Friday, February 16, 2007

Theory of Everything (15)

-----and this guy...
( - Big Cynic-A cynic is one who looks for low motives masked by the veneer of high motives, and in no other realm is cynicism more called for than politics. - Saddam’s Republican henchmen
When Saddam was tried for mass-murder, the court should have named Ronald Reagan (posthumously) and Daddy Bush as co-defendants. After all, Saddam—a U.S. ally right up until he invaded Kuwait—got a lot of the military hardware he used to slaughter Iraqis from us. Until Kuwait, the U.S. government made no condemnations whatsoever about Saddam's varied and sundry human-rights abuses. In other words, when he was committing the atrocities for which he’s about to be executed, he was still treated like an ally, glad-handing with Rumsfeld and getting the key to Detroit.
It’s no coincidence that Saddam invaded Iran, thus launching the long and bloody Iran-Iraq war, in September of 1980, eight months after Ronald Reagan took office. The hope, no doubt, was that with U.S. hardware and training, Saddam’s forces would either take Tehran or, through attrition, cause the Iranian people to rise up and topple the mullahs. The Iranians would then get democracy—and American oil companies would get back the oil fields they lost the previous year. (Is it any wonder the Iranians hate us? Not only did we prop up the brutal Shah, but we also enabled the internecine war with Iraq.)
But neither of those scenarios came to pass. Instead, the Iran-Iraq war ended in a stalemate in 1988. Humiliated by this failure, Saddam needed a decisive military victory to restore his warrior image in his people’s eyes—a big motive for his invasion of Kuwait two years later, in 1990.
When the Berlin Wall was dismantled the previous year, it symbolized the fall of communism itself. The world cheered, but it was horrible news to guys like Dick Cheney (who at the time was representing the defense industry as U.S. Secretary of State). Without the commie boogeymen, how could the American people be scared into spending hundreds of billions of dollars each year on expensive—and highly profitable–military equipment?
Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait was, therefore, a windfall for the U.S. military-industrial complex: Fighting in a politically unstable but strategically important region like the Middle East was the perfect excuse for the taxpayers to continue forking over obscene amounts of money to defense contractors. Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait also gave Bush Senior an excuse to beef up the military presence watching over "our" oil in Saudi Arabia.
And that military buildup in the country that is home to Mecca—the holiest city in Islam—provided the primary motivate for Al-Qaeda to attack America on September 11, 2001.
The 9/11 attacks, in turn, were yet another windfall for the military-industrial complex and Big Oil: They were the perfect excuse to invade Iraq to (1) take back the oil fields that Big Oil lost in 1975 and (2) transfer hundreds of billions of the taxpayers’ money to Halliburton and other military contractors. Meanwhile, the invasion and subsequent quagmire in Iraq is helping to turn yet another generation of Muslim youth into a terrorist recruiting pool.
Saddam Hussein, a man deserving of not an ounce of anyone’s sympathy, symbolizes the brutal lengths to which a dictator will go to repress all domestic opposition and hold onto absolute power. But he has also played the role—both intentionally and unintentionally—as a puppet used by successive Republican administrations.
In this light, Saddam also symbolizes the mess that constant American meddling has created in the Middle East, all in the name of profits for Big Oil and the defense industry.
December 29, 2006 in 9/11, Death penalty, Iran, Iraq, Middle East, Oil, Terrorism, The war on terror Permalink Comments (0)
If they could, the terrorists would vote Republican
Once again, Dick Cheney is attempting to associate Iraq's murderous insurgents with the Democratic Party, saying that an upswing in attacks was timed to influence the November 7th election.
In other words, ol' Dick is saying, the terrorists want the Democrats to win.
Before delving into the details of this particular lie, we should reflect for a minute on the pattern to Republican lying. There is a fairly simple logic to their lies: They say the exact opposite of the truth—not just a slight distortion, or a little lie, and not just any old whopper, but the exact opposite. It's a bold strategy, but then the G.O.P. is a bold group with a bold agenda—robbing the country blind.
Here's how it works. These modern-day pirates run up huge Federal budget deficits as they plunder the Treasury, so their coverup is a 180-degree turnabout from the truth: "We're the party of fiscal responsibility," they claim. Another example: Republicans couldn't care less about Americans suffering due to lack of health care or starving because of poverty or dying in places like Iraq, so what do they call themselves? The "culture of life."
Your average bank robber would deny robbing banks or come up with a semi-plausible cover story, but a Republican bank robber would boldly proclaim himself a proud member of the culture of bank security.
In the case of Iraq, the reality that Lyin' Dick is trying to cover up is that if Al Qaeda and other terrorists did have a choice, they would pick the Republican Party hands-down. For them it's a no-brainer. The occupation of Iraq has been a bonanza for Al Qaeda: Money is pouring in from wealthy Arabs outraged by U.S. aggression, and recruitment is way up. Iraq has turned into one big terrorist training and networking camp. (And even if the shooting eventually stops, the permanent superbases that the Pentagon is building in Iraq will assure plenty of Muslim anger for years to come.)
In this regard, the battlegrounds in Iraq are similar to the Al Qaeda training camp that another Republican president—Ronald Reagan—set up in Pakistan. (In fact, the name "Al Qaeda" means "the base" in Arabic and is a reference to that camp. Personally, I think "Camp Ronald Reagan" would have been a better name.) At the camp, new recruits like Osama bin Laden were trained with CIA assistance (and our tax dollars), then sent off to fight the Soviet occupiers of Afghanistan. After the Russians left in 1989, bin Laden and his new terrorist friends, instead of going home, and instead of being grateful to America for all her help, immediately turned their attention to the U.S. military presence in other Muslim countries. Bin Laden's outrage at America's military buildup in his native Saudi Arabia during Gulf War I was his main reason for the 9/11 attacks—not because he "hates our freedom," as George Bush would have us believe.
After the attacks of 9/11, Bush seized the opportunity to invade Iraq and retake oilfields that America's oil companies had lost when Saddam nationalized Iraq's oil industry in the mid-1970s.
Now, a new generation of anti-American terrorists are cutting their teeth in Iraq. Who knows what horror they will unleash in the future. There's no knowing when, where, or how they will attack, but one thing is certain: If a Republican is in the White House when it happens, the administration will drag out reams of prefabricated "evidence" showing the terrorists to have ties to another oil-rich nation that give Big Oil the boot in the 1970s: Iran.
And of course invading and occupying Iran will create yet another generation of terrorist fanatics, who will some day hatch another murderous plot against Americans, which Republicans will again use to their financial and political advantage, and in the process create more terrorists.
For Republicans, terrorism is the gift that keeps on giving.
October 30, 2006 in 9/11, Afghanistan, Bush, CIA, Conservatives, Democrats, Iran, Iraq, Middle East, Military, Oil, Republicans, Terrorism, The war on terror Permalink Comments (2)
Look who's opposing torture--and who isn't
As a Democrat I find it incredibly pathetic that the only politicians prominently opposing George Bush's call for a law to legalize torture are Republicans. Up until he did so, I had become highly cynical of John McCain, especially after he started reaching out to the really scary Republicans by delivering addresses at places like Bob Jones University (where students have pray-ins to beseech the Almighty to hasten the end of the world).
But McCain did have the guts to speak out against torture while the Democrats were being publicly closed-lipped about it. Okay, with Bush's popularity ratings in the tank, one could be cynical and say he's not being brave so much as opportunistic. But still, it takes guts to make that kind of stand.
(Think about it—a Republican opposing torture? In the sado-masochistic world of Republicanism, torturing nonwhite non-Christians is an incredibly popular idea, and so blocking a torture bill is like trying to ban beer on Superbowl Sunday—it's what those people live for.)
Now, flash forward to the 2008 presidential debates. In this corner, John McCain (assuming that bucking Bush's torture bill hasn't sunk his chances of winning the G.O.P. nomination). In the other corner, Hilary Clinton. In an attempt to create guilt by association, Hilary trashes the administration's lousy human rights record, including its attempts to legalize torture. McCain shoots back, "Yeah, honey, but I was the one who stood up to it, not you."
Hilary may be thinking not of 2008 but only as far ahead as November: Perhaps she's afraid of losing the torture vote. But McCain has in mind something even more important—integrity (or at least a reputation for it). Voters appreciate a politician with integrity, even if they don't agree with all of his or her issue positions. It's that pesky values thing again.
September 21, 2006 in Bush, Conservatives, Democrats, Iraq, Middle East, Republicans, Terrorism, The religious right Permalink Comments (0)
Selling Iraq: the one percent doctrine
In his column "Political Animal" at the Washington Monthly website, Kevin Drum clears up a misunderstanding about the Bush administration's so-called "one percent doctrine," which is also the subject and title of a new book by The Price of Loyalty author Ron Suskind:
[The one percent doctrine] originates with Dick Cheney, who explained early on that if a terrorist event had even a one percent chance of happening, "we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response." This is obviously a justification for taking a hawkish approach to terrorism, but Suskind says there's much more to it than that. After all, the Bush administration has obviously not reacted to every one-percent threat as if it were a certainty.
More than a broad rationalization of mere hawkishness, the One Percent Doctrine is actually a justification for ignoring unwanted analysis. After all, nearly anything has a one percent chance of happening, and if that's the threshold for action, it means we can take action anytime we want. Under the OPD, there is literally no reason to waste time with analysis or policy discussions.
In other words, by announcing that the administration was going to target any potential evil deed that had at least a one percent chance of happening, Cheney was paving the way for the invasion of Iraq: If there was even a one percent chance that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, then that was a good enough reason to invade.
Just about anything has a one percent chance of happening (especially if you round up), meaning that the one percent doctrine was a blank check, a way for Cheney and pals to set the government's priorities according to what they and their clients (Big Oil) wanted, as opposed to, say, what was most important to the country. Getting Osama and cleaning up Afghanistan were top priority for us, but those missions took a backseat to getting Saddam's oil and building superbases in Iraq to protect that oil, and as a regional staging area to protect "our" oil in the rest of the Middle East.
July 14, 2006 in Bush, Iraq, Military-industrial complex, Terrorism, The war on terror Permalink Comments (0)
Fly the deadly skies
If you're a frequent flier, then this interview with a former FAA counterterrorism expert with either make you rethink your transportation arrangements or get your affairs in order—because the skies are no safer since 9/11 than they were before.
First, a little background about the interviewee.
Before 9/11, Bogdan Dzakovic led the Federal Aviation Administration's Red Team on undercover raids at major airports to detect vulnerabilities that terrorists could exploit. After 9/11, when Red Team was grounded by an FAA that was more worried about their image than public safety, Dzakovic filed a whistleblower's disclosure with the government's Office of Special Counsel. The resulting inquiry found that FAA airport security created a "substantial and specific danger to public safety."
As any government agency does to employees who put the public welfare ahead of the agency's interests, the FAA rewarded Dzakovic by demoting him. He was removed from field work and given a desk job. (We can't have dedicated public servants like that doing good work out in the field, now can we?)
Here are some nuggets from the interview:
"Many of the FAA bureaucrats that actively thwarted improvements in security prior to 9/11 have been promoted by FAA or the Transportation Security Administration. I have never in my life been around more gutless, inept and outright ignorant people than I have at TSA headquarters, most of whom are in management."
"But one thing the FAA itself acknowledged pre-9/11 was that the favorite weapon of terrorists, when they weren't using a grenade or a bomb or a gun, was a knife of less than four inches in length. And these knives were specifically allowed to be carried on board by FAA regulations even though they knew it was [the terrorists'] favorite weapon. Because the 9/11 terrorists studied the system, they did not break any FAA regulation. They carried (box-cutters) less than four inches in length."
"You can easily find the technical specs of bomb-detecting machines; many are published online by the manufacturers. With a rudimentary knowledge of chemistry and electronics, which the bad guys have proven they have, you can figure out how to beat every single one of these systems. The next step, as the 9/11 terrorists demonstrated, is to do some basic surveillance of the system just to see how things operate and get familiar with the airport environment. When (former Red Team member) Steve Elson and Fox News were doing their own undercover sting story at Logan Airport in the spring of 2001, the hijackers were doing their own dry runs at the same time and at the same airport."
"It's easier [for bureaucrats] to silence and thwart dissent within their ranks than to fix systemic problems …."
"The little people of this country, which is most of us, will be carrying the burden of an irresponsible and unaccountable government for a long time."
If someone wrote up a list of every government employee who was fired or demoted in the wake of 9/11, that list would be populated exclusively by high-minded whistleblowers like Dzakovicnot, not bumbling bureaucrats who should have been held accountable for their ineptitude. (That shouldn't be surprising, considering that America's Commander-in-Chief somehow turned his failure to prevent 9/11 into a political gold mine.)
What's galling is that we, the people, are paying the salaries of those inept bureaucrats yet cannot hold them accountable. The only one who can do that is the guy at the top—the Decider.
July 11, 2006 in Homeland security, Terrorism Permalink Comments (0)
Less fiction about Iraq, more reality
The kind of flag-waving resorted to in a recent op-ed piece in the L.A. Times really grates on my nerves:
We play with our children, read books, go to work and enjoy recreations only because people with guns stand ready, willing and able to kill other people with guns who would kill us if they could.
It's sweet to forget this and therefore difficult to keep it in mind. "It is hard for those who live near a Police Station to believe in the triumph of violence," as T.S. Eliot wrote. That's us — we Americans, protected by a mighty military that by and large obeys the rules of our republic — safe enough, and keeping much of the world safe enough, so that we find it hard to believe in what would happen if that protection failed. But these fighters do keep us safe. And because keeping us safe is harsh, dangerous work, we should glorify them, exalt them in story and song by way of appreciation.
The implication here is that the fighting in Iraq has to do with keeping us safe. Sorry, but Iraq wasn't part of the war on terror until after we invaded it. And even though our invasion allowed al Qaeda to enter Iraq, we now know that most of the carnage in that country is being caused not by terrorists but by insurgents, mainly Sunnis trying to win back some of the power they had under Saddam.
I sympathize with the troops. I admire them for their courage and fortitude. I feel for anyone in Iraq, and anyone who has a loved one in Iraq. But I wish our troops had never been sent to Iraq. I wish a whole lot more of them had been sent to Afghanistan right after 9/11 (but Bush knew he'd need to hold them in reserve for Iraq). The bottom line is that our military was sent to Iraq for the oil—to make a whole lot of money for people and corporations who are already wealthy.
I could go on about this ridiculous Times op-ed and its call on Hollywood to make gung-ho war movies, the sort, I assume, where we're always the good guys and the other side is always bad. The President never lies to the public, and the public never asks what the fighting is all about. (If you want this kind of comforting fantasy, just watch Fox News.)
We were attacked on 9/11 by a group of mostly Saudi terrorists. In response, Bush sent a relatively small force to Afghanistan, where Osama bid Laden (remember him?) was holed up. And rather than hitting al Qaeda hard and fast, U.S. forces relied on a rag-tag bunch of dirt-poor Afghans known as the Northern Alliance. Then, in stark contrast to the slow proxy invasion of Afghanistan, we threw all of our military might at a nation with no demonstrated involvement in 9/11, no ties to al Qaeda, a nation that posed no threat to us at all. Meanwhile, Osama got away.
That's the true story, but it wouldn't make for a very uplifting movie. On the other hand, we've already had a lifetime's worth of fiction from the Bush administration. What this country needs now is less reliance on comforting fantasies. We need to ask our "leaders" hard questions and hold them accountable for their abuses of the power that we granted them. We need to stop accepting the recycled rhetoric about Iraq and the war on terror. We need less fiction, not more.
Speaking of fiction, how ironic that the author of the above op-ed piece, Andrew Klavan, is a writer of fiction novels. Churning out fiction may be a nice way to earn a living, but as we've seen, it's a dysfunctional basis for running a government.
May 22, 2006 in Iraq, Terrorism, The war on terror Permalink Comments (0) TrackBack (0)
Why we fight
You can view the excellent BBC documentary "Why We Fight" (all 1 hour and 39 minutes of it) right here on this blog:
Good quote: "We are now spending more [on the military] than we did at the peak of [the] Vietnam [War]." —Franklin Spinney, retired Dept. of Defense analyst.
After setting the tone with Eisenhower's warning about the influence of the military-industrial complex, this documentary covers everything about the too-cosy relationship between our military/government and the arms industry, including the excuse that 9/11 provided to further expand American influence overseas, the Project for the New American Century, and most importantly how the U.S. government keeps the public ignorant about the concept of blowback—that attacks against America are the result of actions we've taken overseas.
The film's overarching message is that Iraq is only the latest in a long line of wars and other military actions launched since World War II in a relentless drive for military expansion overseas, and that this aggression is inextricably linked with the profits being made by the largest military contractors.
May 07, 2006 in Iraq, Military, Oil, Terrorism Permalink Comments (0) TrackBack (0)
Porter Goss, another Bush loyalist
Before 9/11, the CIA was a bureaucratic mess. After 9/11, President Bush set out to change things in the CIA. He didn't want to make the CIA more effective, so that it could do things like, you know, fight terrorism or protect American lives. (Come on, he's a pimp for the oil industry. Why would he care about us?) He was only interested in squelching anyone who dared criticize his Iraq policy, and the best way to do this, he believed, was to stack the agency with Republicans:
Four former deputy directors of operations once tried to offer Goss advice about changing the clandestine service without setting off a rebellion, but Goss declined to speak to any of them, said former CIA officials .... The perception that Goss was conducting a partisan witch hunt grew, too, as staffers asked about the party affiliation of officers who sent in cables or analyses on Iraq that contradicted the Defense Department's more optimistic scenarios.
"Unfortunately, Goss is going to be seen as the guy who oversaw the agency victimized by politics," said Tyler Drumheller, a former chief of the European division. "His tenure saw the greatest loss of operational experience" in the operations division since congressional hearings on CIA domestic spying plunged the agency into crisis, he said.
Remember in the early years of the Bush Administration, when Bush's well-fabricated image as a capable leader who cared about America was still widely believed? One of Bush's characteristics that the lapdog press talked up was his appreciation of loyalty: He demanded it but also rewarded those who showed loyalty to him. But now, having witnessed the damage done by Bush in his appointing of bumbling, incompetent loyal lackeys such as Porter Goss and Michael "Heck of a Job" Brown to critical governmental positions, let us declare once and for all that a public servant's loyalty to anyone other than the people of the United States is a bad thing. --------

-------- (ok, so maybe these two weren't so ignorant of the facts, because after easily doing some simple researching, you'll find that you get frustrated easily. That's because things aren't making sense. If it doesn't make sense, either you're doing it wrong, or it's wrong. )
---On to more credible and well researched individuals ---

--- michael rivero - ( )-------------- (
Rahm Emmanuel, former Clinton adviser, current congressman from Illinois, staunch supporter of Israel, and suspected by many of being "Mega", the Mossad mole in the Clinton White House, has a brother, Ari Emmanuel, who just happens to be Michael Moore's agent.---- (LOL) most people who are going to read this, AREN'T from hollywood, don't KNOW about hollywood. let me help you understand the significance of this. Ari Emmanuel is the real life character who is portrayed by jeremy piven on "entourage" (one of my fav shows btw) as Ari Gold. They actually couldnt move forward in the show UNTIL Ari Emmanuel chose a character that he felt best represented him... wait, backtrack. he actually has enough power to influence, or impliment his own ideas on a show? a director? an actor? a shows script and ideas? well...he, my friends, is Ari, the most powerful agent in Hollywood. and he's Jewish. but i'm sure you put that together from the brother being fucking gov't spy and shit for the mossad. i'm sorry, it hasn't been proven of course, but it's still enfuriating to know that this small minority controls the greatest proportion of power on the planet. And i'm not racist against Jewish, fuck, i dont even know what they ARE! I just don't like the MAN... and it turns out, they are the ones who tell the MAN to shake their dicks after they piss. -----
---"FAHRENHEIT 9/11" documents that the American people have been lied to in the push for war. There were no weapons of mass destruction. Saddam was not a threat. Iraq had no link to 9-11. Iraq was not supporting Al Qaeda. The government of Iraq under Saddam killed far fewer Iraqi people than the government of Iraq under George Bush. The Kurds were actually gassed by Iran (and does the name "Waco" ring a bell?). The only nuclear weapons found in Iraq are the tons of depleted uranium munitions dropped on the Iraqi people by the United States. And, far from being the champion of human rights, the United States stands exposed as a willing user of torture on prisoners who in many cases were innocent of any wrongdoing.
That's the major message. We The People were lied to about, well, just about everything. Including 9-11 itself. Bush sat there and read about goats while the towers fell. The video tape of "Osama's" confession turned out to be fake. Osama himself turned out to be a fake, a CIA asset trained and funded by the US to fight the USSR in Afghanistan. Blair's dossier turned out to be fake, plagiarized from a student thesis. The mobile biological weapons trailers turned out to be fake; actually balloon inflators sold by the British to Iraq. And on and on and on. Deception after deception after deception.
Everyone agrees on this major message. We've been lied to. We are the victims of history's greatest and deadliest hoax; a hoax perpetrated to ignite a war of conquest. Michael Moore's film does a great job of confronting that dealy fact.
But, Michael Moore has himself either fallen for disinformation, or simply not done his homework, and seems willing to accept without question the official story of 9-11. Now, it may be that Michael Moore just didn't care to get into 9-11 itself that deeply. Moore seems mostly focused on the aircraft allowed to fly out of the United States in the days immediately after 9-11 while the rest of the nation's aircraft were grounded. On these flights were members of Osama bin Laden's family. The Bush's and bin Ladens go back a long way. Osama's brother was George's business partner in Abusto Energy and source of the seed money to start the company. It is reportedly because of this connection that Osama was recruited to play holy warrior for the CIA in Afghanistan against the USSR. So there is no question that those flights did occur, and that Osama's family members were among the passengers.
At issue is whether this fact of the aircraft flights points the finger of blame for 9-11 at Saudi Arabia. After first being told that Afghanistan was to blame for 9-11, then Iraq was to blame for 9-11, one should take any claims of any Arab country being identified as the perpetrator of 9-11 with a huge heaping of salt. Michael Moore, who clearly recognized the claims about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, the supposed link from Saddam to Al Qaeda and to 9-11 as lies, shows a dangerous naivte in his willingness accept the official story of 9-11 without question. So, let's take a look at the idea of Saudi Arabia as the perpetrator of 9-11. Why would they do it? What would they gain? Immediately after the attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good……. Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)". The months since 9-11 have borne that out. US support for Israel's agenda grew stronger as Israel committed more atrocities against the Palestinians. More money flowed from the US to Israel. World opinion, which had been growing against Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, temporarily abated. World hostility towards Arabs in general grew. Forgotten was the fact that Israel was actually in defiance of more UN Resolutions than Saddam had ever been. And, it was assumed at the start of the war that direct access to Iraq's oil would reduce American demand for Saudi oil, and likely force prices down as Iraq's oil came to market. So, where was the motive? Do you really think Saudi Arabia would commit an act that would strengthen US-Israeli ties? Do you really think Saudi Arabia would commit an act that would undercut their own oil revenues? Do you really think Saudi Arabia would commit an act that would anger the world against Arabs? Me neither.
Here are some facts that for some reason did not make itinto the final cut of "Fahrenheit 9/11"
On 9-11, five men were arrested for suspicious behavior, cheering and laughing while the WTC collapsed. In the van police found cash, multiple passports, and maps with the World Trade Center highlighted. Bomb-sniffing dogs indicated explosives residue were present in the truck. The arrested men were Israelis, later identified by Pacific Radio as agents of the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad. According to Carl Cameron's FOX News story on the Israeli spy ring, the US Government classified evidence that linked the arrested Israeli spies to 9-11. The Mossad agents were using a moving company, Urban Moving Systems, for a cover. The owner of the company, Dominic Suter, abandoned his business after 9-11 and fled to Israel on 9-14. The 9-11 scene was littered with passports using Saudi names, passports which the FBI admitted just ten days later were high-quality fakes using identities stolen from Arab men. We don't know who was on those planes, only who we were supposed to THINK were on those planes. Why would Saudi Arabia commit 9-11 and use phony passports pointing back to themselves? If Saudi Arabia had done 9-11, it is safe to assume the phony passports would have likely pointed to Israel. FBI Director Robert Mueller has admitted in public that there is actually no evidence that proves the named 9-11 hijackers were actually on the aircraft.
The warnings of the attack sent to Odigo in New York and Israel before the 9-11 planes had even left the ground confirms beyond question that Israeli-linked companies did receive advance warning. Why would Saudi Arabia warn Israeli companies if they were behind 9-11?
It wasn't a Saudi-owned company in charge of security at all three of the 9-11 airports.
If Saudi Arabia was a partner with Al Qaeda for 9-11, why is Al Qaeda carrying out terror attacks against the Saudi Royal family now?
Speaking of "Al Qaeda", when Palestinian police arrested an Al Qaeda cell, they discovered they were holding a group of Mossad agants.
A final point: The nation that helped the US Government stage a fake terror event to launch wars of conquest in the Mideast would be in an ideal position to blackmail the US Government with that very secret. So, look back over the more than two years since 9-11 and find the nation for whom the US Government just cannot seem to do enough, cannot give enough money and weapons, cannot block enough UN Resolutions, the nation for whom a long standing neutral foreign policy has been cast aside in favor out total support for an expansionist agenda. Find the nation whose leaders openly brag of their control of the US Government.
If Michael Moore didn't quite do all his homework with regard to who may have been behind the 9-11 attack, that does not change the fact that the people of the United States were lied to to trick them into wars. And it is THAT message of the film which is the important one. But the hard fact remains that Michael Moore did not get ALL of the story of 9-11. Not by a longshot. "Fahrenheit 9/11" is just the tip of the iceberg.Fahrenheit 9/11 is not an indictment of just George Bush. Fahrenheit 9/11 is not an indictment of just Republicans. Fahrenheit 9/11 is an indictment of the entire US Government that had to know Bush was lying to the American people to initiate as war and stood there smiling blandly while he did it. Like Hitler, Bush could not do what he did without a lot of cooperation by the entire government and the media. Look at the voting records for the authorization for the use of force in Iraq and in the draconian assaults on our freedoms. Both parties voted those "Ayes". The rush to war and dictatorship was a bipartisan one, worthy of bipartisan blame. Everyone is spinning Fahrenheit 9/11 to attack their own favorite scapegoats, but the truth is there is more than enough blame for the current state of the nation to share all around.
What Really Happened

--aaron russo? - ( - Russo became political in the early 1990s when he produced and starred in a video entitled Mad As Hell in which he criticized NAFTA, The War on Drugs, the concept of a National Identity Card, and government regulation of alternative medicine.
Russo ran in the Republican primary for governor of Nevada in 1998, placing second with 26% of the vote. He then endorsed the Democratic candidate, Las Vegas mayor Jan Laverty Jones, who lost to Republican Kenny Guinn. Russo subsequently planned to run for governor in 2002 as an independent or a Libertarian, but he was temporarily sidelined by cancer.
In January 2004, he declared his candidacy for the President of the United States as an independent, then decided to run for the Libertarian Party's nomination. While some considered Russo's style crude and even insulting [2], others argued his media experience would enable him to pose a serious threat to incumbent President George W. Bush, pulling enough votes from otherwise likely Bush voters to affect the outcome in battleground states, in the same way that Ralph Nader was considered to be in relation to Democrat John Kerry.[3]HYPERLINK ""[4]HYPERLINK ""[5]
At the Libertarian National Convention in May 2004, Russo received 258 votes, as opposed to 256 for Michael Badnarik and 246 for Gary Nolan, a majority being required to receive the presidential nomination. Russo went on to be defeated on the third and final ballot by nominee Badnarik by a vote of 423-344.
On January 14, 2007, Russo announced his full support for U.S. Congressman Ron Paul's 2008 presidential bid.[6]HYPERLINK ""[7] This support includes his America: Freedom to Fascism volunteer network.[8]


Frank morales -
( - U.S. Was Aware on bin Laden ThreatSeptember 19, 2002 - Homeland Defense:
The Pentagon Declares War on America
by Frank Morales
Global Outlook , Issue 3, Winter 2003 December 2003
The URL of this article is:
In 2003, Frank Morales was granted A Project Censored Award of Sonoma University, Cal.
The article published below was ranked Second in the Top 25 Most Censored Stories, which were granted the Project Censored Award.
The "PATRIOT Act" is a repressive "coordination" of the entities of force and deception, the police, intelligence and the military. It broadens, centralizes and combines the surveillance, arrest and harassment capabilities of the police and intelligence apparatus. Homeland defense is, in essence, a form of state terrorism directed against the American people and democracy itself. It is the Pentagon Inc. declaring war on America.
The "domestic war on terrorism" hinges upon the Pentagon's doctrine of homeland defense. Mountains of repressive legislation are being enacted in the name of internal security. So called "homeland security", originally set within the Pentagon's "operations other than war", is actually a case in which the Pentagon has declared war on America. Shaping up as the new battleground, this proliferating military "doctrine" seeks to justify new roles and missions for the Pentagon within America. Vast "legal" authority and funds to spy on the dissenting public, reconfigured as terrorist threats, is being lavished upon the defense, intelligence and law enforcement "community."
All this is taking place amidst an increasingly perfected "fusion" of the police and military functions both within the US and abroad, where the phenomena is referred to as "peacekeeping", or the "policization of the military". Here in America, all distinction between the military and police functions is about to be forever expunged with the looming repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act. The latter, was passed after the Civil War to rein in the military. It bars federal troops from doing police work within United States borders, although strictly speaking, the Act refers only to the Army and the Air Force, not to the Marines or the National Guard in "state status." According to the New York Times:
"the Bush administration has directed lawyers in the Department of Justice and Defense to review the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and any other laws that sharply restrict the military's ability to participate in domestic law enforcement."
The Washington Post (7/21/02) put it a bit more starkly, stating that the Bush administration:
"has called on Congress to thoroughly review the law that bans the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines from participating in arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other police-type activity on US soil."
In other words, the "New World Law and Order" based on the repeal of the Posse Comitatus Act, requires a system of domestic and global counterinsurgency led by the Pentagon.
The first requirement of this counterinsurgency, which is directed at all forms of social dissent is the "collection", "retention" and "dissemination" of information, information on anyone who resists, whether through violent means or otherwise. Recall, that the protests in Seattle and numerous other cities in recent years were more often than not classified within official DoD and FEMA documents as "terrorist events". The objective is to centralize all intelligence gathering under one roof, the Department of Homeland Security and to widely cast the net over all of us, making certain that we all fall in line with the Pentagon Inc. agenda.
To this end the myriad modes of intelligence gathering or "collection" have been beefed up: From CALEA (Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act) to Carnivore (e-mail spying), from the NSA's Echelon (global listening device), to spy satellite imagery, from FBI "roving wiretaps", to CIA access to grand juries and secret FISA "foreign intelligence" courts, the means, legal sanctions and technology of social control proliferate, are sanctioned, are demanded by a paranoid public. Homeland security requires manufactured insecurity. A bit of anthrax to keep em on their toes and minding their p's and q's…
Terrorism Information and Prevention System (TIPS)
Typical of the need for "tactical (on the ground) intelligence" is the creation of TIPS or the Terrorism Information and Prevention System. Set up in January 2002 by Ashcroft's Justice Department, TIPS is described as a "national system for concerned workers to report suspicious activity". In fact, TIPS is a hotline to the National White Collar Crime Center, a Justice Department organization that deals with "economic crime" and cyberattack. For a little under a million bucks they plan to register all "suspicious, publicly observable activity that could be related to terrorism" and forward it to law enforcement and other agencies "opting to receive TIPS information." These agencies "would be responsible for determining how to respond to the tips they receive."
The "workers" that TIPS is willing to offer its hotline service are those in the transportation, trucking, shipping, maritime, and mass transit industries. The truckers, for their part, are jumping in with both feet. The trucker magazine FleetOwner recently noted (6/1/02) that:
"attempting to stay ahead of Federal regulators charged with securing US transportation networks from terrorist attacks, the American Trucking Assns. has readied a 'Neighborhood Watch' program for the nation's highways."
The ATA's "Anti-Terrorism Action Plan", geared to keeping the "wheels of commerce" rolling, envision a plan in which "a potential 3 million professional truck drivers will be trained to spot and report any suspicious activities that might have terrorism or national security implications." As if truckers don't have enough on their minds, although it might be wise for them to keep their eyes wide open.
It seems that the Bush administration concern for workers knows no bounds. According to the New York Times (8/!4/02) President Bush wants to exempt all homeland security coordinated agencies "from collective bargaining requirements if (he) were to determine that our national security demands it." Little known to the public, the president is seeking not only to "exempt agency employees from federal labor relations rules and prohibit them from joining unions", but he's also prepared to force them to work, under the conditions he chooses, if "national security demands it". The "flexibility" that Bush is calling for, a "fast moving homeland security department unfettered by work rules and red tape" is sure to result in a lot less "flexibility" on the part of workers who may soon be confronted with a form of involuntary employment during "times of war", all set out in Department of Defense directives.
Financing Homeland Defense
TIPS, which is an integral part of the CitizenCorps/FreedomCorps/AmeriCorps axis of patriotic, police loving do-gooders, is buttressed with funds from the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS). In the wake of 9/11, CNCS was fully integrated into "homeland defense efforts". In March 2002, the Corporation issued a "notice of availability of funds to strengthen communities and organizations in using service and volunteers to support homeland security." With an emphasis on "public safety" and "freeing up police time", the grants offered under the announcement "are to assist communities in getting involved in the war against terrorism on the home front." In the area of "public safety" the grants "will help provide members to support police departments…in tasks and other functions that can be performed by non-sworn officers." Now mind you, the volunteers "are not armed, nor can they make arrests, but they carry out vital tasks including organizing neighborhood watch groups…" They also "organize communities to identify and respond to crime and disorder problems…"
In July 2002, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge announced, while sitting in a Washington DC police station, the first round of CNCS homeland security grants totaling $10.3 million, an "initiative" that is to involve some 37,000 volunteers nationwide. One recipient of a $484,000 Corporation grant, based in NYC, is the Center for Court Innovation. Linked to the NYC Public Safety Corps, the grant "will enhance homeland security by assisting criminal justice officials (police, probation officers, judges) as they perform their duties…(while) 40 full time AmeriCorps members will…free up police…to address conditions of disorder that if left unchecked create a climate where crime would flourish."
In NYC, ground zero for the attack, homeland defense equates to the same old thing, cracking down on "disorder" (protest) and "quality of life crimes", which is a racist police code for arresting and jailing more poor people.
The euphemism of "homeland defense", codified within the halls of the Pentagon as early as the mid-1990's, long before 9/11, buttressed with various Presidential Decision Directives and Executive Orders, includes, within the doctrinal rubric of "operations other than war", continual training to suppress dissent, or as it is conveniently phrased, to put down "civil disturbance." The decades old "Garden Plot" operation, which is the Pentagon's stand alone "civil disturbance" plan, has become generalized in the "homeland defense" concept and it's focus on the "asymmetric threat". With the creation of the Department of Homeland Defense, Homeland Security Council etc. the Bush administration is seeking to institutionalize it's "permanent war" against "terrorism", dovetailed with it's ongoing war against dissent.
So while Garden Plot directives, geared for domestic use, are exported to "peacekeeping" troops abroad, "homeland defense" tightens the grip at home. The recent appointment of General Ralph E. Eberhart and the creation of a Northern Command within the Pentagon reflect the depth of commitment the elite have to maintaining "full spectrum dominance" at home.
With "the PATRIOT Act" and other legal monstrosities foisted upon the people, what emerges is a repressive "coordination" (as the Nazis used to call it) of the entities of force and deception, the police, intelligence and the military, in the interests of a "permanent" counterinsurgency, by way of the centralization and broadening of surveillance capabilities, arrest capabilities, and harassment capabilities, which target anyone corporate America doesn't like. Homeland defense is, in essence, a form of state terrorism directed against the American people and democracy itself. It is the Pentagon Inc. declaring war on America.
Global Counterinsurgency
The "war on terrorism" is a global counterinsurgency whose aim is to wipe out any and all resistance to US global hegemony and corporate domination. Utilizing "operations other than war" (OOTW), corporate America and it's military are taking a more direct, hands on approach to the needs and requirements of corporate globalization. OOTW, with its host of new missions (e.g. peacekeeping and civil disturbance operations), is based on a pre-emptive doctrine. In this new war, which relies on both standard means of killing along with so-called non-lethal weapons, so-called " non-combatants" (i.e. civilians) become the primary target. And in so doing, the military, via its OOTW doctrine, is violating one of the sacred tenets of the so-called "laws of war", namely, that militaries not target civilian populations. But after all, as Defense Secretary Rumsfeld noted in a (12/12/01) statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, the "enemy" "hides in caves abroad", and more importantly, "among us here at home."
Now, despite the fact that both the Presidential and military directives target "non-United States citizens" (as if that's not bad enough), in June 2002, the Bush administration jailed a New York City man of Puerto Rican descent, Jose Padilla - or as he now calls himself - Abdullah al Muhajir, and is holding him in a military brig in South Carolina. He has yet to be charged with any crime. Like the hundreds of Muslim immigrants still being held in detention since September 11, he is considered a "material witness" to the investigation of the attack. And yet, rather than have him subject to the discretion of Federal courts, he was handed over to the military as an "enemy combatant" after Ashcroft and the Pentagon talked it over. At that moment, Padilla was taken out of his New York prison cell and transferred to a US Navy brig in South Carolina. His attorney, Donna Newman of NYC was not informed of his transfer and has been denied access to her client. Even the Washington Post, which has backed virtually all of the repressive measures of the Bush administration since September 11, wrote at the time of Padilla's jailing that:
"the governments actions in this latest case cut against basic elements of life under the rule of law" and that "if its positions are correct, nothing would prevent the president - even in the absence of a formal declaration of war - from designating any American as an enemy combatant…If that's the case, nobody's constitutional rights are safe."
This "chilling legal precedent" is but the tip of the iceberg of the complete subsuming of normal judicial processes to the growing militarization of law enforcement and jurisprudence.
"Homeland defense", as we experience it today, has been percolating in the bowels of the Pentagon and corporate think tanks like the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Council on Foreign Relations, along with their Congressional counterparts, for nearly a decade. What it required was an emergency situation. The "homeland security" apparatus presently being constructed is modeled roughly after the military's "combatant command structure" and is --in the wake of 9/11– set within the context of the "laws and customs of war", hence the introduction of military courts and the shifting of jurisdictions for so-called "crimes associated with terrorism". The Northern Command, based at Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado, whose job as of October 1st is to patrol America, will head up this homeland defense "command structure".
Concurrent with the round-up of over a thousand people following the September 11 attack, many of whom have been held in solitary confinement, with no charges being filed, President Bush signed in November 2991 order, establishing military "tribunals" for those non-citizens accused, anywhere, of "terrorist related crimes". According to the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, the order violates the constitutional separation of powers:
"[It] has not been authorized by the Congress and is outside the President's constitutional powers"... the order strips away a variety of checks and balances on governmental power and the reliability and integrity of criminal judgments... [T]he order undermines the rule of law worldwide, and invites reciprocal treatment of US nationals by hostile nations utilizing secret trials, a single entity as prosecutor, judge and jury, no judicial review and summary executions."
Department of Defense Military Commission Order No.1, issued March 21, 2002, is concerned with "procedures for trials by military commissions of certain non-United States citizens in the War Against Terrorism." The "commissions", according to the order, "shall have jurisdiction over violations of the laws of war and all other offenses triable by military commission." Overseen by a "military officer" who will "admit or exclude evidence at trial", the "prosecutor" would be a "special trial counsel of the Department of Justice." On the defense side, well, one could opt to go with the DoD's version of the public defender, namely another "military officer", or one could secure an attorney. Although "the Accused may also retain the services of a civilian attorney of the Accused's own choosing…at no expense to the United States Government", this would only be possible once it "has been determined" that the civilian attorney is "eligible for access to information classified at the level of SECRET or higher…" In other words, to get any kind of impartial and efficient legal representation in Mr.Rumsfeld's court, your attorney has to be cleared by the Pentagon.

No comments: