Thursday, December 29, 2005
Screamer in the Matrix: Why is it so hard to accept evidence [9/11]
Screamer in the Matrix: Why is it so hard to accept evidence
OPEN YOUR EYES AND SEE
AND THEN
SCREAM WITH ME
The evidence that the attacks of 9/11 could not have succeeded without US-government involvement is practically overwhelming, if you are objective.
Three highrise buildings have crashed into their own foundation on the same day. The cause of those crashes is supposedly fire. That steel-framed buildings have totally crashed without the help of explosives has never happened before 9/11 2001 and never happened afterwards. The crashes only took seconds, barely more than a free fall. If you watch those crashes you can see that they look exactly like controlled demolishions carried out by expert-firms, something you might have seen in documentarys on this matter.
It is said, that the air-plane crash had weakened the buildings´structures. But the third building was not hit by an airplane. And the WTC-towers were especially built to withstand a hit by an airplane of similar size as those on 9/11.
It is said, that a fire fueled by airplane kerosene is hot enough to weaken steel.
And again, the fire in the third building was not fueled by airplane kerosene.And in one of the twin-towers most of the kerosene burned out at the impact of the crashing plane outside the building.and the fire-fighters in the towers could get all the way up to crash-sight without feeling an extraordinary high heat. In fact, they were convinced to be able to extinguish the fire in a short time. Photographs of the towers before the crash show victims who still were alive at the time directly at the impact area. No extraordinay heat had killed them yet.
After the crash of the WTC-buildings no experts, according to Fire Engineering Magazine, were allowed to examine the remains of the buildings to find out what caused their structural failure.
These facts are indefutable. They comprise undeniable evidence that the key-points of the official 9/11 story are lies.
There different opinions on how the American government was involved in the planning or in the attacks themselves. But the physical facts point to the use of explosives in bringing the buildings down. And the fact that the US-Government did not allow examination of the remains, provide strong evidence, that it were not Muslim extremists who had gained access to those buildings to plant the explosives in the strategically right positions, but people who worked in collusion with powerful members of this very government.
There are thousands of other facts digged up by the 9/11 truth-movement that point in the direction of government involvement, but of course there is also disinformation floating around. While the disinformers try to discredit the facts, they cannot make them disappear.
Those undefutable facts are convincing enough to allow yourself to be convinced.
However for most people, especially on the Left, evidence be damned, they just cannot allow themselves to fundamentally doubt the official story.
It does not fit into their concept: "Islamistic terrorism is a blowback for American imperialism in the Muslimic world."
And of course many people in those Muslimic countries resent the American foreign politic. But the motive alone does not make a suspect into the murderer, he also needs an opportunity. There are others who have a motive as well: the members of the PNAC think-tank, who most of them are sitting now in the US-goverment or work as cheerleaders for war in the US-media. The government members have access to the buildings and the means, financially and the personal (special intelligence units probably), to do the job and cover their tracks. They might have used Islamist patsies, by having their organisations infiltrated and so manipulate their actions. But those patsies could never have succeeded on their own.
Chances are that the role of those patsies was rather minor.
Logic tells me that the man pretending to be Attah in Florida, could not have been a fundamentalistic Muslim. Being a fundamentalist means you strongly believe in your religion and accept all its rules. You want those rules to be a basis of behavior for everyone else. A man who is so convinced of his faith, that he is ready to martyr himself for it, would never ever break all those rules just before his supposed martydom. A fundamental Muslim would never drink alcohol, use cocain, live with a non-Muslim girlfriend, wear forbidden jwellery, go to a strip-bar and put money in the strip-dancers´ underwear. This all defies logic.
The arguments used by those who cannot accept a government involvement are, that it could not have been a government conspiracy are something like:" Thousands of people would have been involved and they could not have been kept quiet for so long."
In reality it depends on the method used for those attacks how many people needed to have been involved. And American intelligence agancies have a budget of 30 billions a year, drug revenues not counted, and nobody knows how many staff they employ. Special units are trained rigidly to follow commands without asking questions, they allways work on a need to know basis, never being allowed to see the full picture. And of course the organizers would have their own interest at stake, either financially or ideologically.
To salvage their belief in a international Islamist terror-network in the face of mounting evidence, that many of those blamed for terror-attacks are not acting like fundamentalists at all in their private life, some lefties have now started to see Islamism as a ploy used by political dissidents from Muslim countries to get the population on their side.
They just cannot come to grips with the notion, that AlQaeda is of course a political organisation, but it´s not fighting American and Israeli imperialism but supporting it by providing the propaganda tools to justify American military interventions, a planned generational war, a "clash of civilisations" and an exponential growth of military expenditure to enrich the main-shareholders of the military-industrial complex.
There have been precedents of lies to justify wars, precedents of false-flag operations by intelligence organisations.
In Italy it has been proven by a court of law that right-wing organisations had committed brutal terrorists acts blaming the radical left.
"Operation Gladio" it was called.
There is documentary proof of personal connections between those Italian right-wingers and the CIA.
One of those connections is Michael Ledeen, who once again is a high offical in the Pentagon.
The Left, the secular and the religious humanists and everybody else who believes in democratic values will never be able to overcome the war-profeteers and stop war and oppression unless they will accept the fact, that those fascists lie, cheat, manipulate the media and even mass-murder innocents in their own country to be able to profit from further mass-murder in other countries.
There has been a "Reichstags-fire" and a "Sender Gleiwitz incidence",a "Gulf of Tonkin" and an "Operation Phoenix" before. There has been a "Lavon affair" and the "Pseudo Mau Mau".
Through Phoenix over 40000 people were murdered in cold blood by US-employed CIA snipers, some of the victims were American military personell seen as security risk. British employed Pseudo Mau Mau murdered black Kenyans and white missionaries alike. In the Lavon affair Israel murdered British and American civillians, citizens of those 2 countries which had made the Jewish State possible, just a few years before.
Now there is al-Zarqawi a Palestinian from Jordan committing atrocities against civilians, fellow Muslims, totally counterproductive, if he wants the support of the Iraqi population.
If you do not recognize the enemy´s tactics, how can you beat him?
One of the tactics, of course, is to call conspiracy-theorists insane.
Why for God's or Marx's sake is the Left so totally incapable to accept that there are people within the upper echelon of the capitalist system who walk over dead bodies, thousands if necessary, for their political,ideological and financial gain?
They have done it before. posted by erlenda at Thursday, August 18, 2005
09/11/2001
OPEN YOUR EYES AND SEE
AND THEN
SCREAM WITH ME
The evidence that the attacks of 9/11 could not have succeeded without US-government involvement is practically overwhelming, if you are objective.
Three highrise buildings have crashed into their own foundation on the same day. The cause of those crashes is supposedly fire. That steel-framed buildings have totally crashed without the help of explosives has never happened before 9/11 2001 and never happened afterwards. The crashes only took seconds, barely more than a free fall. If you watch those crashes you can see that they look exactly like controlled demolishions carried out by expert-firms, something you might have seen in documentarys on this matter.
It is said, that the air-plane crash had weakened the buildings´structures. But the third building was not hit by an airplane. And the WTC-towers were especially built to withstand a hit by an airplane of similar size as those on 9/11.
It is said, that a fire fueled by airplane kerosene is hot enough to weaken steel.
And again, the fire in the third building was not fueled by airplane kerosene.And in one of the twin-towers most of the kerosene burned out at the impact of the crashing plane outside the building.and the fire-fighters in the towers could get all the way up to crash-sight without feeling an extraordinary high heat. In fact, they were convinced to be able to extinguish the fire in a short time. Photographs of the towers before the crash show victims who still were alive at the time directly at the impact area. No extraordinay heat had killed them yet.
After the crash of the WTC-buildings no experts, according to Fire Engineering Magazine, were allowed to examine the remains of the buildings to find out what caused their structural failure.
"For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions about high-rise building design practices and performance under fire conditions is on the slow boat to China, perhaps never to be seen again in America until you buy your next car... Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the "official investigation" blessed by FEMA and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half-baked farce that may already have been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members - described by one close source as a "tourist trip"- no one's checking the evidence for anything."(Fire Engineering Magazine, January 2002)
These facts are indefutable. They comprise undeniable evidence that the key-points of the official 9/11 story are lies.
There different opinions on how the American government was involved in the planning or in the attacks themselves. But the physical facts point to the use of explosives in bringing the buildings down. And the fact that the US-Government did not allow examination of the remains, provide strong evidence, that it were not Muslim extremists who had gained access to those buildings to plant the explosives in the strategically right positions, but people who worked in collusion with powerful members of this very government.
There are thousands of other facts digged up by the 9/11 truth-movement that point in the direction of government involvement, but of course there is also disinformation floating around. While the disinformers try to discredit the facts, they cannot make them disappear.
Those undefutable facts are convincing enough to allow yourself to be convinced.
However for most people, especially on the Left, evidence be damned, they just cannot allow themselves to fundamentally doubt the official story.
It does not fit into their concept: "Islamistic terrorism is a blowback for American imperialism in the Muslimic world."
And of course many people in those Muslimic countries resent the American foreign politic. But the motive alone does not make a suspect into the murderer, he also needs an opportunity. There are others who have a motive as well: the members of the PNAC think-tank, who most of them are sitting now in the US-goverment or work as cheerleaders for war in the US-media. The government members have access to the buildings and the means, financially and the personal (special intelligence units probably), to do the job and cover their tracks. They might have used Islamist patsies, by having their organisations infiltrated and so manipulate their actions. But those patsies could never have succeeded on their own.
Chances are that the role of those patsies was rather minor.
Logic tells me that the man pretending to be Attah in Florida, could not have been a fundamentalistic Muslim. Being a fundamentalist means you strongly believe in your religion and accept all its rules. You want those rules to be a basis of behavior for everyone else. A man who is so convinced of his faith, that he is ready to martyr himself for it, would never ever break all those rules just before his supposed martydom. A fundamental Muslim would never drink alcohol, use cocain, live with a non-Muslim girlfriend, wear forbidden jwellery, go to a strip-bar and put money in the strip-dancers´ underwear. This all defies logic.
The arguments used by those who cannot accept a government involvement are, that it could not have been a government conspiracy are something like:" Thousands of people would have been involved and they could not have been kept quiet for so long."
In reality it depends on the method used for those attacks how many people needed to have been involved. And American intelligence agancies have a budget of 30 billions a year, drug revenues not counted, and nobody knows how many staff they employ. Special units are trained rigidly to follow commands without asking questions, they allways work on a need to know basis, never being allowed to see the full picture. And of course the organizers would have their own interest at stake, either financially or ideologically.
To salvage their belief in a international Islamist terror-network in the face of mounting evidence, that many of those blamed for terror-attacks are not acting like fundamentalists at all in their private life, some lefties have now started to see Islamism as a ploy used by political dissidents from Muslim countries to get the population on their side.
They just cannot come to grips with the notion, that AlQaeda is of course a political organisation, but it´s not fighting American and Israeli imperialism but supporting it by providing the propaganda tools to justify American military interventions, a planned generational war, a "clash of civilisations" and an exponential growth of military expenditure to enrich the main-shareholders of the military-industrial complex.
There have been precedents of lies to justify wars, precedents of false-flag operations by intelligence organisations.
In Italy it has been proven by a court of law that right-wing organisations had committed brutal terrorists acts blaming the radical left.
"Operation Gladio" it was called.
Among the "smoking guns" unearthed by Ganser is a Pentagon document, Field Manual FM 30-31B, which details the methodology for launching terrorist attacks in nations that "do not react with sufficient effectiveness" against "communist subversion." Ironically, the manual states that the most dangerous moment comes when leftist groups "renounce the use of force" and embrace the democratic process. It is then that "U.S. army intelligence must have the means of launching special operations which will convince Host Country Governments and public opinion of the reality of the insurgent danger." Naturally, these peace-throttling "special operations must remain strictly secret," the document warns.
Indeed, it would not do for the families of the 85 people ripped apart by the Aug. 2, 1980 bombing of the Bologna train station to know that their loved ones had been murdered by "men inside Italian state institutions and ... men linked to the structures of United States intelligence," as the Italian Senate concluded after its investigation in 2000.
The Bologna atrocity is an example of what Gladio's masters called "the strategy of tension" -- fomenting fear to keep populations in thrall to "strong leaders" who will protect the nation from the ever-present terrorist threat. And as Rajiva notes, this strategy wasn't limited to Western Europe. It was applied, with gruesome effectiveness, in Central America by the Reagan and Bush administrations. During the 1980s, right-wing death squads, guerrilla armies and state security forces -- armed, trained and supplied by the United States -- murdered tens of thousands of people throughout the region, often acting with particular savagery at those times when peaceful solutions to the conflicts seemed about to take hold.
There is documentary proof of personal connections between those Italian right-wingers and the CIA.
One of those connections is Michael Ledeen, who once again is a high offical in the Pentagon.
."Ledeen was allegedly tied to the Italian P2 Masonic Lodge, a violent right wing group that was involved in a number of terrorists attacks in Italy in the 1970s.In the late 1970s, while P2 was doing its dirty work, Ledeen was working as a consultant to Italian intelligence on terrorism issues. More recently, Ledeen worked with Pentagon staffers to redevelop the channel to arms dealer Manucher Ghorbanifar (the medium between Oliver North and Iran in the Iran-Contra affair) in support of resistance efforts in Iran. In addition to his work with the American Enterprise Institute, Ledeen has supported or co-founded a number of advocacy groups pushing for a radical transformation of the Middle East, including the Coalition for Democracy in Iran, JINSA, and of course, Ziad Abdelnour’s U.S. Committee for a Free Lebanon.
The Left, the secular and the religious humanists and everybody else who believes in democratic values will never be able to overcome the war-profeteers and stop war and oppression unless they will accept the fact, that those fascists lie, cheat, manipulate the media and even mass-murder innocents in their own country to be able to profit from further mass-murder in other countries.
There has been a "Reichstags-fire" and a "Sender Gleiwitz incidence",a "Gulf of Tonkin" and an "Operation Phoenix" before. There has been a "Lavon affair" and the "Pseudo Mau Mau".
Through Phoenix over 40000 people were murdered in cold blood by US-employed CIA snipers, some of the victims were American military personell seen as security risk. British employed Pseudo Mau Mau murdered black Kenyans and white missionaries alike. In the Lavon affair Israel murdered British and American civillians, citizens of those 2 countries which had made the Jewish State possible, just a few years before.
Now there is al-Zarqawi a Palestinian from Jordan committing atrocities against civilians, fellow Muslims, totally counterproductive, if he wants the support of the Iraqi population.
If you do not recognize the enemy´s tactics, how can you beat him?
One of the tactics, of course, is to call conspiracy-theorists insane.
Why for God's or Marx's sake is the Left so totally incapable to accept that there are people within the upper echelon of the capitalist system who walk over dead bodies, thousands if necessary, for their political,ideological and financial gain?
They have done it before. posted by erlenda at Thursday, August 18, 2005
09/11/2001
Bryan Sacks: The Failure of the 9/11 Commission
Bryan Sacks: The Failure of the 9/11 Commission
At the twelfth and final public session of the 9/11 commission hearings this week in the NTSB building in Washington, DC, the disappointment was palpable among family members of the 9/11 deceased. A less-than distinguished panel of FBI and CIA agents took turns praising the ingenuity and resourcefulness of Al-Qaeda, and offered little hope that future efforts would be successful in stopping terrorism. But give the CIA and FBI this: they can still recognize a marketing opportunity when they see it.
Apparently unfamiliar with the concept of shame, representatives from two of the agencies whose failures bear clear responsibility for the events of 9/11 saw the morning session as an opportunity to shill for 'patience' and, tacitly, more money. One after another, in front of the surviving family members, many of whom clutched pictures of their dead sons, daughters, husbands and wives, the agents fawned over the incredible resourcefulness, commitment and dedication of Al Qaeda operatives (in one notable exchange, Al Qaeda was glowingly described as “innovative,” “creative” and “entrepreneurial”—why not just say you were outsmarted?) The CIA agents referred familiarly to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Osama Bin Laden as ‘KSM’ and ‘UBL’. The uninitiated might have gotten the impression they were speaking of protégés, and not hated enemies. Earlier, in a jaunty tone completely incongruous with the substance of his statement, the CIA’s Dr. Kay told the commission that “(Al-Qaeda) may strike next week, next month or next year, but it will strike.” The agencies took no responsibility for the attacks, and they were not challenged to.But the nadir of the morning session came when commissioner James Thompson asked all of the panelists how best to combat the new type of stateless enemy Al-Qaeda represents. FBI special agent Mary Deborah Doran answered last. She had already warned the Commission in her introductory remarks that, as a “street agent”, she was removed from the “policy and administrative decision-making processes” that determined the scope of the FBI’s investigation of Al Qaeda, and thus could not speak to them (no one did that day, including Executive Assistant FBI Director John Pistole, seated to her right). Her answer to Thompson’s question was: "I think what we need to do . . at the FBI street-agent level, is to continue what we’ve always done, and that is to pursue all the information that we do get. . . to its logical end. . ."Here, in classic doublespeak fashion, Doran gives an answer that is a non-answer. She had to be aware that several FBI “street-level” investigations into the activities of the 9/11 terrorists were stymied by higher-ups in the weeks prior to 9/11, each under strange circumstances, and well before the street-level agents felt like they had reached their “logical end”. Consider the following cases, all drawn from mainstream news sources, summarized in David Ray Griffin's well-researched expose, "The New Pearl Harbor":1) Ken Williams of the Phoenix FBI office sent a now-famous July 10, 2001 memo to the counterterrorism division of the FBI suggesting that the organization institute a national program to keep tabs on suspicious flight-school students. This came just a few weeks after the CIA learned that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 plot and a well-known terrorist at that time who the CIA was monitoring, was recruiting jihadists to come to the US to take part in attacks here. Williams, who had previously been transferred to an unrelated arson case despite tracking the hijackers for more than a year, had been back on the case for about a month when he wrote the memo, which also warned of a possible “effort by Osama bin Laden to send students to the US to attend civil aviation universities and colleges” (Fortune, May 22, 2002). His suggestion for a national program was ignored before 9/11;2) FBI agent Robert Wright of the Chicago field office, who had been investigating a suspected terrorist cell for three years, was informed in January 2001 that the case was being closed. This despite Wright's contention that his case was growing stronger. His investigation included individuals from the notorious Ptech, a software company which provided product for the White House, Congress, FBI, CIA, IRS, Army, Navy, and FAA and which was raided by federal agents in December 2002.Three months before September 11, Wright wrote a stinging internal memo charging that the FBI was not interested in thwarting a terrorist attack, but rather "was merely gathering intelligence so they would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred." (UPI, May 30, 2002, cited in Griffin, p. 83);3) Legal officer Colleen Rowley worked in the FBI's Minneapolis field office when agents arrested Zacarias Moussaoui in August of 2001. The commission made repeated mention of the fact that Moussaoui, by that time, was considered a very dangerous person capable of crashing a plane into the World Trade Center. The Minneapolis felt so strongly about the need to detain him that a request was sent to FBI headquarters to search Moussaoui's laptop computer under the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act. Approximately 10,000 requests under FISA over the past 20 years had been made without a single request being turned down, but the Minneapolis agency's request never got out of the FBI. The request had been excised of the critical intelligence that made the case for Moussaoui's connection to Al Qaeda in Chechnya on its path to FBI headquarters. Excised of that justification, the request was never forwarded for FISA consideration, spurring Rowley to charge that the FBI was "sabotaging" the case, and another agent to charge that headquarters was "setting this up for failure." (Senate Intelligence Committee, October 17, 2002; Time, July 21 and July 27, 2002 and Sydney Morning Herald July 28, 2002, each cited in Griffin, p. 81);4) On Aug 28, 2001 the New York FBI office requested opening a criminal investigation in soon-to-be hijacker Khalid Almihdhar based on evidence he had been involved in the USS Cole bombing. The request was turned down, on the basis that, as Griffin puts it, "Almihdhar could not be tied to the Cole investigation without the inclusion of sensitive intelligence information." This led one frustrated FBI agent to write in an email that "someday someone will die--and. . . the public will not understand why we were not more effective." (Congressional Intelligence Committee, cited in Griffin, p. 83). Perhaps Doran, a New York FBI agent herself, knew something about this? She was not asked directly.What these examples make clear is that FBI “street agents” and translators don’t have the power to follow their investigations to their logical ends when they are obstructed by their superiors. In light of these facts, Doran's breezy recommendation that the FBI street agents “keep doing what we’ve always done” is entirely inadequate, and inspires no confidence. Neither Thompson nor any other commissioner pressed for a better answer. And while the FBI’s “unprecedented transformation” after 9/11 testified to by FBI Executive Assistant Director For Counterterrorism John Pistole on April 14 may sound impressive to some, it does not explain nor address the past obstruction of promising investigations. Factor in the erosion of civil liberties required for its execution, and the “unprecedented transformation” appears to be of dubious value.There are several other aspects about the FBI’s behavior pre- and post-9/11 that scream out for further investigation. One of the most bizarre cases still unfolding involves the targeting of former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who was fired by the agency shortly after reporting a number of complaints to her superiors. According to a June 7, 2004 story in The New Republic, those complaints included the charge that a fellow FBI translator, Can Dickerson, tried to recruit Edmonds into a foreign organization whose documents Dickerson had been translating and which had been under investigation by the FBI. Edmonds then filed a wrongful termination suit and took her grievance to Senators Charles Grassley and Patrick Leahy, as well as the television program “60 Minutes,” which aired an interview with her in 2002.But the FBI has since gone to extraordinary lengths to silence Edmonds. In May, the Bureau re-classified all of the information it presented to Sens. Grassley and Leahy, nearly two years after it had become public. It even violated its own rules for reclassification in doing so. The reclassification has had the effect of silencing Grassley and Leahy on the matter, too, who had been pressing the Bureau for a fuller account of the matter. Now they were limited to writing classified letters to the FBI.Edmonds, meanwhile, has seen her wrongful termination suit delayed for two years and most recently was informed by Judge Reggie Walton on June 14 that her hearing was delayed once again (for the fourth time), with no date set for a rescheduling. The delays result from an effort from Attorney General John Ashcroft to invoke the State Secrets Privilege, which can quash lawsuits on the basis that their continuation would damage national security. Judge Walton is still waiting for the government to make its case for the invoking of the States Secrets Privilege. In the meantime, as the New Republic notes, while Edmonds herself is not gagged, she is not permitted to reference any of the now-classified information that could substantiate her claims.At her June 14 press conference outside the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse in Washington, DC, Edmonds summarized her charges clearly, stating that for more than two years, “John Ashcroft has been relentlessly engaged in actions geared toward covering up my report and investigations into my allegations. His actions. . . .include gagging the United States Congress, blocking court proceedings on my (wrongful termination suit) by invoking the State Secrets Privilege, quashing the subpoena for my deposition on information regarding 9/11, withholding documents requested under the Freedom Of Information Act and preventing the release of the Inspector General’s report of its investigations into my report and allegations.”She threw down a gauntlet to all citizens, members of Congress and federal officials that so far have not spoken out, saying, “To become an American citizen, I took the citizenship oath. In taking this oath, I pledged I would support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Therefore, not only do I have the right to challenge John Ashcroft’s anti-constitution(al) and un-American actions, but as an American citizen I am required to do so. So are you.”Edmonds did testify with the 9/11 commission behind closed doors, but a host of disturbing questions still remain before the commission:
• Why weren't any of the agents mentioned above called to testify in the commission's public hearings? What legitimate claim to a thorough investigation can be made without their public testimony? • Were the FBI agents who saw their investigations stymied at least deposed in private sessions? • Why was Robert Wright's investigation derailed, and why did the government move to block significant portions of his book in 2002, such that it remains unpublished to this day?• Why was the information connecting Moussaoui’s connection with rebels in Chechnya excised before it reached the FBI Deputy General?• And why have lower-level agents been demoted and/or punished for doing their jobs while their superiors, who spiked, obstructed or otherwise compromised their promising investigations been rewarded?
In sum, the day’s hearings played as a commercial for supporting the efforts of the country’s intelligence agencies without additional public scrutiny of them. We’ve seen that show before, and we know how it ends. If the commission’s report fails to adequately address Sibel Edmonds’ charges, and fails to address the obstructed FBI investigations prior to 9/11, the unanswered questions which haunt the 9/11 Inquiry will grow louder and more insistent, and neither the 9/11 families nor the concerned citizens of this country will have the closure they deserve. Bryan Sacks is an adjunct instructor of philosophy for Immaculata University. He can be reached at bksacks@yahoo.comWorks Referred to:1.David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11. Northampton: Olive Branch Press, copyright 2004.
09/11/2001
At the twelfth and final public session of the 9/11 commission hearings this week in the NTSB building in Washington, DC, the disappointment was palpable among family members of the 9/11 deceased. A less-than distinguished panel of FBI and CIA agents took turns praising the ingenuity and resourcefulness of Al-Qaeda, and offered little hope that future efforts would be successful in stopping terrorism. But give the CIA and FBI this: they can still recognize a marketing opportunity when they see it.
Apparently unfamiliar with the concept of shame, representatives from two of the agencies whose failures bear clear responsibility for the events of 9/11 saw the morning session as an opportunity to shill for 'patience' and, tacitly, more money. One after another, in front of the surviving family members, many of whom clutched pictures of their dead sons, daughters, husbands and wives, the agents fawned over the incredible resourcefulness, commitment and dedication of Al Qaeda operatives (in one notable exchange, Al Qaeda was glowingly described as “innovative,” “creative” and “entrepreneurial”—why not just say you were outsmarted?) The CIA agents referred familiarly to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Osama Bin Laden as ‘KSM’ and ‘UBL’. The uninitiated might have gotten the impression they were speaking of protégés, and not hated enemies. Earlier, in a jaunty tone completely incongruous with the substance of his statement, the CIA’s Dr. Kay told the commission that “(Al-Qaeda) may strike next week, next month or next year, but it will strike.” The agencies took no responsibility for the attacks, and they were not challenged to.But the nadir of the morning session came when commissioner James Thompson asked all of the panelists how best to combat the new type of stateless enemy Al-Qaeda represents. FBI special agent Mary Deborah Doran answered last. She had already warned the Commission in her introductory remarks that, as a “street agent”, she was removed from the “policy and administrative decision-making processes” that determined the scope of the FBI’s investigation of Al Qaeda, and thus could not speak to them (no one did that day, including Executive Assistant FBI Director John Pistole, seated to her right). Her answer to Thompson’s question was: "I think what we need to do . . at the FBI street-agent level, is to continue what we’ve always done, and that is to pursue all the information that we do get. . . to its logical end. . ."Here, in classic doublespeak fashion, Doran gives an answer that is a non-answer. She had to be aware that several FBI “street-level” investigations into the activities of the 9/11 terrorists were stymied by higher-ups in the weeks prior to 9/11, each under strange circumstances, and well before the street-level agents felt like they had reached their “logical end”. Consider the following cases, all drawn from mainstream news sources, summarized in David Ray Griffin's well-researched expose, "The New Pearl Harbor":1) Ken Williams of the Phoenix FBI office sent a now-famous July 10, 2001 memo to the counterterrorism division of the FBI suggesting that the organization institute a national program to keep tabs on suspicious flight-school students. This came just a few weeks after the CIA learned that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 plot and a well-known terrorist at that time who the CIA was monitoring, was recruiting jihadists to come to the US to take part in attacks here. Williams, who had previously been transferred to an unrelated arson case despite tracking the hijackers for more than a year, had been back on the case for about a month when he wrote the memo, which also warned of a possible “effort by Osama bin Laden to send students to the US to attend civil aviation universities and colleges” (Fortune, May 22, 2002). His suggestion for a national program was ignored before 9/11;2) FBI agent Robert Wright of the Chicago field office, who had been investigating a suspected terrorist cell for three years, was informed in January 2001 that the case was being closed. This despite Wright's contention that his case was growing stronger. His investigation included individuals from the notorious Ptech, a software company which provided product for the White House, Congress, FBI, CIA, IRS, Army, Navy, and FAA and which was raided by federal agents in December 2002.Three months before September 11, Wright wrote a stinging internal memo charging that the FBI was not interested in thwarting a terrorist attack, but rather "was merely gathering intelligence so they would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred." (UPI, May 30, 2002, cited in Griffin, p. 83);3) Legal officer Colleen Rowley worked in the FBI's Minneapolis field office when agents arrested Zacarias Moussaoui in August of 2001. The commission made repeated mention of the fact that Moussaoui, by that time, was considered a very dangerous person capable of crashing a plane into the World Trade Center. The Minneapolis felt so strongly about the need to detain him that a request was sent to FBI headquarters to search Moussaoui's laptop computer under the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act. Approximately 10,000 requests under FISA over the past 20 years had been made without a single request being turned down, but the Minneapolis agency's request never got out of the FBI. The request had been excised of the critical intelligence that made the case for Moussaoui's connection to Al Qaeda in Chechnya on its path to FBI headquarters. Excised of that justification, the request was never forwarded for FISA consideration, spurring Rowley to charge that the FBI was "sabotaging" the case, and another agent to charge that headquarters was "setting this up for failure." (Senate Intelligence Committee, October 17, 2002; Time, July 21 and July 27, 2002 and Sydney Morning Herald July 28, 2002, each cited in Griffin, p. 81);4) On Aug 28, 2001 the New York FBI office requested opening a criminal investigation in soon-to-be hijacker Khalid Almihdhar based on evidence he had been involved in the USS Cole bombing. The request was turned down, on the basis that, as Griffin puts it, "Almihdhar could not be tied to the Cole investigation without the inclusion of sensitive intelligence information." This led one frustrated FBI agent to write in an email that "someday someone will die--and. . . the public will not understand why we were not more effective." (Congressional Intelligence Committee, cited in Griffin, p. 83). Perhaps Doran, a New York FBI agent herself, knew something about this? She was not asked directly.What these examples make clear is that FBI “street agents” and translators don’t have the power to follow their investigations to their logical ends when they are obstructed by their superiors. In light of these facts, Doran's breezy recommendation that the FBI street agents “keep doing what we’ve always done” is entirely inadequate, and inspires no confidence. Neither Thompson nor any other commissioner pressed for a better answer. And while the FBI’s “unprecedented transformation” after 9/11 testified to by FBI Executive Assistant Director For Counterterrorism John Pistole on April 14 may sound impressive to some, it does not explain nor address the past obstruction of promising investigations. Factor in the erosion of civil liberties required for its execution, and the “unprecedented transformation” appears to be of dubious value.There are several other aspects about the FBI’s behavior pre- and post-9/11 that scream out for further investigation. One of the most bizarre cases still unfolding involves the targeting of former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, who was fired by the agency shortly after reporting a number of complaints to her superiors. According to a June 7, 2004 story in The New Republic, those complaints included the charge that a fellow FBI translator, Can Dickerson, tried to recruit Edmonds into a foreign organization whose documents Dickerson had been translating and which had been under investigation by the FBI. Edmonds then filed a wrongful termination suit and took her grievance to Senators Charles Grassley and Patrick Leahy, as well as the television program “60 Minutes,” which aired an interview with her in 2002.But the FBI has since gone to extraordinary lengths to silence Edmonds. In May, the Bureau re-classified all of the information it presented to Sens. Grassley and Leahy, nearly two years after it had become public. It even violated its own rules for reclassification in doing so. The reclassification has had the effect of silencing Grassley and Leahy on the matter, too, who had been pressing the Bureau for a fuller account of the matter. Now they were limited to writing classified letters to the FBI.Edmonds, meanwhile, has seen her wrongful termination suit delayed for two years and most recently was informed by Judge Reggie Walton on June 14 that her hearing was delayed once again (for the fourth time), with no date set for a rescheduling. The delays result from an effort from Attorney General John Ashcroft to invoke the State Secrets Privilege, which can quash lawsuits on the basis that their continuation would damage national security. Judge Walton is still waiting for the government to make its case for the invoking of the States Secrets Privilege. In the meantime, as the New Republic notes, while Edmonds herself is not gagged, she is not permitted to reference any of the now-classified information that could substantiate her claims.At her June 14 press conference outside the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Courthouse in Washington, DC, Edmonds summarized her charges clearly, stating that for more than two years, “John Ashcroft has been relentlessly engaged in actions geared toward covering up my report and investigations into my allegations. His actions. . . .include gagging the United States Congress, blocking court proceedings on my (wrongful termination suit) by invoking the State Secrets Privilege, quashing the subpoena for my deposition on information regarding 9/11, withholding documents requested under the Freedom Of Information Act and preventing the release of the Inspector General’s report of its investigations into my report and allegations.”She threw down a gauntlet to all citizens, members of Congress and federal officials that so far have not spoken out, saying, “To become an American citizen, I took the citizenship oath. In taking this oath, I pledged I would support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Therefore, not only do I have the right to challenge John Ashcroft’s anti-constitution(al) and un-American actions, but as an American citizen I am required to do so. So are you.”Edmonds did testify with the 9/11 commission behind closed doors, but a host of disturbing questions still remain before the commission:
• Why weren't any of the agents mentioned above called to testify in the commission's public hearings? What legitimate claim to a thorough investigation can be made without their public testimony? • Were the FBI agents who saw their investigations stymied at least deposed in private sessions? • Why was Robert Wright's investigation derailed, and why did the government move to block significant portions of his book in 2002, such that it remains unpublished to this day?• Why was the information connecting Moussaoui’s connection with rebels in Chechnya excised before it reached the FBI Deputy General?• And why have lower-level agents been demoted and/or punished for doing their jobs while their superiors, who spiked, obstructed or otherwise compromised their promising investigations been rewarded?
In sum, the day’s hearings played as a commercial for supporting the efforts of the country’s intelligence agencies without additional public scrutiny of them. We’ve seen that show before, and we know how it ends. If the commission’s report fails to adequately address Sibel Edmonds’ charges, and fails to address the obstructed FBI investigations prior to 9/11, the unanswered questions which haunt the 9/11 Inquiry will grow louder and more insistent, and neither the 9/11 families nor the concerned citizens of this country will have the closure they deserve. Bryan Sacks is an adjunct instructor of philosophy for Immaculata University. He can be reached at bksacks@yahoo.comWorks Referred to:1.David Ray Griffin, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11. Northampton: Olive Branch Press, copyright 2004.
09/11/2001
Blasts Destroyed UK Terror Theories
Blasts Destroyed UK Terror Theories
Sean O'Neill and Daniel McGroryDecember 29, 2005
INVESTIGATIONS into the backgrounds of the bombers involved in the July7 attacks in London have forced British counter-terrorist chiefs to tear up their intelligence assessments of potential terrorists.None of the four young men from West Yorkshire in northern England, who killed 52 bus and Tube passengers, fitted the existing "threat profile".
Analysts of Islamist terrorism have identified the bombers as forerunners of the next al-Qa'ida generation.
Michael Scheuer, of US institution the Jamestown Foundation, said: "The UK-born and raised suicide bombers of 7/7 foreshadow the next mujaheddin generation, who will operate below the radar of local security services."
Senior British police officers involved in planning future anti-terrorist strategy are struggling to redefine what makes a young British Muslim want to become a martyr for the jihad.
The Times has obtained some of the material being prepared at Scotland Yard to gauge the terrorist threat. The bewildering colour-coded diagrams, lists and flow charts appear to be part of some academic endeavour. There are arrows, dotted lines and boxes labelled with impenetrable phrases and jargon.
These are the physical representations of police attempts to prevent a repeat of the London bombings. They are very much a work in progress.
In the absence of any reliable stereotype of a terrorist, this is an attempt to identify the influences that brainwash young people and lead them to the point where they wish to blow themselves and dozens of innocent people to bits.
The radicalisation of a potential recruit begins, typically, with an extremist preacher who sends "talent scouts" to find young Muslims who might be willing to answer the call.
Some of these hardline clerics are well known. But their scouts, disciples and other less prominent preachers are often unknowns. Unobtrusively, they set to work on their target recruits. The first meeting place might be a mosque, but the radicals have also set their sights on places as diverse as universities and prisons.
A former militant leader in Iraq, who has fought alongside young Britons in attacks against British troops, said mosques in Britain were now controlled by "moderates" and were no longer recruiting grounds.
The ex-commander, who calls himself Abu Ahmad, claimed most of the Britons sent to Iraq were "talent spotted" in gymnasiums and Islamic bookshops as well as pubs and discos.
The young target may well be a vulnerable personality, exhibiting a sense of injustice and alienation.
The recruiter will use apparently chance meetings to chat, gradually drawing the target into Islamist circles.
It is, one senior Scotland Yard source says, a process of "ideological grooming", not unlike the techniques used by pedophiles to coach and coax their victims.
Mohammad Sidique Khan, the oldest of the London bombers and apparent leader of the cell, used these methods. Using youth centres, gyms, whitewater rafting trips and jihadi videos, he convinced Germaine Lindsay, Shehzad Tanweer and Hasib Hussain of the need to murder innocent people to defend their religion.
Khan had come to the attention of the intelligence services as an associate of other men suspected of involvement in a terrorist bomb plot. But he was not pursued because he did not tick enough of the boxes in the pre-July profile of the terror suspect.
A crucial part of the July jigsaw, and one that is still missing, is discovering how Khan, a teaching assistant and father of young children, was radicalised.
He visited Pakistan with Tanweer, and is thought to have spent time at training camps run by groups linked to al-Qa'ida.
But Khan's mentor, the possible leader behind the London attacks, has not been identified and the possibility remains that Khan was a self-taught bomber. A police source said: "It would be quite a revelation if this group had no one running it at all. If that is so, we really are in a mess."
The Times
Sean O'Neill and Daniel McGroryDecember 29, 2005
INVESTIGATIONS into the backgrounds of the bombers involved in the July7 attacks in London have forced British counter-terrorist chiefs to tear up their intelligence assessments of potential terrorists.None of the four young men from West Yorkshire in northern England, who killed 52 bus and Tube passengers, fitted the existing "threat profile".
Analysts of Islamist terrorism have identified the bombers as forerunners of the next al-Qa'ida generation.
Michael Scheuer, of US institution the Jamestown Foundation, said: "The UK-born and raised suicide bombers of 7/7 foreshadow the next mujaheddin generation, who will operate below the radar of local security services."
Senior British police officers involved in planning future anti-terrorist strategy are struggling to redefine what makes a young British Muslim want to become a martyr for the jihad.
The Times has obtained some of the material being prepared at Scotland Yard to gauge the terrorist threat. The bewildering colour-coded diagrams, lists and flow charts appear to be part of some academic endeavour. There are arrows, dotted lines and boxes labelled with impenetrable phrases and jargon.
These are the physical representations of police attempts to prevent a repeat of the London bombings. They are very much a work in progress.
In the absence of any reliable stereotype of a terrorist, this is an attempt to identify the influences that brainwash young people and lead them to the point where they wish to blow themselves and dozens of innocent people to bits.
The radicalisation of a potential recruit begins, typically, with an extremist preacher who sends "talent scouts" to find young Muslims who might be willing to answer the call.
Some of these hardline clerics are well known. But their scouts, disciples and other less prominent preachers are often unknowns. Unobtrusively, they set to work on their target recruits. The first meeting place might be a mosque, but the radicals have also set their sights on places as diverse as universities and prisons.
A former militant leader in Iraq, who has fought alongside young Britons in attacks against British troops, said mosques in Britain were now controlled by "moderates" and were no longer recruiting grounds.
The ex-commander, who calls himself Abu Ahmad, claimed most of the Britons sent to Iraq were "talent spotted" in gymnasiums and Islamic bookshops as well as pubs and discos.
The young target may well be a vulnerable personality, exhibiting a sense of injustice and alienation.
The recruiter will use apparently chance meetings to chat, gradually drawing the target into Islamist circles.
It is, one senior Scotland Yard source says, a process of "ideological grooming", not unlike the techniques used by pedophiles to coach and coax their victims.
Mohammad Sidique Khan, the oldest of the London bombers and apparent leader of the cell, used these methods. Using youth centres, gyms, whitewater rafting trips and jihadi videos, he convinced Germaine Lindsay, Shehzad Tanweer and Hasib Hussain of the need to murder innocent people to defend their religion.
Khan had come to the attention of the intelligence services as an associate of other men suspected of involvement in a terrorist bomb plot. But he was not pursued because he did not tick enough of the boxes in the pre-July profile of the terror suspect.
A crucial part of the July jigsaw, and one that is still missing, is discovering how Khan, a teaching assistant and father of young children, was radicalised.
He visited Pakistan with Tanweer, and is thought to have spent time at training camps run by groups linked to al-Qa'ida.
But Khan's mentor, the possible leader behind the London attacks, has not been identified and the possibility remains that Khan was a self-taught bomber. A police source said: "It would be quite a revelation if this group had no one running it at all. If that is so, we really are in a mess."
The Times
Turkish Daily News - FM G�l dismisses common policy with US on Iran, Syria - Dec 28, 2005
Turkish Daily News - FM G�l dismisses common policy with US on Iran, Syria - Dec 28, 2005
FM Gül dismisses common policy with US on Iran, Syria
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
print this page
DIPLOMACY
All News »
»
FM Gül dismisses common policy with US on Iran, Syria
»
Prosecutors launch probe into Lagendijk
»
Turks’ confidence in EU fading away, says poll
»
Turkey, Egypt vow to bolster cooperation
»
Papadopoulos to visit Moscow for Cyprus talks
»
Iraqi Kurdish delegation in Ankara for talks
»
Lagendijk might face prosecution
»
Diplomacy Newsline
»
Diplomacy Newsline
»
Diplomacy Newsline
ANKARA - Turkish Daily News
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül has once again dismissed comments that Ankara and Washington have been developing a common policy towards Syria and Iran, describing such notions as “fictitious.”
Speaking to reporters in Cairo following a meeting with his Egyptian counterpart, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, late on Monday, Gül was reminded of press reports concerning back-to-back visits by CIA Director Porter Goss and FBI Director Robert Mueller. The visits coincided with an official visit by Land Forces Commander Gen. Yaşar Büyükanıt to Washington this month and paved the way for speculation both inside and outside the country that Turkey and the United States were taking sides against Syria and Iran in the region.
“Such allegations are fictitious,” Gül was quoted as saying by the Anatolia news agency.
“Such news reports were published in some newspapers. I clarified this issue both at a press conference and in a speech I delivered in Parliament. Turkey and the United States are two close allies. Therefore, such top-level visits normally take place. These are routine visits,” Gül added.
In an earlier response to foreign media reports that Goss sought Turkish officials' support to attack Iran in 2006, Gül said the visits that took place in recent days have nothing to do with Iran and Syria and added they (the visits) contributed towards strengthening bilateral relations between Turkey and the United States.
“It does not have any relation whatsoever to other countries. Reports written here and abroad are entirely fictitious,” Gül said over the weekend in reference to a report by a German news agency.
The second largest German news agency, ddp Nachrichtenagentur, reported last week that “U.S. plans to attack Iran next year were on the agenda of both Goss and Mueller's talks in Ankara.”
Citing sources from Western intelligence services, the agency reported that Goss presented three files to Turkish officials, one of which concerned Iran's cooperation with the al-Qaeda terrorist organization.
According to the report, the United States requested Turkey's support in attacking Iran and offered to allow Turkey to launch a military operation against outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) camps based in Iran.
The agency also claimed that the United States had asked Gen. Büyükanıt during his Washington visit to keep the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) primed for possible attacks on Iran.
FM Gül dismisses common policy with US on Iran, Syria
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
print this page
DIPLOMACY
All News »
»
FM Gül dismisses common policy with US on Iran, Syria
»
Prosecutors launch probe into Lagendijk
»
Turks’ confidence in EU fading away, says poll
»
Turkey, Egypt vow to bolster cooperation
»
Papadopoulos to visit Moscow for Cyprus talks
»
Iraqi Kurdish delegation in Ankara for talks
»
Lagendijk might face prosecution
»
Diplomacy Newsline
»
Diplomacy Newsline
»
Diplomacy Newsline
ANKARA - Turkish Daily News
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül has once again dismissed comments that Ankara and Washington have been developing a common policy towards Syria and Iran, describing such notions as “fictitious.”
Speaking to reporters in Cairo following a meeting with his Egyptian counterpart, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, late on Monday, Gül was reminded of press reports concerning back-to-back visits by CIA Director Porter Goss and FBI Director Robert Mueller. The visits coincided with an official visit by Land Forces Commander Gen. Yaşar Büyükanıt to Washington this month and paved the way for speculation both inside and outside the country that Turkey and the United States were taking sides against Syria and Iran in the region.
“Such allegations are fictitious,” Gül was quoted as saying by the Anatolia news agency.
“Such news reports were published in some newspapers. I clarified this issue both at a press conference and in a speech I delivered in Parliament. Turkey and the United States are two close allies. Therefore, such top-level visits normally take place. These are routine visits,” Gül added.
In an earlier response to foreign media reports that Goss sought Turkish officials' support to attack Iran in 2006, Gül said the visits that took place in recent days have nothing to do with Iran and Syria and added they (the visits) contributed towards strengthening bilateral relations between Turkey and the United States.
“It does not have any relation whatsoever to other countries. Reports written here and abroad are entirely fictitious,” Gül said over the weekend in reference to a report by a German news agency.
The second largest German news agency, ddp Nachrichtenagentur, reported last week that “U.S. plans to attack Iran next year were on the agenda of both Goss and Mueller's talks in Ankara.”
Citing sources from Western intelligence services, the agency reported that Goss presented three files to Turkish officials, one of which concerned Iran's cooperation with the al-Qaeda terrorist organization.
According to the report, the United States requested Turkey's support in attacking Iran and offered to allow Turkey to launch a military operation against outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) camps based in Iran.
The agency also claimed that the United States had asked Gen. Büyükanıt during his Washington visit to keep the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) primed for possible attacks on Iran.
Repost: BELLACIAO - BOYCOTT 911truth.org’s bogus march on 9/11 - Nico Haupt aka ewing2001 - Collective Bellaciao
BELLACIAO - BOYCOTT 911truth.org’s bogus march on 9/11 - Nico Haupt aka ewing2001 - Collective Bellaciao
by : Nico Haupt aka ewing2001
Tuesday 23rd August 2005
09/11/2001
BOYCOTT 911truth.org’s bogus march on 9/11
By Nico Haupt aka ewing2001
August 22, 2005
BOYCOTT 911truth.org’s anniversary march on 9/11 in NYC and instead show up at GROUND ZERO only!
Start an independent investigation into 9/11truth.org, its financial background and possible cointel-pro background ties!
Demand a clear opposition towards all gatekeepers, from the left and right!
BACKGROUND: On September 11th, 2005, ny911truth.org, affiliated with 911truth.org is planning a march from Times Square to NY TIMES and the United Nations.
We urge every activists, especially in New York City to boycott this bogus march and show up at GROUND ZERO only.
Bring your own leaflets, signs and banners and boycott this march.
Here is why real 9/11 truth activists should boycott the march and show up at GROUND ZERO during the whole day instead:
1)The march is a setup: 911truth.org is calculative of the outcome. They pretend, that 10000 would show up, while realistically we should expect a few 100s on Times Square, which would look silly and disorganized.
Instead on the other hand the same number at the small spot of GROUND ZERO/Port Authority Place would look impressive. Ask 911truth.org and ny911truth.org, why they don’t wanna show up at GROUND ZERO?! Don’t get fooled by fake excuses ("missing permits", "we’re there every week", "disrespectful against 9/11 family members" etc...)
2)The march is a distraction By voting against GROUND ZERO including the new WTC 7 building as a symbolical protest spot, 911truth.org and ny911truth.org vote are coming out against including the physical evidence of 9/11. Also, neither the NY TIMES or UNITED NATIONS had been attacked on 9/11. These spots are the wrong symbolical spots.
Also, Another opportunity to speak out for activists in Washington: Infiltrate the "Freedom Walk" from the Pentagon to the National Mall with your own leaflets and banners.
Also, protest the 9/10 hearing in New York City reg.[official] 9/11 anniversary. It will take place in NY’s congress in lower Manhattan, and include officials from the Department of Homeland Security, the Government Accountability Office, the Department of Health and Human Services, and Mount Sinai Hospital.
These are 2 other anniversary protest opportunities, so far ignored by 911truth.org.
3)The march is a false-hope campaign Protesting at NY TIMES is not only sending out the wrong signal (also alternative gatekeeper projects like ANSWER and DemocracyNow! have to be protested), they also try to merge the protest with the ongoing false hope campaign around Valerie Plame, Judith Miller etc...
4)The march is a lie Protesting at the UNITED NATIONS is a diversion act. Not only that it can be diverted into the ongoing critical debate about the United Nations, it also implies, that the UN might be somehow impressed of this protest. However, as a matter of fact, just recently Kofi Annan signed a new statement on war on terrorism. The UN is supportive of the official story of 9/11 and a corruptive tool by globalist warmongers, which are planning to get rid of the UN pretty soon.
5)The march is an energy sink 911truth.org is opposing peaceful civil disobedience and clear political messages against fascism and a criminal US Congress. With an exhaustive march of this length they also try to destabilize the dynamic outcome of this march.
6)911truth.org is a war criminals and a diversion front. Since 911truth.org continues to cover up the fact that 9/11 was an Inside Job and instead reinforces the official story, they meanwhile also have to be made as well responsible for ongoing killings in Iraq, Afghanistan and other US-infiltrated nations regarding their bogus war on terrorism. Fairly spoken, other gatekeeper organisations like ANSWER, United for Peace, FAIR, truthout.org and many others have to be added into this war criminal list, too.
911truth.org claims, that some 9/11 researchers started diversions or "divide & conquer" by accusing 911truth.org as of being a disinfo front.
However, it was 911truth.org first, who supported the diversive and distractive peak oil psyOP, oilempire’s anti-911website McCarthy list. and 911truth.org also overpromoted the "pod-, missile- and noplaner" label to provoke a fight amongst researchers, discredit their research and draw attention on manipulated contents of these research fields.
911truth.org is a censorship front and already officially infiltrated by government insiders, who are not willing to speak out about the fact that 9/11 was an Inside Job.
The suspicious background of some of their board members strongly points on a manipulated cointel-pro front organized from the top (see below).
911truth.org also works with brainwashing messages to clearly delay(!) the truth about 9/11:
"...america is not ready for the truth...this is another breakthrough but we have a long fight in front of us....it will take years....we don’t know the truth and don’t know all the answers...support the 9/11 cover-up (which one??)...9/11 was a tragedy that has changed the course of history...we must hold government to basic standards of transparency...the next few months will decide what, if any, September 11th truth will ever be revealed for many years to come..."
etc...etc...
Compare this with REAL activist leaders like Martin Luther King:
"...we must face the tragic fact...We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now...now is the time...I wouldn’t stop there...The nation is sick...really standing up for the best in the American dream..."
Do you want to support a tranquilized opposition or a dynamic, uncontrolled activist movement?
7)911truth.org is controlled opposition 911truth.org does not want the truth and do not want to stop fascism and a pending world war. As a matter of fact, they already announced another "TruthEmergency" in June 2006, ignoring international political destabilisations, ongoing wargames and terror drills worldwide, which point on an obvious timetable for a planned world war between Russia, China and U.S. And they also ignore rigged e-voting machinery and pretend that democracy still exist. They also had been supportive of Skull and Bones member John Kerry.
911truth.org is working against an effective decentrilisation and also ignores international input by focussing on the US only.
8)911truth.org keeps missing opportunities Not one single word about yet another terror scam in London ("7/7") has been mentioned on their website, which was an important opportunity to show how easy a false flag operation can be proven and educate skeptics of the 9/11 truth movement. http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?9.879
Also, 911truth.org tried to manipulate the outcome of Cynthia McKinney’s public hearing by allowing the 9/11 family members, to disinvite David Ray Griffin to speak out.
9)911truth.org is playing both sides 911truth.org manipulates the progressive part of this movement with fake support of David Ray Griffin. Instead they also risk Griffin’s output by marginalizing him too much.
ny911truth.org’s public speakers of their anniversary event include gatekeepers and supporters of the official story, with only 2 respectable speakers, Craig Hill and Robert Bowman (7 PM event at St. Mark’s ).
Hopefully local activist Frank Morales will also use the opportunity to upgrade his message ’against a police state’ with the truth about 9/11, which hasn’t happend yet.
10)911truth.org are traitors 911truth.org did not speak out yet against Mike Ruppert, whose parents according to his own words, worked both for the NSA. Ruppert trashed 15-20 respected 9/11 researchers in November 2004, threatened to sue 7-10 other researchers during 2004, is still supportive of already debunked psyOP scam "peak oil", tried to distract from terror drill research with so called wargames (which turned the official story into a limited hangout) and declared the 9/11 truth movement in december 2004 for "politically dead".
The peakoil distraction scam furthermore is demoralizing, brainwashing, diversive, discouraging and calculated depressive and drives their supporters into new age cults or other suspicious organizations.
The fake theory of peak oil supports the actual effect of being supportive of population control and (oil) war against terrorism and distracts from one of the real reasons for the invasion of Iraq:
Saddam Hussein began selling his oil in euros to France in November 2000. There was an urgent need to stop this. Dollar is the world’s reserve currency, and hence their source of power. The bogus war on terrorism is also used to manipulate the oil price.
9/11 was also used to stave off financial collapse, loss of power and refresh military-, biopharmacy- and surveillance business.
Peak oil is a scam to demoralize this movement and also manipulate the ecology movement.
Among other "speakers" of 911truth.org’s anniversary event in NYC:
Premilla Dixit, describing herself as a "anti-corporate activist", is a hardline leftgatekeeper, who tried to control the NY 9/11 Truth Movement from the beginnining since 2002/03, by diverting them to WBAI, which is run by Pacifica Foundation, itself sponsored by the right wing think tank Ford Foundation. The CIA and the Ford Foundation maintained close relations throughout the 1950s and into the 1960s.
In 1995, George Soros’ Open Society Institute had given the Pacifica Foundation a $40,000 grant.
During 2002/03 Dixit was not interested to work together with already existing 9/11 truth media projects, like ShadowGovernment TV, which had a weekly TV show on Public Access.
On behalf of Dixit’s "connections", she also decided to move all major public events into St. Mary’s (Rockefeller) Church in Harlem, which is almost an hour trip away from Manhattan.
Also, reaching out to the black community only is pretty much like preaching to the choire. Dixit also tried to hijack the 9/11 truth movement for her real interests: agriculture.
Dixit’s father was an agricultural geneticist, who developed a specific strain of basmati rice, which today belongs to a Texas company, reaping enormous profits from a rice that hundreds of thousands of Indian farmers had cultivated for centuries.
http://www.alternet.org/globalization/11776/
see also http://rabbiphilo.blogspot.com/2004/12/911-truth-movement-factionalism-pains.html
Donna Marsh O’Connor Mother of Vanessa Lang Langer, WTC Tower II Marsh O’Connor is one of many 9/11 widows, who is actually supportive of the official story of 9/11:
"...They (the terrorists) don’t hate us for who we are. They hate us for what we deny them...
...I lost my baby girl.Don’t you dare think for one moment I don’t want revenge. But I am not stupid. She died for the value of this soil as well as the value of our shared communal goals...
...Vote for John Kerry and John Edwards..." http://www.thousandreasons.org/opinion/100204b.html
Ray McGovern ex-CIA, who is describing himself as a "9/11 conspiracy theorist". He has never spoken out publicly, that he believes, 9/11 was an Inside Job.
911truth.org is promoting a lot of people, who are supporting the official story of 9/11.
Some of them believe, that 9/11 was either the result of military- or intelligence negligence, criticize only the political outcome and exploitation of 9/11, or do not even bother at all to question the official story:
Among them:
Nafeez Ahmed ("failure of a political system"), Medea Benjamin/Code Pink ("negligence"), Peter Lance ("negligence cover-up"), Paul Thompson (between negligence and LIHOP), "whistle blower" Sibel Edmonds (supportive of official story), fake whistle blower Indira Singh (assciated with RAND Institute), State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer (ignores 911truth.org totally), 9/11 family members around Kristen Breitwieser (supported the 9/11 bill, believe, "terrorists did 9/11") and similar supporters....
Here is a timeline of 911"truth".org, showing their suspicious character within this movement:
January 14th, 2003
911truth.org is registered by Kyle Hence, but updated by Nic Levis only until early 2004, when both decide to use this domain for an international hub for the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Until mid 2004, 911truth.org and unansweredquestions.org shared the same IP, 206.246.241.133 Their backbone provider is aem-tidewater.com.
One of AEM’s customer is the US Department of Energy. http://aem-east.com/management_consulting/services.xml
After 9/11 researcher "ewing2001" asked them about this oddity, they accused him as "disrespectve" and "paranoid". However 911truth.org apparently decided to change their provider, now listed at 66.116.223.176
September 2003 Kubiak tries to monitor 911activists by creating groups at meetup.com, an organisation controlled by Heritage Foundation, a right wing thinktank.
Instead of pushing these meetups, however Kubiak backs up from them by supporting 911visibility.com (a christian/green party leaning project) to recruit and control the activist messages from over there.
October 2003 Angie d’Urso, Nico Haupt and others create ny911truth.org and start their weekly banner protests at GROUND ZERO ("Bush regime engineered 9/11", a banner built by the No Police State Group).
After some weeks, 911truth.org tries to infiltrate and manipulate this acivist group by sending Nic Levis into the group, he suggested to the downsizing the messages and forced them to change the banner title.
Levis furthermore provoked more cat fights among the activists, mainly with Haupt. Levis clearly gets his orders from David Kubiak, who’s with him on the phone during all activities.
Activist and rapper Mike Kane, formerly ’recruited’ by Haupt, seemed to change his character after a while, too. As later confirmed, Kane was attacked after some weeks by so called "honey traps" and Mike Ruppert hired him suddenly for his news portal. The brainwash operation suceeded. Kane is left the group weeks later.
The group started to lose their dynamic message.
After further escalations and manipulations of Nic Levis (he invited against original plans Scott Ritter into a ny911truth.org event), d’Urso, Haupt and Jolly Roger are leaving the group under protest in Spring 2005 to form 9/11Truth Crusaders, later renamed into 9/11Truth Action.
January 2004 David Kubiak supports journalist, investigative reporter and 9/11 Truth candidate John Buchanan as campaign manager. Buchanan announces to run against George W. Bush in the New Hampshire Republican primary on January 27, 2004.
On February 4, according to Buchanan’s words, while on his way to speak at the National Press Club that evening, Buchanan is kidnapped by unidentified federal agents who claimed to be Secret Service officers but apparently were not. Four days later, upon his return hom to Miami, John was arrested on phony criminal charges in a 14-count felony complaint for aggravated stalking against a victim the state has failed to produce.
In August 2004, a Florida state attorney could not produce the alleged Buchanan in the case.
A few months later 911truth.org is starting to back up from Buchanan. The circumstances about this decision have never been explained.
February 2004 First rumours about turning the 9/11 Truth Movement into a "company" with organised board members inspired researcher "ewing2001" to dig into possible infiltration of 911truth.org itself.
March 2004 911truth.org-affiliated Mike Ruppert is using his influence at the SF International Inquiry to turn it into a peak-oil conference.
April 2004 Nic Levis registers summeroftruth.org. The website oddly also includes a small picture of a galaxy. Levis, also known as trahila, is obviously not only refering to a small village in greece, but "triton", the original meaning of trahila. Triton is the largest moon of Neptune, with a diameter of 2700 km. Is there a deeper manipulation of the readers, by putting this picture up?
June 2004 A controversy erupted over the participation and sponsorship of author John Gray at the Internation 9/11 Inquiry held in Toronto. After Michel Chussodowsky, Matthias Broeckers, 911skeptics.blogspot.com and Daniel Hopsicker reported about the controversial connection between John Gray and weapon dealer Adnan Kashoggi, 911truth.org tried to downplay and cover up the scandal and attacked the reporters as "paranoid", "disrespectful" and "divisive".
(see also http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/johngraydossier.html )
911truth.org, until then a front for Nic Levis, Kyle Hence and David Kubiak officially turn it into a 9/11 "activist" portal with an establishment of a new board, also supported by ex-Bush administrative Catherine Austin Fitts, muslim community leader Dr. Faiz Khan and TV producer Barrie Zwicker.
October 2004 911truth.org organises the so called "truth petition".
However, most of their prominent supporters do not believe that 9/11 was an Inside Job.
Among the official signatures are also Club of Rome affiliates like Richard Falk, who collaborated with the Club of Rome’s top systems philosopher and Club of Budapest founder, Ervin Laszlo.
John Cobb, Ph.D., associated with Club of Rome member and former World Bank economist, Herman Daly (Daly has also worked with the U.S. Sustainable Population Policy Project).
Paul H. Ray, Ph.D., co-author of a 1974 report from Stanford Research Institute together with Willis Harman and Duane Elgin (Club of Rome). One of SRI’s main funding sources is Bechtel (as in, George Shultz’s Bechtel).
David Korten, joined the new generation of Club of Rome.
Also, among other controversial supporters:
Rachel Ehrenfeld, Ph.D.-a member of the ultra-hawkish neocon think tank, Committee on the Present Danger, whose honorary chair is George Shultz (Bechtel).
Jim Garrison, Ph.D.-founder of the State of the World Forum with Mikhail Gorbachev and co-founder with Jesuit Daniel Sheehan of the Christic Institute, which was widely suspected of deliberately bungling and wrecking Iran-Contra investigations in the 1980s.
John Gray, Ph.D., -associated with weapon dealer Adnan Khashoggi
Daniel Ellsberg, ex-RAND Corporation employee, who’s supportive of official negligence spin of 9/11
Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst, who’s supportive of official negligence spin of 9/11
Melvin Goodman, former Senior Analyst, CIA, who’s supportive of official negligence spin of 9/11
Morton Goulder, Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford, and Carter. New Hampshire venture finance tycoon Goulder was the founder of defence electronics giant Sanders Associates which was acquired by Lockheed/Martin in the 1980s and is now known as BAE Systems.
December 2004 Nic Levis, one of a few "advisors" of Jimmy Walter’s "confronting the evidence", a public event which original focussed on physical evidence only, starts to manipulate the outcome of this event, by altering the line-up process and planting new speakers into the event.
Among them weapon dealer Karl Schwarz (during 2003 in negotiations with CIA company In-Q-Tel), peak oil supporters Jenna Orkin and Jamey Hecht, leftgatekeeper Kristina Borjesson, and Christopher Scheer (supportive of the official story of 9/11).
See also Karl Schwarz- spook or strutter? http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/316680.shtml
Levis is supported by his assistant and set director Brian Sacks, who is basically also reinforcing the official myth about "hijackers" and "Al-Qaeda" and is supportive of the importance of Sibel Edmonds for the 9/11 truth movement.
Sacks is an adjunct instructor of philosophy for Immaculata University, which is rooted in the Catholic Christian tradition.
During the event, Levis tries to slander Jimmy Walter in an interview with a science editor of Financial Times. The Interview, originally planned with Walter, is never released.
Jimmy Walter later also accused Nic Levis of thievery and other deceptions.
During 2005: Jan Hoyer, Brian Douglas and Janice Matthews are leaving the board of 911truth.org
May 2005 Byron Belitsos is leaving the board of 911truth.org, once questioned of his close relationship with CIA front and cult Urantia.
June 2005 Nic Levis (aka "Jack Riddler", formerly known as "JesusChrist") refreshes the LIHOP/MIHOP diversion on the gatekeeper forum democraticunderground.com and provokes a new setup against 9/11 researchers and activists.
July 22, 2005 After some months of silence, 911truth.org tries to relaunch their influence with another controlled gatekeeper conference in Washington, DC. Among their speakers are supporters of the official version of 9/11:
Nafeez Ahmed and Danny Schecter.
In a parallel event, a panel of a public hearing by Cynthia McKinney is infiltrated and controlled by gatekeepers John Judge (911Citizens watch), Melvin Goodman (ex-CIA), Ray McGovern (ex-CIA) and back on the scene- Mike Ruppert (ex-LAPD). McKinney’s panel manipulates the story of 9/11 into "calculated negligence".
September 2005 911truth.org decide against an anniversary protest at Ground Zero, instead urging ny911truth.org to show up at United Nations and NY Times. They still boycott the following messages on their leaftlets:
("9/11 was an Inside Job", "9/11 gatekeepers are war criminals", "9/11 was controlled demolition" and "9/11 Reichstagsbrand lie" etc...)
More background on 9/11Truth.org members:
David Kubiak, Executive Director
Not mentioned in Kubiak’s bio, is his affiliation with US Department of Defense, via his friend Russ George.
Both George and Kubiak had been connected via a cold fusion research team called d2fusion.com, before they knew each other via the PLANKTOS Foundation. http://www.planktos.com/people.htm
Kubiak is getting involved with George’s team with Professor Dr. Y.C. Zhang.
Russ George is a scientist who presented seminars at U.S. Secretary of the Navy, MITI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry, NASA Space Power Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, The Naval Research Laboratory, Lockheed Martin Corporation, General Atomics and many other private military contractors. http://www.d2fusion.com/technologies.html
Dr. George has also worked as a visiting scientist in the Claytor/Tuggle laboratory at Los Alamos.
Professor Dr. Y.C. Zhang works at the Tsinghua University, which was occasionally sponsored by defense contractor Westinghouse, which is also supported by the James Baker Institute and their Micro-Nuclear Technology research. http://tauon.nuc.berkeley.edu/asia/2000/Wang.pdf
Nicholas Levis, East Coast Research Coordinator During 2004 named as "East Coast manager".
Payrolled by David Kubiak and unknown sources. Once sponsored by pro John Kerry supporter Meredith Wheeler for an european trip to an "American Voices Abroad" conference. Wheeler is a transpersonal psychotherapist who specialises in fertility issues. She is a member of the British Infertility Counselling Association (BICA)
Kyle Hence Though not officially on the board of 911truth.org, Hence is still owner of the domain and involved in many of their public events
Biggest critical points against Hence:
(The ’bio’ of this author is at http://www.team8plus.org/comment.php?comment.news.4 )
by : Nico Haupt aka ewing2001
Tuesday 23rd August 2005
09/11/2001
WagNews: Get ready for Financial Hurricane Katrina
WagNews: Get ready for Financial Hurricane Katrina
"In November, 2005, the Fed mysteriously announced with little comment and no palatable justification that they will hide the main staple of money supply measurement(M-3), effective March 2006. So what's been happening to M-3 since then? For the raw figures, fasten your seat belt. M-3 was increased $58.7 billion last week, a 30% annual rate of growth. Over the past 6 weeks it is up $192.9 billion, a 16.7 percent Banana Republic hyperinflationary pace. This is nuts, folks - unless there is an incredible risk out there we are not being told about."So writes Robert McHugh in a recent financial article (in full below). And it's an article that has been getting some traffic on the CIA Fakes.One of the advantages of knowing about the CIA fakes is that when you see them promote an article, you know it must be well worth wondering WHY?One of the key factors McHugh cites for the M-3 madness is the forthcoming Euro-denominated trading of oil on the new Iranian bourse in March, 2006. And there has been much nudge-nudge comment among the self-same CIA Fakes about the U.S. hostility to Iran (not to mention Iraq) having been based on their desire to prevent this disastrous outcome for the U.S.Bulls**t. The US/EU elite long ago decided this new Dollar-Euro policy between them. It's a planned development as part of the financial elite's rebalancing of global dependance on the dollar. And the U.S. elite is totally at one with their European counterparts on this shift.It's a desperately needed shift.The inflationary Clinton legacy was always going to be but a short-term panacea for U.S. economic woes. The Clinton stock bubble shifted to the Bush housing bubble. And all this vapor-prosperity took place despite no significant gains in productivity; increasing foreign competition; inflation; wages stagnation; and the diversion of productive capital into both federal white elephants and, of course, the military budget/oughtright theft.It's a no-brainer that this eventually leads to financial colapse.Which is why the military got a bonanza payoff from 9/11, and why the destruction/rebuilding economic policy saw a similar bonanza accrue to Haliburton et al, in Iraq and in New Orleans. It's called looking after your pals in tough times.The United States is being reinvented as a low-wage economy with a high-tech military-industrial-technological froth atop --sustained by a Homeland Security repression apparatus to keep the stunned peasants in check.So, given that momentum, there is no alternative to dollar deflation in the longer term. The dollar is going down. And the Euro is there to take up the slack.The Fed's unrevealed M-3 fund will be used as it has in the past --to hand over the freshly-printed dollars which allow key banks to speculate in the markets and thwart the true market forces from exerting their corrective effect.It will cause stagflation. A stagnant economy with escalating inflation in all areas except wages.The M-3 fund will be used to massage the economy until after the 2006 elections. Bush is alrady being lined up to take the political heat for the later colllapse. The Iranians and their oil trading bourse will also be blamed. As will Bush's costly foreign war. In truth, the economic problems of the U.S. are much more directly the result of international capital's globalization project.And the spew of resignations among the members of the Feb Board over the last few years is not because, as McHugh speculates, they don't want to oversee bad economic planning.It's because they don't want to be around when the dollar hits the fan; the housing bubble pops; and the economy tanks. And with Alan Greenspan gone from the Fed, the new appointment of Ben Bernanke is akin to the appointment of Michael D. Brown to head FEMA.The Fed's 'Mr. Fall Guy' has been wheeled into place.Get ready for Financial Hurricane Katrina.
What's the Fed Up To With the Money Supply?by Robert McHugh, December 23, 2005....M-3 has a direct but lagging impact on financial markets. Look at the chart at the top of the prior page. Whenever M-3 rises, the Dow Industrials rise. Whenever M-3 is flat or declines, the Dow Industrials decline. The Dow Industrials are a bellwether for the economy. If we can monitor M-3, we can better monitor the future path of equities and the economy. It is wrong for the Fed to stop its disclosure for this very reason. Investors need to know in a free market economy, because M-3 infusion is centrally planned intervention into a free market system. Investors need to know when the Master Planners have decided to intervene. Our buy/sell signals were designed to pick up the scent of Master Planner intervention by analyzing supply and demand forces underlying the markets. So with or without a fully disclosed M-3, we will be able to continue to identify coming multi-week trends.Should be a fascinating storm in 2006.The recent rise in Gold catalogued 74 points over about a month, a 16 percent rally from precisely the day the Fed announced it would hide M-3 from taxpayers and citizens of this great nation. That is no coincidence. Gold sees hyperinflation, monetization of debt, and intervention into free markets. Gold is telling us it expects Ben Bernanke to be an inflationist. [Full Article]
"In November, 2005, the Fed mysteriously announced with little comment and no palatable justification that they will hide the main staple of money supply measurement(M-3), effective March 2006. So what's been happening to M-3 since then? For the raw figures, fasten your seat belt. M-3 was increased $58.7 billion last week, a 30% annual rate of growth. Over the past 6 weeks it is up $192.9 billion, a 16.7 percent Banana Republic hyperinflationary pace. This is nuts, folks - unless there is an incredible risk out there we are not being told about."So writes Robert McHugh in a recent financial article (in full below). And it's an article that has been getting some traffic on the CIA Fakes.One of the advantages of knowing about the CIA fakes is that when you see them promote an article, you know it must be well worth wondering WHY?One of the key factors McHugh cites for the M-3 madness is the forthcoming Euro-denominated trading of oil on the new Iranian bourse in March, 2006. And there has been much nudge-nudge comment among the self-same CIA Fakes about the U.S. hostility to Iran (not to mention Iraq) having been based on their desire to prevent this disastrous outcome for the U.S.Bulls**t. The US/EU elite long ago decided this new Dollar-Euro policy between them. It's a planned development as part of the financial elite's rebalancing of global dependance on the dollar. And the U.S. elite is totally at one with their European counterparts on this shift.It's a desperately needed shift.The inflationary Clinton legacy was always going to be but a short-term panacea for U.S. economic woes. The Clinton stock bubble shifted to the Bush housing bubble. And all this vapor-prosperity took place despite no significant gains in productivity; increasing foreign competition; inflation; wages stagnation; and the diversion of productive capital into both federal white elephants and, of course, the military budget/oughtright theft.It's a no-brainer that this eventually leads to financial colapse.Which is why the military got a bonanza payoff from 9/11, and why the destruction/rebuilding economic policy saw a similar bonanza accrue to Haliburton et al, in Iraq and in New Orleans. It's called looking after your pals in tough times.The United States is being reinvented as a low-wage economy with a high-tech military-industrial-technological froth atop --sustained by a Homeland Security repression apparatus to keep the stunned peasants in check.So, given that momentum, there is no alternative to dollar deflation in the longer term. The dollar is going down. And the Euro is there to take up the slack.The Fed's unrevealed M-3 fund will be used as it has in the past --to hand over the freshly-printed dollars which allow key banks to speculate in the markets and thwart the true market forces from exerting their corrective effect.It will cause stagflation. A stagnant economy with escalating inflation in all areas except wages.The M-3 fund will be used to massage the economy until after the 2006 elections. Bush is alrady being lined up to take the political heat for the later colllapse. The Iranians and their oil trading bourse will also be blamed. As will Bush's costly foreign war. In truth, the economic problems of the U.S. are much more directly the result of international capital's globalization project.And the spew of resignations among the members of the Feb Board over the last few years is not because, as McHugh speculates, they don't want to oversee bad economic planning.It's because they don't want to be around when the dollar hits the fan; the housing bubble pops; and the economy tanks. And with Alan Greenspan gone from the Fed, the new appointment of Ben Bernanke is akin to the appointment of Michael D. Brown to head FEMA.The Fed's 'Mr. Fall Guy' has been wheeled into place.Get ready for Financial Hurricane Katrina.
What's the Fed Up To With the Money Supply?by Robert McHugh, December 23, 2005....M-3 has a direct but lagging impact on financial markets. Look at the chart at the top of the prior page. Whenever M-3 rises, the Dow Industrials rise. Whenever M-3 is flat or declines, the Dow Industrials decline. The Dow Industrials are a bellwether for the economy. If we can monitor M-3, we can better monitor the future path of equities and the economy. It is wrong for the Fed to stop its disclosure for this very reason. Investors need to know in a free market economy, because M-3 infusion is centrally planned intervention into a free market system. Investors need to know when the Master Planners have decided to intervene. Our buy/sell signals were designed to pick up the scent of Master Planner intervention by analyzing supply and demand forces underlying the markets. So with or without a fully disclosed M-3, we will be able to continue to identify coming multi-week trends.Should be a fascinating storm in 2006.The recent rise in Gold catalogued 74 points over about a month, a 16 percent rally from precisely the day the Fed announced it would hide M-3 from taxpayers and citizens of this great nation. That is no coincidence. Gold sees hyperinflation, monetization of debt, and intervention into free markets. Gold is telling us it expects Ben Bernanke to be an inflationist. [Full Article]
French Engineer Abducted by Fake Iraqi Terrorists
Another Day in the Empire
We are expected to believe the Iraqi resistance is not only vicious, but also uninterested in repairing the damage inflicted on its country by the neocon invasion. It runs around abducting Christian peace activists, western journalists, Sudanese and Moroccan embassy employees, and people from countries that opposed Bush’s invasion. On December 5, Bernard Planche, an engineer working for the “little known non-governmental group” AACCESS, was abducted. Planche worked at the Rusafa water treatment plant in eastern Baghdad. It should be noted that AACCESS is involved in “two small rehabilitation projects” financed by the United States Army, according to the New York Times. In short, on the surface, it would appear Planche’s abducting is legitimate, considering Planche worked indirectly for the U.S. Army and the United Nations.
Once again, however, this latest kidnapping was apparently carried out by a “previously unknown armed group,” according to the BBC, sporting yet another absurd name—Surveillance for the Sake of Iraq Brigade. It is curious how the larger, more well-know Iraqi resistance groups such as the Iraqi National Islamic Resistance, the National Front for the Liberation of Iraq, and the Iraqi Resistance Islamic Front do not engage in kidnapping but rather military operations aimed at occupation forces and their Iraqi allies (even the United Nations accepts that people under occupation have a right to resist).
If we are to believe the corporate media, at least some of these kidnappings from ostensibly ad hoc terrorist groups are related to the Iraqi High Tribunal hearing of Saddam Hussein. However, kidnapping and possibly executing foreign workers and peace activists will not sway hand-picked judges in their ultimate decision to lynch Saddam, who after all cooperated with the United States for years, that is until he fell out of favor as client dictators often do.
Obviously, kidnapping and possibly killing innocent journalists, peace activists, and water engineers has a more practical goal—to make the resistance out to be blood-thirsty savages, demented Islamic fanatics determined to kill as many people as possible, both Iraqi and Sudanese, Moroccan, French, British, and assorted others. It makes no sense for the improbably named Surveillance for the Sake of Iraq Brigade to kidnap Bernard Planche, even if he is tenuously linked to the U.S. Army. In Bushzarro world, where Pentagon black ops are conducted in the name of the Iraqi resistance, it makes perfect sense to abduct and threaten to kill an engineer who worked to bring clean water to the Iraqi people.
We are expected to believe the Iraqi resistance is not only vicious, but also uninterested in repairing the damage inflicted on its country by the neocon invasion. It runs around abducting Christian peace activists, western journalists, Sudanese and Moroccan embassy employees, and people from countries that opposed Bush’s invasion. On December 5, Bernard Planche, an engineer working for the “little known non-governmental group” AACCESS, was abducted. Planche worked at the Rusafa water treatment plant in eastern Baghdad. It should be noted that AACCESS is involved in “two small rehabilitation projects” financed by the United States Army, according to the New York Times. In short, on the surface, it would appear Planche’s abducting is legitimate, considering Planche worked indirectly for the U.S. Army and the United Nations.
Once again, however, this latest kidnapping was apparently carried out by a “previously unknown armed group,” according to the BBC, sporting yet another absurd name—Surveillance for the Sake of Iraq Brigade. It is curious how the larger, more well-know Iraqi resistance groups such as the Iraqi National Islamic Resistance, the National Front for the Liberation of Iraq, and the Iraqi Resistance Islamic Front do not engage in kidnapping but rather military operations aimed at occupation forces and their Iraqi allies (even the United Nations accepts that people under occupation have a right to resist).
If we are to believe the corporate media, at least some of these kidnappings from ostensibly ad hoc terrorist groups are related to the Iraqi High Tribunal hearing of Saddam Hussein. However, kidnapping and possibly executing foreign workers and peace activists will not sway hand-picked judges in their ultimate decision to lynch Saddam, who after all cooperated with the United States for years, that is until he fell out of favor as client dictators often do.
Obviously, kidnapping and possibly killing innocent journalists, peace activists, and water engineers has a more practical goal—to make the resistance out to be blood-thirsty savages, demented Islamic fanatics determined to kill as many people as possible, both Iraqi and Sudanese, Moroccan, French, British, and assorted others. It makes no sense for the improbably named Surveillance for the Sake of Iraq Brigade to kidnap Bernard Planche, even if he is tenuously linked to the U.S. Army. In Bushzarro world, where Pentagon black ops are conducted in the name of the Iraqi resistance, it makes perfect sense to abduct and threaten to kill an engineer who worked to bring clean water to the Iraqi people.
Chris Floyd - Empire Burlesque - High Crimes and Low Comedy in the Bush Imperium - Clowntime is Over: The Last Stand of the American Republic
Chris Floyd - Empire Burlesque - High Crimes and Low Comedy in the Bush Imperium - Clowntime is Over: The Last Stand of the American Republic
So now, at last, the crisis is upon us. Now the cards are finally on the table, laid out so starkly that even the Big Media sycophants and Beltway bootlickers can no longer ignore them. Now the choice for the American Establishment is clear, and inescapable: do you hold for the Republic, or for autocracy? There is no third way here, no other option, no wiggle room, no ambiguity. The much-belated exposure of George W. Bush's warrantless spy program has forced the Bush-Cheney Regime to openly declare what they have long implied -- and enacted -- in secret: that the president is above the law, a military autocrat with unlimited powers, beyond the restraint or supervision of any other institution or branch of government. Outed as rank deceivers, perverters of the law and rapists of the Constitution, the Bush gang has decided that their best defense -- their only defense, really -- is a belligerent offense. "Yeah, we broke the law," they now say; "so what? We'll break it again whenever we want to, because law don't stick to our Big Boss Man. What are you going to do about it, chump?" That is the essence, the substance and pretty much the style of the entire Bushist response to the domestic spying scandal. They are scarcely bothering to gussy it up with the usual rhetorical circumlocutions. The attack is being led by the fat, sneering coward, Dick Cheney, who has crawled out of his luxurious hidey-holes to re-animate the rotting husk of Richard Nixon and send it tottering back onto the national stage. Through the facade of Cheney's pig-squint and peevish snarl, we can see the long-dead Nixonian visage, his grave-green, worm-filled jowls muttering once more the lunatic mantra he brought to the Oval Office: "If the president does it, it can't be illegal." This is what we've come to, this is American leadership today: ugly, stupid men mouthing the witless drivel of failed, dead, discredited, would-be petty tyrants. But not even Nixon was as foul as this crew. When he was caught, he folded; some faint spark of republican conscience restrained him from pushing the crisis to the end. He was a vain, stupid, greedy, grasping, dirty man with blood on his hands, but in the end, he did not identify himself with the government as a whole. He did not say, "l'etat, c'est moi," he had no messianic belief that the life of the nation was somehow bound up with his personal fate, or that he and his clique and his cronies had a God-given right to rule. They just wanted power and loot -- as much of it as they could get -- and they pushed and pushed until the Establishment pushed back. It has long been evident, however, that Bush and Cheney do believe their clique should by all rights rule the country -- and that anyone who opposes their unrestrained dominion is automatically "anti-American," an enemy of the state. For them, there is no "loyal opposition," or even political opponents in any traditional understanding of the term; there are only enemies to be destroyed, and herd-like masses to be manipulated. They believe that their dominion is more important than democracy, which they despise as a brake and hindrance to the arbitrary leadership of an all-wise elite -- i.e., them. They are the state; a police state.Elections are just necessary evils, a way to manufacture the illusion of consent, shake down corporations for big bucks and calibrate the loyalty of courtiers. Democracy is simply another system to be gamed, subverted, turned to factional advantage -- in precisely the same way that Enron gamed the California electric grid. This accounts for the strange, omnipresent tang of unreality that permeated the last three national elections, in 2000, 2002, and 2004. It's because they were unreal: the results were gamed, sometimes in secret, sometimes in plain sight; the "issues" and rhetoric were divorced from the reality that we all actually lived and felt -- and the outcomes were as phony as an Enron balance sheet. Dominion seized on such sinister and cynical terms will almost certainly be defended -- and extended -- by any means necessary. That is the great danger. The Bushists have already pushed on further than Nixon ever dared; will they "bear it out even to the edge of doom"? This is the crux of the matter; this is the crossroads where we now stand. Will the American Establishment push back at last? Will they say, This far we will go, but no further; this much we will swallow, but no more? Some of us have been writing for years about Bush's piecemeal assumption of dictatorial powers. We have watched in rage and amazement as the Establishment meekly accepted Bush's repeated, brutal insults to democracy. Time and again, I've quoted the words of the Emperor Tiberius, after the lackeys of the Senate grovelled to do his bidding: "Men fit to be slaves." In one sense, then, the Rubicon was crossed long ago. Yet "we live in hope and die in despair," as my father always says. In the back of the minds of many an embittered dissident, there has been a spark of hope that somewhere down the line, one of the many, many Bush outrages would somehow take hold, gain critical mass, and force the Establishment to act, to rein in the renegade, break him, box him in if not remove him from office. For let's be clear about this: only the Establishment -- the institutional powers-that-be -- can break an outlaw president. Millions marched in the street against Nixon and the system; whole city quadrants went up in flames in those days; but none of this was decisive in the corridors of power. (Nor to much of the American public, to be frank; after Kent State, after My Lai, after Cambodia, Nixon was still re-elected in a landslide.) It was his insult to the institutions -- the Watergate break-in of Democratic headquarters, the subsequent cover-up and subversion of the legal system, the defiance of Congress -- that led to his downfall. He pushed too far, tried to grab too much -- and the Establishment pulled him short. And it will have to be the Establishment that breaks Bush -- or he won't be broken. All the blogs in the world won't bring him down, no matter how much truth they tell, how much bloodsoaked Bushist dirt they expose. Yes, perhaps if we had millions of outraged citizens marching in the street day after day across America, a sustained mass movement and popular uprising for liberty and democracy, this might obviate the need for Establishment action. But we all know that such marches are not going to happen. If there was sufficient fire for liberty and democracy in America, there would have already been a popular uprising -- and Bush would never have garnered enough public support to keep the election results close enough to be fudged. No, it will be the Establishment -- or no one. That's why the spy scandal is so pivotal. Because it is a direct, open and unignorable challenge to the institutional life of the American Establishment. In it, the Bush Regime is saying to the various powers-that-be, especially in Congress and the courts, but also to centers of power and influence outside government: you no longer have any power. All real power is now in our gift. Your laws, your institutions, your traditions, the whole complex infrastructure of checks and balances that have sustained society are now essentially meaningless. As in ancient Rome, we will keep the old forms, but the life of the state has now passed into the hands of the autocrat and his court. His arbitrary will can override any law -- although of course, strong law will still be applied to his enemies, and to the riff-raff in the lower orders. How will the Establishment deal with this direct challenge? The past few years give little grounds for hope: the Democrats spineless, conflicted, co-opted and corrupt; the Republicans slavish, bellicose, cruel and criminal; the media timorous, witless, corporate-controlled; big business absolutely rolling in gravy from the autocrat's larder; academia cowed, silenced, ignored, demonized; the military acquiescent in criminal aggression, top-heavy with time-servers currying autocratic favor. Only the courts provide some stray sparks of hope, although they too are now loaded with political sycophants, corporate bagmen and knuckle-dragging throwbacks produced by the Right's decades-long devolution of American jurisprudence. Prosecutors like Patrick Fitzgerald and Elliot Spitzer "keep hope alive," but their efforts will mean little in a system where lawlessness at the top has been countenanced by the rest of the Establishment. And in any case, the outcome of their work lies ultimately with the Supreme Court -- the same court that shredded the Constitution in awarding power to Bush in the first place, and which is now led by a Bushist apparatchik. Still, you don't go through a constitutional crisis with the Establishment you want; you go through a constitutional crisis with the Establishment you have. And this sad, sick crew, ladies and gentlemen, is all we have. If they swallow the spy scandal, if they don't push back now -- and I mean really push back, not just make a lot of harrumphing noise or hold a few toothless hearings or get a couple of underlings offered up as ritual sacrifices to save the Leader -- then we will have well and truly and finally lost the Republic that Franklin, Jefferson and Madison gave us so long ago. The next few weeks will show us if there is still some hope of restoring the Republic through the old institutions, or if we will have to follow the course laid out by Bob Dylan some 40 years ago: "Strike another match, go start anew." Who knows? Maybe we can make a better republic next time: one not born of blood, greed and fury -- those all-too-common elements of human organization -- but made from a new compound of mercy, justice, communion and liberty. Still imperfect, of course, still corrupt -- because that's our intractable human nature -- but with our worst instincts restrained by enlightened, ever-evolving law, and the predatory ambitions of the rich and powerful reined by elaborate checks and balances. It's just a dream, of course; probably a vain one. But we will need some vision to guide us if, as seems likely, we must soon set forth into the unknown territory of an openly declared American autocracy. .
Comments
FilmWritten by Guest on 2005-12-28 17:48:33
,,,Honest to goodness, nobody could write a screenplay as good as the real life tragidrama is these days.
Look out kids...Written by Guest on 2005-12-28 17:40:18
In reference to Helios, "....the phone's tapped anyway, Maggie says they must bust in early May, orders from the DA, look out kids
Floyd's right.Written by Guest on 2005-12-28 17:38:33
Yes,it's make or break time now.And Floyd is right;only the system can push back. If it wants to.If it thinks that eventually, this crew will threaten all its profits.
The Republic is DEADWritten by Guest on 2005-12-28 17:37:55
Personally, I think the Republic is DEAD. It's been dead ever since Dec. 12, 2000 whenthe SCOTUS basically acted in the partisan interest of 1 man and his criminal gang. The coup happened back then and we all were too naive to realize what we were in fact seeing. We can forget about the demos they're a toothless bunch of whining spineless wimps. As to the courts forget it. The media is totally subservient now. I watched in disbelief last night as one media whore after another bowed and scrapped at W's feet. It's over folks we need a miracle to save us now. The velvetta gloves are off were fucked!!
HeliosWritten by Guest on 2005-12-28 17:37:08
That "rotting husk" isn't Nixon. Nixon was a pussycat beside these monsters.....and remember, this drama hasn't unfolded yet, not by half. But Chris Floyd is absolutely correct. It is the time of what William Burroughs would call the naked lunch, where what is on the end of everybody's fork is plainly and painfully visible to all at the table. This is the defining moment---now is when we will find out which way the scales will tip. Chris Floyd is obviously a Bob Dylan fan. He takes his blog name from a Dylan album and he quotes a line from Dylan's "It's all over now, baby blue". Well Mr. Floyd, there's a Dylan song that I keep hearing in my head lately that was written forty years ago but has come back around full circle in meaning, for me at least----Subterranean Homesick Blues. I know that Dylan penned a bunch of timeless anthems, but that particular song describes America in 2005 as well as it once described the America of 1965. It seems as if we gave back every inch we had gained in four decades...and now we're losing ground.
donescobarWritten by Guest on 2005-12-28 16:47:35
Who in the "establishment"could possibly care as long as the bucks flow in and power is held on to? Political establishment? No. Corporate establishment? No The old WASP/Brahmin educational/legal establishment? No. Financial establishment? No. Go through Mills' "The Power Elite" and sort out the segments, interlocked as they are, of "the establishment." All now deeply connected, in spirit, flesh, and gold to the Bushies. WHO in the establishment even senses or sees a violation, a betrayal? And who in this many-splendored establishment gives a rat's ass about the people? Hell, not even the people care about the people. Asleep, dreaming of the next DVD and purchase at the mall, the next NFL victory for the "home team." All in the bubble, together. Economic collapse could burst the bubble. What else? "The shepherds change, the sheep remain," Nietzsche wrote. Hell, we won't even change the shepherds anymore.
Crossposted from Booman TribuneWritten by Guest on 2005-12-28 15:26:45
Ah, Mr. Floyd. The music of the seers. Trust a musician to know how to sing. One thing, though... Be of good cheer. All is NEVER lost, and the establishment with which we must go to war...the establishment that we have, crude, venal, selfish and shortsighted though it may be...is doing a FINE job of finally boxing these incompetent motherfuckers in, tying a good stout twine around the box and then throwing them into the Potomac. Leak after leak after leak over the last year, the redirection of Station WOMD (Weapons Of Mass Distraction...the media) AT them rather than being used in support of their plans, masterful use of a long game quarterbacked by Patrick Fitzgerald and coached by...coached by who? (A question that will probably NEVER be answered, but I believe his initials are C. I. A. The police force of the old establishment no matter WHAT functionary is figureheaded into place as its executive.), the clear and unambiguous "No" message that was recently sent from at least a large portion of the regular military establishment and delivered by their boy in Congress, John Murtha...and don't forget those so far mysteriously unreleased Abu Ghraib photos. Lions and tigers and bears and homosexual rape and pedophilia and such oh my!!! In color!!! The last salvo, if necessary, the end of the fireworks display that is plainly still building towards its inevitable, booming climax. The game is up, and it is now just a matter of deciding how many spoils the new guys get to keep and/or which fallguys will be set up to take the blame. (Please,Lord, let it be Butch and Cheney...20 to 1 against, but we can dream, can't we?) Do not lay for justice, Chris. Justice is cosmic, and comes over long increments of time. ("The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. " Martin Luther King Jr. Yup. Bet on it.) Meanwhile, be happy that evolution is still in action and these chimps, this side trip proved to be merely another of life's small experiments that did not quite pan out. ("Life will try anything once." Jan Cox. Yup. Bet on THAT one, too.) Short of a nuclear or other mass attack...either on us by some fools on the other side who don't realize that they have already won as much as they are going to win this time or BY "us" on say Iran or Detroit...these people are done. I do not think that the administration has the clout with the military anymore...overt OR covert...to pull that one off, and incompetent as our security forces really are, they are dealing with some fairly simple terrorists who like to blow themselves up in the expectation of eternity surrounded by a harem of ever-renewable virgins, which is why we have had so little successful terrorist action here over the past several years. (They are exactly not rocket scientists on the other side, either, most of them. Bet on it.) The REAL power is going to hire another cook. Another set of CEOs. And then go back to their life of hustle, golf and skiing in Gstaad. They may not...make that WILL not...hire people who would please you or me for this task (I'm betting Hillary vs. McCain in the next election), but then, we haven't paid the several generations of dues in the form of theft, murder and general bad karma that have put that "establishment" in the catbird seat. So it goes. And evolution stumbles on just as it always has, a drunken sailor headed back to his ship. Falling down here, then forward a few feet, mugged in the alley, stops for a drink or two, passes out, wakes up, makes it another block or so in a headlong, drunken rush, sits down abruptly lost, gets up again, back three steps, ahead four and a half, bloody but unbowed...always headed back to the mothership. Always headed home. So it goes. And please remember... Have fun. Who needs to go to the movies? We have a front row seat at the greatest show on earth. The ONLY show. Enjoy. You have a lifetime ticket. AG
Written by chris on 2005-12-28 08:42:30
Re "Re:Clowntime," I don't think we can count on the Establishment to bring down Bush; that was part of the point I was trying to make -- that you certainly can't count on those sad sacks of shinola for anything, as they have repeatedly demonstrated during the past few years. I was just saying that if Bush is to be brought down, they will have to do it; and if they don't do it now, in the face of egregious provocation, they will never do it. I don't have any real hope that they will, but, as I said, the next few weeks will show us once and for all exactly where we stand.
Written by Guest on 2005-12-28 02:52:01
Like you said after 9/11 Chris,"This is not a new evil. It's as old as the hills, and it is with us always." I think we have a long battle ahead, and the people will prevail.
Re: "Clowntime"Written by Guest on 2005-12-28 01:18:57
The "establishment" put the Jester-in-Chief where he is: so how can we count on it to remove him? And he's already attacked institutions at the core of America repeatedly--to no effect.
No easy solutionWritten by Guest on 2005-12-28 01:17:11
It has been said that once a government gains as much unchecked power as the present administration has, the only way it can be brought down is either through violent revolution or economic collapse. I would argue that the latter is well underway.
So now, at last, the crisis is upon us. Now the cards are finally on the table, laid out so starkly that even the Big Media sycophants and Beltway bootlickers can no longer ignore them. Now the choice for the American Establishment is clear, and inescapable: do you hold for the Republic, or for autocracy? There is no third way here, no other option, no wiggle room, no ambiguity. The much-belated exposure of George W. Bush's warrantless spy program has forced the Bush-Cheney Regime to openly declare what they have long implied -- and enacted -- in secret: that the president is above the law, a military autocrat with unlimited powers, beyond the restraint or supervision of any other institution or branch of government. Outed as rank deceivers, perverters of the law and rapists of the Constitution, the Bush gang has decided that their best defense -- their only defense, really -- is a belligerent offense. "Yeah, we broke the law," they now say; "so what? We'll break it again whenever we want to, because law don't stick to our Big Boss Man. What are you going to do about it, chump?" That is the essence, the substance and pretty much the style of the entire Bushist response to the domestic spying scandal. They are scarcely bothering to gussy it up with the usual rhetorical circumlocutions. The attack is being led by the fat, sneering coward, Dick Cheney, who has crawled out of his luxurious hidey-holes to re-animate the rotting husk of Richard Nixon and send it tottering back onto the national stage. Through the facade of Cheney's pig-squint and peevish snarl, we can see the long-dead Nixonian visage, his grave-green, worm-filled jowls muttering once more the lunatic mantra he brought to the Oval Office: "If the president does it, it can't be illegal." This is what we've come to, this is American leadership today: ugly, stupid men mouthing the witless drivel of failed, dead, discredited, would-be petty tyrants. But not even Nixon was as foul as this crew. When he was caught, he folded; some faint spark of republican conscience restrained him from pushing the crisis to the end. He was a vain, stupid, greedy, grasping, dirty man with blood on his hands, but in the end, he did not identify himself with the government as a whole. He did not say, "l'etat, c'est moi," he had no messianic belief that the life of the nation was somehow bound up with his personal fate, or that he and his clique and his cronies had a God-given right to rule. They just wanted power and loot -- as much of it as they could get -- and they pushed and pushed until the Establishment pushed back. It has long been evident, however, that Bush and Cheney do believe their clique should by all rights rule the country -- and that anyone who opposes their unrestrained dominion is automatically "anti-American," an enemy of the state. For them, there is no "loyal opposition," or even political opponents in any traditional understanding of the term; there are only enemies to be destroyed, and herd-like masses to be manipulated. They believe that their dominion is more important than democracy, which they despise as a brake and hindrance to the arbitrary leadership of an all-wise elite -- i.e., them. They are the state; a police state.Elections are just necessary evils, a way to manufacture the illusion of consent, shake down corporations for big bucks and calibrate the loyalty of courtiers. Democracy is simply another system to be gamed, subverted, turned to factional advantage -- in precisely the same way that Enron gamed the California electric grid. This accounts for the strange, omnipresent tang of unreality that permeated the last three national elections, in 2000, 2002, and 2004. It's because they were unreal: the results were gamed, sometimes in secret, sometimes in plain sight; the "issues" and rhetoric were divorced from the reality that we all actually lived and felt -- and the outcomes were as phony as an Enron balance sheet. Dominion seized on such sinister and cynical terms will almost certainly be defended -- and extended -- by any means necessary. That is the great danger. The Bushists have already pushed on further than Nixon ever dared; will they "bear it out even to the edge of doom"? This is the crux of the matter; this is the crossroads where we now stand. Will the American Establishment push back at last? Will they say, This far we will go, but no further; this much we will swallow, but no more? Some of us have been writing for years about Bush's piecemeal assumption of dictatorial powers. We have watched in rage and amazement as the Establishment meekly accepted Bush's repeated, brutal insults to democracy. Time and again, I've quoted the words of the Emperor Tiberius, after the lackeys of the Senate grovelled to do his bidding: "Men fit to be slaves." In one sense, then, the Rubicon was crossed long ago. Yet "we live in hope and die in despair," as my father always says. In the back of the minds of many an embittered dissident, there has been a spark of hope that somewhere down the line, one of the many, many Bush outrages would somehow take hold, gain critical mass, and force the Establishment to act, to rein in the renegade, break him, box him in if not remove him from office. For let's be clear about this: only the Establishment -- the institutional powers-that-be -- can break an outlaw president. Millions marched in the street against Nixon and the system; whole city quadrants went up in flames in those days; but none of this was decisive in the corridors of power. (Nor to much of the American public, to be frank; after Kent State, after My Lai, after Cambodia, Nixon was still re-elected in a landslide.) It was his insult to the institutions -- the Watergate break-in of Democratic headquarters, the subsequent cover-up and subversion of the legal system, the defiance of Congress -- that led to his downfall. He pushed too far, tried to grab too much -- and the Establishment pulled him short. And it will have to be the Establishment that breaks Bush -- or he won't be broken. All the blogs in the world won't bring him down, no matter how much truth they tell, how much bloodsoaked Bushist dirt they expose. Yes, perhaps if we had millions of outraged citizens marching in the street day after day across America, a sustained mass movement and popular uprising for liberty and democracy, this might obviate the need for Establishment action. But we all know that such marches are not going to happen. If there was sufficient fire for liberty and democracy in America, there would have already been a popular uprising -- and Bush would never have garnered enough public support to keep the election results close enough to be fudged. No, it will be the Establishment -- or no one. That's why the spy scandal is so pivotal. Because it is a direct, open and unignorable challenge to the institutional life of the American Establishment. In it, the Bush Regime is saying to the various powers-that-be, especially in Congress and the courts, but also to centers of power and influence outside government: you no longer have any power. All real power is now in our gift. Your laws, your institutions, your traditions, the whole complex infrastructure of checks and balances that have sustained society are now essentially meaningless. As in ancient Rome, we will keep the old forms, but the life of the state has now passed into the hands of the autocrat and his court. His arbitrary will can override any law -- although of course, strong law will still be applied to his enemies, and to the riff-raff in the lower orders. How will the Establishment deal with this direct challenge? The past few years give little grounds for hope: the Democrats spineless, conflicted, co-opted and corrupt; the Republicans slavish, bellicose, cruel and criminal; the media timorous, witless, corporate-controlled; big business absolutely rolling in gravy from the autocrat's larder; academia cowed, silenced, ignored, demonized; the military acquiescent in criminal aggression, top-heavy with time-servers currying autocratic favor. Only the courts provide some stray sparks of hope, although they too are now loaded with political sycophants, corporate bagmen and knuckle-dragging throwbacks produced by the Right's decades-long devolution of American jurisprudence. Prosecutors like Patrick Fitzgerald and Elliot Spitzer "keep hope alive," but their efforts will mean little in a system where lawlessness at the top has been countenanced by the rest of the Establishment. And in any case, the outcome of their work lies ultimately with the Supreme Court -- the same court that shredded the Constitution in awarding power to Bush in the first place, and which is now led by a Bushist apparatchik. Still, you don't go through a constitutional crisis with the Establishment you want; you go through a constitutional crisis with the Establishment you have. And this sad, sick crew, ladies and gentlemen, is all we have. If they swallow the spy scandal, if they don't push back now -- and I mean really push back, not just make a lot of harrumphing noise or hold a few toothless hearings or get a couple of underlings offered up as ritual sacrifices to save the Leader -- then we will have well and truly and finally lost the Republic that Franklin, Jefferson and Madison gave us so long ago. The next few weeks will show us if there is still some hope of restoring the Republic through the old institutions, or if we will have to follow the course laid out by Bob Dylan some 40 years ago: "Strike another match, go start anew." Who knows? Maybe we can make a better republic next time: one not born of blood, greed and fury -- those all-too-common elements of human organization -- but made from a new compound of mercy, justice, communion and liberty. Still imperfect, of course, still corrupt -- because that's our intractable human nature -- but with our worst instincts restrained by enlightened, ever-evolving law, and the predatory ambitions of the rich and powerful reined by elaborate checks and balances. It's just a dream, of course; probably a vain one. But we will need some vision to guide us if, as seems likely, we must soon set forth into the unknown territory of an openly declared American autocracy. .
Comments
FilmWritten by Guest on 2005-12-28 17:48:33
,,,Honest to goodness, nobody could write a screenplay as good as the real life tragidrama is these days.
Look out kids...Written by Guest on 2005-12-28 17:40:18
In reference to Helios, "....the phone's tapped anyway, Maggie says they must bust in early May, orders from the DA, look out kids
Floyd's right.Written by Guest on 2005-12-28 17:38:33
Yes,it's make or break time now.And Floyd is right;only the system can push back. If it wants to.If it thinks that eventually, this crew will threaten all its profits.
The Republic is DEADWritten by Guest on 2005-12-28 17:37:55
Personally, I think the Republic is DEAD. It's been dead ever since Dec. 12, 2000 whenthe SCOTUS basically acted in the partisan interest of 1 man and his criminal gang. The coup happened back then and we all were too naive to realize what we were in fact seeing. We can forget about the demos they're a toothless bunch of whining spineless wimps. As to the courts forget it. The media is totally subservient now. I watched in disbelief last night as one media whore after another bowed and scrapped at W's feet. It's over folks we need a miracle to save us now. The velvetta gloves are off were fucked!!
HeliosWritten by Guest on 2005-12-28 17:37:08
That "rotting husk" isn't Nixon. Nixon was a pussycat beside these monsters.....and remember, this drama hasn't unfolded yet, not by half. But Chris Floyd is absolutely correct. It is the time of what William Burroughs would call the naked lunch, where what is on the end of everybody's fork is plainly and painfully visible to all at the table. This is the defining moment---now is when we will find out which way the scales will tip. Chris Floyd is obviously a Bob Dylan fan. He takes his blog name from a Dylan album and he quotes a line from Dylan's "It's all over now, baby blue". Well Mr. Floyd, there's a Dylan song that I keep hearing in my head lately that was written forty years ago but has come back around full circle in meaning, for me at least----Subterranean Homesick Blues. I know that Dylan penned a bunch of timeless anthems, but that particular song describes America in 2005 as well as it once described the America of 1965. It seems as if we gave back every inch we had gained in four decades...and now we're losing ground.
donescobarWritten by Guest on 2005-12-28 16:47:35
Who in the "establishment"could possibly care as long as the bucks flow in and power is held on to? Political establishment? No. Corporate establishment? No The old WASP/Brahmin educational/legal establishment? No. Financial establishment? No. Go through Mills' "The Power Elite" and sort out the segments, interlocked as they are, of "the establishment." All now deeply connected, in spirit, flesh, and gold to the Bushies. WHO in the establishment even senses or sees a violation, a betrayal? And who in this many-splendored establishment gives a rat's ass about the people? Hell, not even the people care about the people. Asleep, dreaming of the next DVD and purchase at the mall, the next NFL victory for the "home team." All in the bubble, together. Economic collapse could burst the bubble. What else? "The shepherds change, the sheep remain," Nietzsche wrote. Hell, we won't even change the shepherds anymore.
Crossposted from Booman TribuneWritten by Guest on 2005-12-28 15:26:45
Ah, Mr. Floyd. The music of the seers. Trust a musician to know how to sing. One thing, though... Be of good cheer. All is NEVER lost, and the establishment with which we must go to war...the establishment that we have, crude, venal, selfish and shortsighted though it may be...is doing a FINE job of finally boxing these incompetent motherfuckers in, tying a good stout twine around the box and then throwing them into the Potomac. Leak after leak after leak over the last year, the redirection of Station WOMD (Weapons Of Mass Distraction...the media) AT them rather than being used in support of their plans, masterful use of a long game quarterbacked by Patrick Fitzgerald and coached by...coached by who? (A question that will probably NEVER be answered, but I believe his initials are C. I. A. The police force of the old establishment no matter WHAT functionary is figureheaded into place as its executive.), the clear and unambiguous "No" message that was recently sent from at least a large portion of the regular military establishment and delivered by their boy in Congress, John Murtha...and don't forget those so far mysteriously unreleased Abu Ghraib photos. Lions and tigers and bears and homosexual rape and pedophilia and such oh my!!! In color!!! The last salvo, if necessary, the end of the fireworks display that is plainly still building towards its inevitable, booming climax. The game is up, and it is now just a matter of deciding how many spoils the new guys get to keep and/or which fallguys will be set up to take the blame. (Please,Lord, let it be Butch and Cheney...20 to 1 against, but we can dream, can't we?) Do not lay for justice, Chris. Justice is cosmic, and comes over long increments of time. ("The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice. " Martin Luther King Jr. Yup. Bet on it.) Meanwhile, be happy that evolution is still in action and these chimps, this side trip proved to be merely another of life's small experiments that did not quite pan out. ("Life will try anything once." Jan Cox. Yup. Bet on THAT one, too.) Short of a nuclear or other mass attack...either on us by some fools on the other side who don't realize that they have already won as much as they are going to win this time or BY "us" on say Iran or Detroit...these people are done. I do not think that the administration has the clout with the military anymore...overt OR covert...to pull that one off, and incompetent as our security forces really are, they are dealing with some fairly simple terrorists who like to blow themselves up in the expectation of eternity surrounded by a harem of ever-renewable virgins, which is why we have had so little successful terrorist action here over the past several years. (They are exactly not rocket scientists on the other side, either, most of them. Bet on it.) The REAL power is going to hire another cook. Another set of CEOs. And then go back to their life of hustle, golf and skiing in Gstaad. They may not...make that WILL not...hire people who would please you or me for this task (I'm betting Hillary vs. McCain in the next election), but then, we haven't paid the several generations of dues in the form of theft, murder and general bad karma that have put that "establishment" in the catbird seat. So it goes. And evolution stumbles on just as it always has, a drunken sailor headed back to his ship. Falling down here, then forward a few feet, mugged in the alley, stops for a drink or two, passes out, wakes up, makes it another block or so in a headlong, drunken rush, sits down abruptly lost, gets up again, back three steps, ahead four and a half, bloody but unbowed...always headed back to the mothership. Always headed home. So it goes. And please remember... Have fun. Who needs to go to the movies? We have a front row seat at the greatest show on earth. The ONLY show. Enjoy. You have a lifetime ticket. AG
Written by chris on 2005-12-28 08:42:30
Re "Re:Clowntime," I don't think we can count on the Establishment to bring down Bush; that was part of the point I was trying to make -- that you certainly can't count on those sad sacks of shinola for anything, as they have repeatedly demonstrated during the past few years. I was just saying that if Bush is to be brought down, they will have to do it; and if they don't do it now, in the face of egregious provocation, they will never do it. I don't have any real hope that they will, but, as I said, the next few weeks will show us once and for all exactly where we stand.
Written by Guest on 2005-12-28 02:52:01
Like you said after 9/11 Chris,"This is not a new evil. It's as old as the hills, and it is with us always." I think we have a long battle ahead, and the people will prevail.
Re: "Clowntime"Written by Guest on 2005-12-28 01:18:57
The "establishment" put the Jester-in-Chief where he is: so how can we count on it to remove him? And he's already attacked institutions at the core of America repeatedly--to no effect.
No easy solutionWritten by Guest on 2005-12-28 01:17:11
It has been said that once a government gains as much unchecked power as the present administration has, the only way it can be brought down is either through violent revolution or economic collapse. I would argue that the latter is well underway.
Friends of Liberty - We The People get the Government We Deserve: Lessons of 9/11
Friends of Liberty - We The People get the Government We Deserve: Lessons of 9/11
We can now rest our case on whether or not it's "crazy" to question the government's official account of 9/11. Corrupt elements within our government have proven they are capable of carrying out, facilitating or covering up crimes of equal or greater depravity - this cannot be factually disputed. However, to support a specific charge (a charge of cover up or complicity) we'll need to go further with the evidence. That is what the remainder of this essay will focus on. Specifically, it will focus on evidence that points to a "cover up" because a cover up, once proven, will establish complicity. Consider what follows similar to a grand jury investigation. Our first job is to decide whether there's reasonable cause to believe a cover up has taken place. If the evidence reveals reasonable cause, it is then our job to indict. Unlike the government's "investigation" into 9/11, ours will be truly independent. We will not allow the suspects to choose the detectives, limit the parameters of our inquiry, block access to damning information, lie by omission, etc. Let it be known that we are not only demanding answers, we are demanding answers that can survive reasonable scrutiny. Because the government's claims regarding 9/11 (up until now) cannot survive reasonable scrutiny, they must be rejected in favor of answers that can. There are perhaps 100 separate pieces of compelling evidence that clearly undermine the official government account of 9/11. However, there is no reason for us to address them all here. For our purposes we only need ONE solid argument - one argument that shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that what we've been told is a lie. In a nutshell, this is it:The 3 buildings that collapsed in New York on September 11, 2001 (the north tower, the south tower, and world trade center building #7) were brought down by explosives. The evidence to support this claim is irrefutable. It can be physically observed and re-created. It can be mathematically proven, and independently verified via eyewitness accounts. The evidence to support the government's claim that fire destroyed all three buildings has no basis in reality - the "evidence" exists only in the form of words. There is no historical data to back their assertions, only historical data to refute them. No models have been able to physically reproduce the phenomena they describe because (as expected) the laws of physics cannot be violated. The government's refusal to first investigate and disprove the most logical cause for the collapse of the buildings (explosives) is, in itself, highly suspect. Analogy:Suppose a man is found dead in his home. His house has been ransacked, two computers are missing, and there are signs he was tortured. His body is laying face down, his hands and feet are tied, and there are three gunshot wounds to the back of his head. Does it require a degree in forensic science to conclude foul play? If you are an outsider looking in on this investigation, would you be suspicious if this man's death was officially ruled a suicide? Would you say such a ruling was able to survive "reasonable scrutiny?" And what if after ruling the death a suicide, the man's home mysteriously caught fire (electrical problem) and his body was accidentally sent to the crematorium where it was promptly incinerated. Would you expect a cover up? Let's hope so. Now back up a minute. What if the only information you had access to was the official account? What if the available information regarding this mans death consisted solely of the following: "Detective Johnson arrived on the scene where he found John Doe dead from a self inflicted gun shot wound. Investigators found a suicide note apologizing to his friends and family. Bouts with depression over the loss of his job and a recent divorce were cited as the most likely cause for his decision." What if this is all the information you had access to? Isn't it reasonable to assume you'd never think twice about it? Of course; and that is how the perfect cover up is supposed to work. -Sure there might be quiet rumblings of a conspiracy - secret ties to the CIA and a covert drug running operation gone bad. But with the crime scene destroyed, and the body cremated, good luck proving it. The official account of 9/11 is a cover up - plain and simple. For the sake of argument, we'll define a cover up as "a false story created to conceal the real story." For any cover up to succeed, the false story must be protected from information that undermines it. If the conspirators are unable to do this, the cover up falls apart.Although all cover ups begin with a false story, there are other elements that play a supporting role: the destruction of physical evidence, creating distractions to control people's attention, vilifying those who level accusations, etc. These supporting elements (in conjunction with the false story) serve one goal: Keep you from seeing or considering anything that might reveal the truth. 1. Destroy evidence: If it doesn't exist, it can't be examined2. Create distractions: (Here are a couple common tactics)a) The "false debate" distraction: False debates are very useful because they lend credibility to the lie while distracting people away from questions that would expose it. Take our "suicide" story above. If people can be manipulated into a heated argument over "why" Bob killed himself, (because his boss fired him just a week before Christmas, because his heartless wife left him a week later, because he had a secret drug problem, etc.) the issue of whether or not Bob actually did kill himself gets lost. In effect, the false debate turns the lie into an established truth - a foundation on which the subsequent debate is built... (Clearly, two people cannot argue about why Bob killed himself without first accepting the "fact" that he did kill himself.) As they become increasingly sure of their position, they become increasingly dependent on the lie that supports it. Regardless of which side of the debate they're on, they will unite in protecting the false assumption on which their whole argument rests. In an odd way, defending the lie becomes an act of self-defense from that point forward. It goes without saying that once one "false debate" has been established; other "false debates" can grow up around it. In very little time, the masses can become hopelessly tangled in a web of falsities - endless arguments without merit. When this happens, only strong evidence can destroy the illusion - Strong evidence that turns their attention back to the legitimate starting point; killing all descendents of the original lie. b) The "major crisis" distraction: The power of a "major crisis" to manipulate the masses is well known among the ruling elite. Whether the crisis is intentionally created or naturally occurring, nothing enables them to more effectively expand power and direct the consciousness of their subjects. -To silence dissent, monopolize media talking points, rationalize the irrational, or completely bury an unwanted topic, nothing beats a crisis. (Especially when that "crisis" is war.)3. Attack the messenger: If evidence cannot be destroyed, false debates aren't sufficient, or the crisis can't shake off growing dissent, the one remaining option to keep you from contemplating the evidence is to attack the messenger. When this is done, the conspirators' assertion is obvious: "What this person claims is absurd and any evidence they present isn't credible."
Now ask yourself an obvious question: Why would it be necessary to vilify a person making "absurd claims" backed with "no credible evidence?" Isn't that something a reasonably intelligent person could determine by looking at the evidence themselves? Do we really need (or want) others to decide for us what we should and shouldn't take into consideration? In a "free" and "democratic society?" I don't think so. The preceding three installments of this "1-Hour Guide" have been an attempt to expose the mechanics of how the government (with the help of the media) manipulates us into believing things that simply aren't true. For instance, the Northwoods Document proves our government would openly conspire to stand by and let our country be attacked, so long as the carnage helped them further their military agenda. Worse, it proves they'd go so far as to completely manufacture an attack if they couldn't bait the target country into attacking us first. This is not a "conspiracy theory" it is a "conspiracy fact." -And yet the average American still believes it's crazy to think such things are possible. Is it an accident that everyone knows about Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" but nobody has heard of the Northwoods document? How about the real story behind the USS Maine; the Lusitania; the Gulf of Tonkin; the USS Liberty...or (what we're discussing now) the NeoCons' "New Pearl Harbor?" Either we condone the exploitation of our country or we don't. Either we support the acts of liars, thieves, murderers and aspiring tyrants or we don't. This is our country, not theirs. LOOK at the evidence, decide what it means and determine once and for all where you stand. Since it might take another few weeks for me to write the final installment, here are a couple clips that cover the evidence of "controlled demolition." Both are very well done - the evidence speaks for itself. The first clip is about 5 minutes long and comes from the "Loose Change" documentary. The second clip is nearly an hour long and it comes from the Alex Jones documentary "911 - Rise of the Police State." 5 Minute clip (Bombs in the Buildings)
http://0402.netclime.net/1_5/I/D/L/bombs.wmv1
hour clip:
http://ns1.netclime.net/stl/rise2.wmv
Parts 1 and 2 of this essay available here:
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
09/11/2001
We can now rest our case on whether or not it's "crazy" to question the government's official account of 9/11. Corrupt elements within our government have proven they are capable of carrying out, facilitating or covering up crimes of equal or greater depravity - this cannot be factually disputed. However, to support a specific charge (a charge of cover up or complicity) we'll need to go further with the evidence. That is what the remainder of this essay will focus on. Specifically, it will focus on evidence that points to a "cover up" because a cover up, once proven, will establish complicity. Consider what follows similar to a grand jury investigation. Our first job is to decide whether there's reasonable cause to believe a cover up has taken place. If the evidence reveals reasonable cause, it is then our job to indict. Unlike the government's "investigation" into 9/11, ours will be truly independent. We will not allow the suspects to choose the detectives, limit the parameters of our inquiry, block access to damning information, lie by omission, etc. Let it be known that we are not only demanding answers, we are demanding answers that can survive reasonable scrutiny. Because the government's claims regarding 9/11 (up until now) cannot survive reasonable scrutiny, they must be rejected in favor of answers that can. There are perhaps 100 separate pieces of compelling evidence that clearly undermine the official government account of 9/11. However, there is no reason for us to address them all here. For our purposes we only need ONE solid argument - one argument that shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that what we've been told is a lie. In a nutshell, this is it:The 3 buildings that collapsed in New York on September 11, 2001 (the north tower, the south tower, and world trade center building #7) were brought down by explosives. The evidence to support this claim is irrefutable. It can be physically observed and re-created. It can be mathematically proven, and independently verified via eyewitness accounts. The evidence to support the government's claim that fire destroyed all three buildings has no basis in reality - the "evidence" exists only in the form of words. There is no historical data to back their assertions, only historical data to refute them. No models have been able to physically reproduce the phenomena they describe because (as expected) the laws of physics cannot be violated. The government's refusal to first investigate and disprove the most logical cause for the collapse of the buildings (explosives) is, in itself, highly suspect. Analogy:Suppose a man is found dead in his home. His house has been ransacked, two computers are missing, and there are signs he was tortured. His body is laying face down, his hands and feet are tied, and there are three gunshot wounds to the back of his head. Does it require a degree in forensic science to conclude foul play? If you are an outsider looking in on this investigation, would you be suspicious if this man's death was officially ruled a suicide? Would you say such a ruling was able to survive "reasonable scrutiny?" And what if after ruling the death a suicide, the man's home mysteriously caught fire (electrical problem) and his body was accidentally sent to the crematorium where it was promptly incinerated. Would you expect a cover up? Let's hope so. Now back up a minute. What if the only information you had access to was the official account? What if the available information regarding this mans death consisted solely of the following: "Detective Johnson arrived on the scene where he found John Doe dead from a self inflicted gun shot wound. Investigators found a suicide note apologizing to his friends and family. Bouts with depression over the loss of his job and a recent divorce were cited as the most likely cause for his decision." What if this is all the information you had access to? Isn't it reasonable to assume you'd never think twice about it? Of course; and that is how the perfect cover up is supposed to work. -Sure there might be quiet rumblings of a conspiracy - secret ties to the CIA and a covert drug running operation gone bad. But with the crime scene destroyed, and the body cremated, good luck proving it. The official account of 9/11 is a cover up - plain and simple. For the sake of argument, we'll define a cover up as "a false story created to conceal the real story." For any cover up to succeed, the false story must be protected from information that undermines it. If the conspirators are unable to do this, the cover up falls apart.Although all cover ups begin with a false story, there are other elements that play a supporting role: the destruction of physical evidence, creating distractions to control people's attention, vilifying those who level accusations, etc. These supporting elements (in conjunction with the false story) serve one goal: Keep you from seeing or considering anything that might reveal the truth. 1. Destroy evidence: If it doesn't exist, it can't be examined2. Create distractions: (Here are a couple common tactics)a) The "false debate" distraction: False debates are very useful because they lend credibility to the lie while distracting people away from questions that would expose it. Take our "suicide" story above. If people can be manipulated into a heated argument over "why" Bob killed himself, (because his boss fired him just a week before Christmas, because his heartless wife left him a week later, because he had a secret drug problem, etc.) the issue of whether or not Bob actually did kill himself gets lost. In effect, the false debate turns the lie into an established truth - a foundation on which the subsequent debate is built... (Clearly, two people cannot argue about why Bob killed himself without first accepting the "fact" that he did kill himself.) As they become increasingly sure of their position, they become increasingly dependent on the lie that supports it. Regardless of which side of the debate they're on, they will unite in protecting the false assumption on which their whole argument rests. In an odd way, defending the lie becomes an act of self-defense from that point forward. It goes without saying that once one "false debate" has been established; other "false debates" can grow up around it. In very little time, the masses can become hopelessly tangled in a web of falsities - endless arguments without merit. When this happens, only strong evidence can destroy the illusion - Strong evidence that turns their attention back to the legitimate starting point; killing all descendents of the original lie. b) The "major crisis" distraction: The power of a "major crisis" to manipulate the masses is well known among the ruling elite. Whether the crisis is intentionally created or naturally occurring, nothing enables them to more effectively expand power and direct the consciousness of their subjects. -To silence dissent, monopolize media talking points, rationalize the irrational, or completely bury an unwanted topic, nothing beats a crisis. (Especially when that "crisis" is war.)3. Attack the messenger: If evidence cannot be destroyed, false debates aren't sufficient, or the crisis can't shake off growing dissent, the one remaining option to keep you from contemplating the evidence is to attack the messenger. When this is done, the conspirators' assertion is obvious: "What this person claims is absurd and any evidence they present isn't credible."
Now ask yourself an obvious question: Why would it be necessary to vilify a person making "absurd claims" backed with "no credible evidence?" Isn't that something a reasonably intelligent person could determine by looking at the evidence themselves? Do we really need (or want) others to decide for us what we should and shouldn't take into consideration? In a "free" and "democratic society?" I don't think so. The preceding three installments of this "1-Hour Guide" have been an attempt to expose the mechanics of how the government (with the help of the media) manipulates us into believing things that simply aren't true. For instance, the Northwoods Document proves our government would openly conspire to stand by and let our country be attacked, so long as the carnage helped them further their military agenda. Worse, it proves they'd go so far as to completely manufacture an attack if they couldn't bait the target country into attacking us first. This is not a "conspiracy theory" it is a "conspiracy fact." -And yet the average American still believes it's crazy to think such things are possible. Is it an accident that everyone knows about Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" but nobody has heard of the Northwoods document? How about the real story behind the USS Maine; the Lusitania; the Gulf of Tonkin; the USS Liberty...or (what we're discussing now) the NeoCons' "New Pearl Harbor?" Either we condone the exploitation of our country or we don't. Either we support the acts of liars, thieves, murderers and aspiring tyrants or we don't. This is our country, not theirs. LOOK at the evidence, decide what it means and determine once and for all where you stand. Since it might take another few weeks for me to write the final installment, here are a couple clips that cover the evidence of "controlled demolition." Both are very well done - the evidence speaks for itself. The first clip is about 5 minutes long and comes from the "Loose Change" documentary. The second clip is nearly an hour long and it comes from the Alex Jones documentary "911 - Rise of the Police State." 5 Minute clip (Bombs in the Buildings)
http://0402.netclime.net/1_5/I/D/L/bombs.wmv1
hour clip:
http://ns1.netclime.net/stl/rise2.wmv
Parts 1 and 2 of this essay available here:
http://stopthelie.com/1-hour_guide_to_911.html
09/11/2001
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)