within eight minutes flying time, yet they were never called by NORAD to intercept the attackers. The 9/11 Commission heard sworn testimony about these and many other facts, but failed to mention them in its Final Report which, generally speaking, did not place blame. In fact, much of the most important testimony was never made public, much to the anger of the "Jersey Girls," the 9/11 widows who lobbied for the creation of the 9/11 Commission. Peter spoke with us about testifying in front of the 9/11 Commission and discusses some of the immensely disturbing facts he uncovered while writing Cover Up. He also addresses the growing threat of terrorism and why Americans need to be informed about the facts before the upcoming presidential election. What was it like to testify in front of the 9/11 Commission? This is a short question that will require a long answer. As one who had set out to do a book on the Commission’s work, my “testimony” before the Commission on March 15th was an eye opener.
Click here for ordering information. For one, it took place in a closed door session at the Commission’s New York office inside 26 Federal Plaza; the FBI’s building in Lower Manhattan. A source inside the Commission had warned me that more than 90% of the witness intake was anecdotal, i.e., not on the record or under oath, so I prepared my “testimony” ahead of time. You can read it as an Appendix to Cover Up and get it via my website at peterlance.com. I had sent my book to Governor Kean (the chairman) over Christmas and he had responded, saying that he wanted to hear my findings. I had only two conditions: first that I not be forced to reveal confidential sources and second, that my information be made a part of the permanent Commission record. When Gov Kean referred me to Philip Zelikow, the staff director, who had co-written a book with Condi Rice and served on the Bush transition team, Zelikow wrote via email in January that I would be contacted by Dietrich “Dieter” Snell, one of the Team Leaders and a senior counsel to the Commission. As soon as I heard Snell’s name I suspected that what my source had been telling me was true: that the Commission staff was limiting the scope of the investigation and cherry picking evidence. Snell had been the Assistant U.S. attorney who co-prosecuted Ramzi Yousef for the “Bojinka” case in 1996. In my first book 1000 Years For Revenge I recounted how the Justice Department, during Snell’s tenure, had limited the scope of the Bojinka case. In April, 2002 I went to the Philippines where I interviewed Colonel Rodolfo B. Mendoza, the “Richard Clarke of the Philippines,” an expert on al Qaeda and its reach in Southeast Asia. Colonel Mendoza, aka Boogie, had interrogated the lifelong friend and cohort of Yousef: Abdul Hakim Murad. A pilot trained in four U.S. flight schools in the early 1990’s Murad had confessed to Boogie three plots that had been set into motion by Yousef’s cell in Manila as early as 1994. The first plot was a scheme to kill the Pope due to arrive in mid January, 1995. The second plot was the hijack airliners-fly-them-into-buildings scenario that was fulfilled on 9/11 and plot three was “Bojinka;” reportedly named by Yousef after the Serbo Croation word for “Big Noise.” This was a non-suicide plot in which Yousef and his three cohorts, Murad, Wali Khan Amin Shah (a confident of bin Laden’s) and Ramzi’s uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed would board the first leg of a series of U.S. bound flights heading from Asia. On the initial leg of each flight they would smuggle on the innocuous components of an ingenious “bomb trigger” Yousef had designed. Powered by a Casio watch and utilizing diluted nitroglycerine to be ignited via a broken bulb initiator, the IEDs (improvised explosive devices) were to be placed under seats (in the lifejacket pouches) located above the center fuel tanks of 747’s. The plotters would then exit after the planes touched down and the IED’s would blow hours later as the planes jetted back across the Pacific. Yousef had intended this to happen on 11 flights and he even “wet tested” one of the Casio-nitro devices on Philippines Airlines Flight 434 on the first leg of a flight from Manila to Cebu in the Southern Philippines on December 11, 1994. At the time he planted the device under seat 26K, in a row just shy of the center fuel tank. On its way to Japan the bomb blew, killing (Haruki Ikegami) the passenger in 26K and blowing a hole in the cabin floor, but it missed the fuel tank and the plane landed safely. But Yousef realized that if he just moved the devices a few rows forward they would serve as “blasting caps” to rip open the fuel tanks so he plotted with Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Murad and Shah to plant the Casio-nitro bomb triggers aboard up to 11 jumbo jets exiting Asia. Yousef was captured in February 1995 after a fire in his Manila bomb factory. Murad was captured a month before and Shah was eventually arrested after first escaping from custody. By the spring of 1996, Dietrich Snell and his partner AUSA Mike Garcia were preparing to prosecute Yousef, Murad and Shah for the plot they dubbed “48 HOURS OF TERROR.”
"Knowledge is power. If you want to make the right choice in November you simply have to get educated. Terrorism is the new Cold War but it presents complex threats that are distinct from the Mutually Assured Destruction of thermonuclear combat. Ironically, the average citizens may be at greater risk now than at the darkest hours of the U.S.-Soviet struggle." I had mentioned in 1000 Years For Revenge how during the entire three month Bojinka trial Colonel Mendoza’s name had never surfaced even though he told me in a videotaped interview in 2002 that as early as the Spring of 1995 he had given the information on what was to become the 9/11 plot to the U.S. Embassy in Manila. In 1000 Years I questioned why Snell and Garcia had limited the scope of the Bojinka trial, never mentioned this suicide hijacking scenario, or Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and never brought Col. Mendoza to the U.S. to testify even though they flew over 11 other PNP officials. Further Khalid Shaikh Mohammed had been secretly indicted with Yousef in 1996 but his name had never surfaced in the press until January of 1998 when it appeared on the inside “jump” page of a NYT story on Yousef’s sentencing for both Bojinka and the WTC bombing. Dietrich Snell was one of the few ex-Department of Justice officials who would know why the Justice Dept. limited the scope of the Bojinka trial and why they kept the hunt for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed -- the man the FBI calls “the mastermind of 9/11” -- so secret. His nephew Ramzi had been captured after a very public hue and cry via a tip to the State Dept’s Rewards for Justice Program. Yousef’s want poster had been distributed world wide. It was even on matchbook covers. Yet the DOJ kept Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s identity quiet. If anybody knew why, it was an ex-DOJ prosecutor like Dietrich Dieter Snell. As I saw it, he should have been a witness before the 9/11 Commission, vs. one of its lead interrogators. Now on March 15th as my closed door “testimony” progressed I asked him a number of questions, to which he would reply, “that’s classified,” or “I can’t discuss that.” Variations on those responses. Why does this matter? Because the limitation of Colonel Mendoza’s evidence by the Justice Department that Snell worked for would come to have dire consequences on 9/11. Later Snell ran the 9/11 Commission team that wrote Staff Statement #16 on the origin of the 9/11 plot. Despite the evidence that I sent him following my testimony including files from the PNP and the audio and video of my interview with Colonel Mendoza, Snell took the position that the plot was not hatched by Yousef and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in 1994 (as I had found) but by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed alone in 1996. The Commission even implied that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was not a member of al Qaeda at the time. This was absolutely ridiculous since Yousef, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Murad, Shah, Blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and a dozen other New York based cell members had been part of an active al Qaeda funded cell operating in New York City since the early 1990’s. In fact the FBI had many of them under surveillance as early as July of 1989. 1000 Years had a 32 page timeline in the middle. Your readers can access it right now by going to my website and clicking on "Terrorism." In year by year detail (illustrated with pictures) the three part timeline proves that Yousef was bin Laden’s chief point man on terror from 1992 through his capture in 1995. But one of the most stunning revelations of my new Harper Collins book Cover Up, is that Yousef and his uncle Khalid Shaikh Mohammed may have also been behind the downing of TWA Flight #800 in July of 1996. We know that the 9/11 Commission had knowledge of this possible Yousef tie to TWA 800 as early as April 7th, 2004, but for unknown reasons, they left this startling revelation out of their Final Report. In concluding, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed alone conceived the 9/11 plot in 1996 and separating Yousef from it, Snell removed a significant amount of culpability from the Department of Justice and the FBI; since my last book showed that they could have stopped Yousef in 1992 before he set the WTC bomb which killed six and injured 1000. If the FBI’s New York Office (NYO) had stopped him then, they would have interdicted the Yousef-Khalid Shaikh Mohammed spawned 9/11 plot. But Snell took Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s own word for his conclusion that the plot was generated in 1996 and that he had acted alone. To me that’s like taking the word of David Berkowitz for the date of his first Son of Sam Murder. I believe Dietrich Snell should answer publicly: a) Why the last official body looking into the biggest mass murder in U.S. history left out probative evidence of an al Qaeda connection to the second biggest: TWA #800. b) Why the DOJ initially kept the hunt for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed so secret and c) Why they buried evidence that the 9/11 plot was created by Ramzi Yousef (the original WTC bomber) and his uncle as early as the fall of 1994. What surprised you the most about the experience? What was the most frustrating aspect of the experience? The frustrating part was sitting across from Dieter Snell who wouldn’t answer why he and his partner limited the scope of the Bojinka trial and never called Col. Mendoza. In the end, the Commission reduced my findings to an end note and, still never mentioned Colonel Mendoza’s name. Why? I'd like to talk about your new book, Cover Up: What the Government is Still Hiding About the War on Terror, which contains a number of shocking revelations. One of the most disturbing facts revealed is the true cause of the crash of TWA Flight 800 in 1996 which killed 230 people. The evidence linking Al Qaeda member Ramzi Yousef (architect of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing) to the crash of Flight 800 appears indisputable. So, to me, the key question here is: why hasn't the American public been told that Al Qaeda blew up a U.S. airliner in 1996, killing 230 people? If we had known that, surely airline security would have been stepped up considerably in 1996 -- not in 2001? I have stated that members of the Justice Department covered up the evidence linking al Qaeda to the crash of TWA #800 and Dietrich Snell was a party to that cover up. Go to http://www.peterlance.com and click #FBI #302’s. Then click on the one for 3/7/96 and you’ll find an internal FBI memo showing that Snell and two other senior Department of Justice officials (Valerie Caproni, chief of the criminal division for the EDNY (Eastern District of New York) and Patrick Fitzgerald, head of terrorism and organized crime in the SDNY (Southern District of New York) knew of the intelligence coming from Yousef, in the spring of 1996. Their source was Gregory Scarpa, Jr. a Mafia informant at the MCC (federal jail) in Lower Manhattan. Yousef passed Scarpa Jr. notes through a hole in the wall between their cells. In addition to intricate bomb schematics identical to the device Yousef used in the PAL #434 “wet test,” and other details only Yousef could know, the notes offered the high explosive RDX as an alternative to nitro glycerin in the manufacture of one of the “bomb triggers.” These #302’s repeatedly warn that Yousef was going to get his “people” to put a bomb on a plane to get a mistrial in the Bojinka case. As it turned out, TWA 800 went down on July 17, 1996, the eve of the most damning evidence versus Yousef being admitted at trial; namely Murad’s confession to Colonel Mendoza. Further, in the weeks that followed, the FBI found RDX, PETN and nitroglycerine in the area of the center fuel tank between rows 17-25 in the plane’s wreckage dredged from Long Island Sound. This was the precise area where Yousef planned to plant devices for Bojinka following his PAL “wet test.” The 9/11 Commission Report was noteworthy in the fact that it didn't blame anyone for 9/11. Not one person has lost his job because 9/11 happened; even though high-ranking witness after high-ranking witness to the Commission described blunders and missed opportunities leading up the attacks. Why did the Commission do that? Are the 9/11 widows unhappy with the findings? Was it a whitewash? Five of the leading widows -- “The Jersey Girls” Kristen Breitweiser, Mindy Kleinberg, Patty Casazza and Lorie van Auken along with Monica Gabrielle of Connecticut -- were extremely upset that the Commission failed to assess blame. That was one of their central goals in fighting for the creation of the Commission. Last week the five of them endorsed John Kerry. There’s no doubt in my mind that the 9/11 Commission Report was a whitewash. It’s well documented in Cover Up. Among the astonishing lapses left out of the final report: the fact that two F-16’s from the 177th Fighter Wing of the New Jersey Air National Guard were practicing bombing runs over the Pinelands of Southern Jersey, eight minutes from Manhattan, but they were never notified by NORAD or the FAA.
Click here for ordering information. Governor Kean and John Farmer, his former Attorny General who was the Commission team leader who wrote the “day of” report and delivered it on June 17th, knew about these fighters. In fact, they were quoted in a Bergen (N.J.) Record story on December 5, 2003. But not a word of their airborne presence was brought up at the public hearings and nothing got into the Final Report. How could the 9/11 Commission leave out an act of negligence by FAA and NORAD in not contacting two airborne fighters who were close enough to have interdicted the UA flight before it struck the South Tower? It’s an example of one of the many, many lapses and contradictions in the Commission’s report. I believe that the 9/11 Commissioners intentionally limited the scope of the investigation because, one way or another, they all had conflicts of interest. 32 of the 75 staff members were alumni of the very agencies they were charged with investigating: FBI, CIA, NSA –- or they worked on The Hill on one of the intelligence committees that had failed in its oversight role with respect to 9/11. Douglas MacEachin, who co-wrote at least two of the staff statements dealing with the CIA was deputy director of intelligence for the Agency until 1995. I’ve noted staff director Zelikow’s conflict and that of Dieter Snell. Commissioner Jamie Gorelick was deputy A.G. in 1996 at a time when I contend the Department of Justice engaged in a cover up of the al Qaeda links to TWA #800. She and Zelikow were the only representatives of the Commission (beyond the chair and co chair) who were given FULL access to all of the classified docs. Gorelick, a Democrat, stated in April, 2002 what had become obvious: that the Commission was focusing its investigation on the last few years: from 1998 forward. That serves the Department of Justice’s apparent goal of removing Yousef from the plot since he was in jail by 1996. But the new evidence in Cover Up from the FBI’s own #302 memos shows that Yousef was still able to communicate with active al Qaeda members abroad, including his uncle Khalid Shaikh Mohammed –- in fact, the FBI actually helped him by setting up a phony Mafia front company called “Roma Corp.” to which Yousef was allowed to make outside calls from the MCC. The FBI then patched the calls to Yousef’s cohorts here and abroad. But the genius bomb maker was able to circumvent the Feds. While they apparently had a translator listening in who spoke Arabic, Yousef spoke Urdu, Balochi or one of the six languages he was fluent in. The evidence now suggests that this “pass through” third party calling system set up by the Feds, may have actually facilitated the bombing of TWA #800. In your book you state that "Based on two years of extensive research on the growing al Qaeda threat, it seems clear that the invasion of Baghdad was a mistake of catastrophic dimensions." You also state that this is not a political position; it's simply a statement of the facts as they stand today. There’s no question about it. Further, by ripping open the country and deposing Saddam, the U.S. has allowed al Qaeda members of infiltrate and link with Baathists and other Islamic extremists they might have spit on prior to the invasion. If the best minds in this Administration had sat around in January, 2001 when they first hit the White House and brainstormed for the worst possible policy initiative –- one that would unite the Arab street against the U.S. and one that would put us into an open ended multi-billion dollar protracted occupation with brave Americans and innocent Iraqis dying each day, they could not have picked a better move than the “shock and awe” invasion of Iraq. Which presidential candidate do you think Osama bin Laden is supporting? On the morning of 9/11, President Bush was in an elementary school classroom in Sarasota, Florida reading "My Pet Goat." According to your book, the President stated that he didn't make any major decisions about how to respond to the 9/11 attacks until he was in his airborne command center, which would be 50 minutes after being informed that "America is under attack."
Click here for ordering information. The President on another occasion stated that he implemented the government's emergency response plans "immediately following the first attack." Both of these statements can't be true. Did the 9/11 Commission ask President Bush to reconcile those two conflicting statements? We don’t know the answer to that because Bush and Cheney talked to the Commissioners behind closed doors in the White House, when they should have been compelled to testify under oath in open session as Condi Rice was forced to do. The fact that two Democrats on the panel, Bob Kerrey the ex-Senator and Congressman Lee Hamilton, the co-chair, bailed early for appointments showed how seriously they took the questioning. Think about it: the 9/11 attack was arguably the worse defense failure in U.S. history and the Commander In Chief, who was effectively incommunicado (and thus unable to issue a shoot down order) was never called into an open session to explain his actions to the American people. If Clinton’s Lewinsky scandal testimony was ultimately made public, why shouldn’t George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, have been compelled by the full Commission to explain their actions on “the day of” in public session and under oath. Have we ever gotten an answer as to why President Bush would only testify in private, not under oath and only if Vice President Cheney were there with him? No. Because of the fact that this is an election year -- and a particularly contentious one at that -- the issue of the government's handling of terrorism is a volatile one. As an award-winning journalist, how do you keep clear of the incendiary political implications of this book? Or do you just follow the facts where they lead, regardless of the consequences?
"Five of the leading widows, 'The Jersey Girls', Kristen Breitweiser, Mindy Kleinberg, Patty Casazza and Lorie van Auken along with Monica Gabrielle of Connecticut, were extremely upset that the Commission failed to assess blame. That was one of their central goals in fighting for the creation of the Commission. Last week the five of them endorsed John Kerry." I follow the facts where they lead me. My new book is a devastating analysis of a cover up that happened on Clinton’s watch, but two of the principals involved (Caproni and Fitzgerald) are senior Department of Justice officials under George W. Bush. If we are truly to be safe, we have to de-politicize the debate over terrorism. Knowledge is power. If you want to make the right choice in November you simply have to get educated. Terrorism is the new Cold War but it presents complex threats that are distinct from the Mutually Assured Destruction of thermonuclear combat. Ironically, the average citizens may be at greater risk now than at the darkest hours of the U.S.-Soviet struggle. If only 10% of the people that read the 9/11 Report read my “minority report,” in Cover Up I will feel that I have done my job. I ask anyone reading this to go to my website and spend a half hour reading the color, illustrated Timeline. It will give them a quick overview of the road to 9/11 and the danger that lies ahead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)