- Signs of the Times for Fri, 09 Jun 2006 -



NEW! Podcast: Counter-Intelligence and the 9/11 Movement - Part 1
NEW! Podcast: Counter-Intelligence and the 9/11 Movement - Part 2


Sections on today's Signs Page:



Signs Editorials


Editorial: How to Spot COINTELPRO Agents

Laura Knight-Jadczyk

The subject of COINTELPRO comes up quite a bit on our websites and has done so since we became fully aware of its activity in the various "alternative news/views" movements back in late 2001. Up to that point in time, we were thinking that it was probably likely that, now and again, a group might be infiltrated by an agent for a specific purpose. What we were NOT aware of was the vast, overarching program that seems to be in place for the primary purpose of controlling absolutely everything via the control of the minds of the masses!

Yeah, that's a pretty unbelievable project to contemplate, but for groups with unlimited resources and the agenda to stay on the top of the heap, it's really not so hard. And never has this activity been more evident than in the 9/11 Truth Movement which I want to discuss here. But, before getting to that specifically, let me give a little background.

Some time ago I published an article entitled "Cosmic COINTELPRO" which said, in part:

Richard Dolan’s UFOs and the National Security State is the first comprehensive study of the past 50 years of the U.S. Government’s response to the intrusion of UFO phenomena in America. The compiled evidence - which includes government documents - suggests that a group of specialists working in the shadows, set up and executed the most massive cover-up in the history of government; and that the Human Potential movement and the subsequent New Age movements, were key elements of this cover-up. In other words, they not only have used the “colorful community” of alternative ideas as an unwitting tool of disinformation, it is highly probable that most of it was literally created by them as COINTELPRO. Dolan writes:
By the mid-1940s, America’s intelligence apparatus had reason to believe that there were artifacts in the skies that did not originate from America, Russia, Germany, or any other country. These objects violated some highly sensitive military airspace, and did not appear to be natural phenomena. One may presume that the affected national security authorities made it an immediate obsession to determine the nature and purpose of these objects, and we may infer that the issue probably became a deep secret by 1946, or 1947 at the latest.
It was at this precise moment in time that the so-called Human Potential movement was “born.”

Do we think that this was a coincidence?

By the mid-50s, it was becoming obvious that things were getting out of control and in August of 1956, the FBI began its COINTELPRO operation. When traditional modes of repression (exposure, blatant harassment, and prosecution for political crimes) failed to counter the growing insurgency, and even helped to fuel it, the Bureau took the law into its own hands. Its methods ranged far beyond surveillance, and amounted to a domestic version of the covert action for which the CIA has become infamous throughout the world.

Usually, when we think of COINTELPRO, we think of the most well known and typical activities which include sending anonymous or fictitious letters designed to start rumors, among other things, publishing false defamatory or threatening information, forging signatures on fake documents, introducing disruptive and subversive members into organizations to destroy them from within, blackmailing insiders in any group to force them to spread false rumors, or to foment factionalism, and so on.

What a lot of people don’t keep in mind is the fact that COINTELPRO also concentrated on creating bogus organizations.

These bogus groups could serve many functions which might include attacking and/or disrupting bona fide groups, or even just simply creating a diversion with clever propaganda in order to attract members away so as to involve them with time-wasting activity designed to prevent them from doing anything useful. COINTELPRO was also famous for instigation of hostile actions through third parties so that it looked like just a "disagreement" between two individuals or groups, a "food fight" or something, and there was no way to connect it to any government operation.

Now, let us take a few logical steps. The UFO problem emerged into the national consciousness in 1947, or thereabouts. Not long afterward, a lot of people began asking a lot of questions. The government wasn’t answering, and so the people began to band together to find out the answers for themselves. They started forming groups. And this is where things get just a bit curious. The thing that was most threatened by the UFO/alien issue seems to have been the Standard Monotheistic Religions. Religion seems to be a necessary component of political control. Social control - that is the mainstay of religion - was most definitely under threat. In fact, what seems to be true is that it is not even clear that religions - as we know them - would have survived a full disclosure. So the logical conclusion is that part of the main reason for the cover-up was to “protect the religious status quo ” - or to create a new "religion" by which masses of people could be controlled.

As things stood at the time, protecting the religious status quo - mainly the social controls that stem from religion - was iffy at best. After a century of scholarly investigation into many religious texts, and the raising of many questions about the “old time religion,” there were a lot of people in society who were most definitely turning away from religious dogma. It’s fairly simple to take the next logical step and see that a combining of the questions of those who were disenchanted with religion, with the questions of those who wanted to know just what the heck was going on in terms of possible “extraterrestrials,” was seen as a dangerous and explosive mixture.

Something had to be done.

The activities of COINTELPRO in attempting to neutralize political opposition have been pretty well exposed. But we are now considering the fact that, in addition to political activists, it seems that COINTELPRO has particularly targeted groups that are seeking the truth about the interactions between the US government and Ultra Terrestrials, or so-called “aliens.” That a long-time cover-up of these matters has been in effect is certainly evident to any careful researcher.

The COINTELPRO files show the U.S. Government targeted a very broad range of religious, labor and community groups opposed to any of its agendas, and it is only logical to assume that the same type of operation would be created to cover up the “alien agenda.” Such a theoretical COINTELPRO operation also goes far in explaining why, when the sincere researcher of UFO phenomena enters this field, he or she discovers only lies, lies, and more lies; confusion and disinformation. That is most definitely the signature of COINTELPRO.

Considering all of this, would anybody care to suggest that it did not also occur to the Powers that Be that the chief means of diverting attention and covering up the truth would be to literally fund and create the “New Age” and “Human Potential movement" so that it would follow their agenda of keeping secrets? So that it would create a New Religion of Aliens that THEY controlled?

In other words, it is extremely likely that the most successful and popular of Metaphysical Mavens and New Age Impresarios are COINTELPRO agents - either conscious or dupes of those who are. The objective seems to be to attack and “neutralize” those who are seeking the answers. Those who are sincere, who do bona fide research and seek to explicate the truth, are infiltrated, attacked, and marginalized according to standard COINTELPRO procedures.

What all of this seems to suggest is that the Powers That Be (PTB) have developed COINTELPRO to an all new level of Social Shaping, Cultural Brainwashing, and the main targets of this activity would include virtually anyone who is seeking the truth about the shifting realities of our world. The cases of COINTELPRO activities against political groups must be no more than the tip of the iceberg, given that the great bulk of COINTELPRO-type operations remain secret until long after their damage has been done. By all indications, domestic covert operations have become a permanent feature of U.S. politics and Social Programming, and it is hardly likely, considering the evidence, that the New Age and Human Potential fields are exempt.

The implications of this are truly alarming. Those who manage to get close to the truth of these matters, despite the many obstacles in their path, face National covert campaigns to discredit and disrupt their research and reputations. Clearly, COINTELPRO and similar operations under other names also work to distort academic and popular perceptions of the problems facing our world. They have done enormous damage to the search for the Truth.

“Terrorism is changing. New adversaries, new motivations and new rationales have surfaced in recent years to challenge much of the conventional wisdom...” wrote Dr. Bruce Hoffman, Director of RAND. And he was right. The only problem is, the reader is largely unaware of the definition of “new adversaries” that might be implied in his remarks.
I think that it is pretty easy to "read" the 9/11 Truth Movement into the above description of COINTELPRO in the "New Age." In fact, after all that practice, it must have been a piece of cake to just move in and co-opt those who were suddenly drawn into an "alternative" point of view by 9/11. A lot of people who have absolutely no interest in metaphysics, religion, and so forth, DO have an interest in politics and history and current affairs. I'll never forget reading John Kaminski's article "Agents Provocateur?" where he describes where he was and what he was doing at that fateful moment on September 11, 2001:
I remember that day all too well. I was standing in front of my TV. I had just awakened and flipped it on, intending to zap the clicker to ESPN to catch the latest sports news, a typical daily habit that occurs just before I stumble into the kitchen to make my coffee. By chance, the tube was set to NBC, where the plastic Today show commentators were talking about a plane that had crashed into the World Trade Center. So I never changed the channel. I just stood there, eyelids glued apart, and watched as plane number two glided into the south tower, and into history.

I just stood there, I don't know for how long. Eventually I turned around, made the coffee, and listened to the aghast commentary of the NBC crew. I don't remember now what it was triggered my next verbal outburst, whether it was Katie Couric reporting the government saying it was Osama bin Laden who was behind the attacks, or some vaguer speculation about Arab terrorists.

I only know I turned around, stalked into the living room, and then with the most certain self-assured vehemence I have ever shown in my life, started bellowing: "No way! No freaking way!"

I knew then, right then and there, that 9/11 was an inside job. ... Nothing I have seen, heard, or read since has caused me to feel even the merest shadow of a doubt about what I felt at that moment.

There are millions of people who had the same reaction, but very few of them in a position, or with the talents, to say or do anything about it. And most of them are not into "metaphysics, religion, or researching strange phenomena." That's too bad. There's a lot about COINTELPRO that we all could learn together.

Now, one of the interesting things we have observed about COINTELPRO is the way it shifts and warps in response to possible exposure. I believe that I was the first to realize the extent and nature of the operation, and I began publishing my speculations about it in the Adventures With Cassiopaea series back in early 2002. Not too long after that, individuals that I KNEW to be "agents" of COINTELPRO began to start ranting about COINTELPRO and pointing the finger this way and that way. Up to this point in time, the lid had pretty much remained shut on the subject - I guess they were hoping that people would forget about it, or think that it was over and done with back in the 70s, nothing to worry about now!

But nope, I saw it and wrote about it and they just had to do something. So, in typical COINTELPRO fashion, they started producing endless noise to obscure the signal. Particular attention was paid to me; I guess I had to be punished for daring to call a spade a spade. I was accused of being COINTELPRO myself, of being funded by George Soros, my husband was accused of being an "ex cold war nuke scientist," and the previous attacks that had alerted me to the COINTELPRO problem to begin with - vile and vicious defamation, character assassination, and so on - ramped up to an unbelieveable level.

As usual, I learned a lot by observing and doing research to find out who was connected to whom.

Of course, once I began publishing such exposes, the program shifted again. The internet was already being scrubbed of articles and stories that did not support the government 9/11 claims that had been published in the early days after 9/11. Seems like some additional scrubbing took place in removing material that might link various agents together. Additionally, such resources as the "whois" services became useless with the use of "proxy registration" of websites. Many things that had been on the web before 9/11 suddenly disappeared. Many things also disappeared from the usually reliable webarchive as well. In some instances, we had the foresight to archive pages, but not always. I even have some pages archived and certified in my files. They may come in handy someday.

With over 100 researchers in our Quantum Future Group, scattered around the globe, we have even resorted to sending a member out to do hand searches in various places. In one case, the member was shortly afterward visited by some "Israeli Art Students." How's that for "personal attention?"

Not long after I published research findings on the people behind GodlikeProductions Forum, we received an email warning, and two "personal contacts" of a threatening nature. Let us just say that when you begin to find connections between such popular websites and drug and pedophile rings, you are cruising into dangerous international trafficking waters and discretion may very well be the better part of valor. I removed the article from our website, though I do still send it to researchers who ask for it privately. I should note, while on the subject, that this is not uncommon: to find such connections; after all, that's one of the ways that secret agencies make their money - drugs and human trafficking, including children - and have the means to control government officials: blackmail. It's a pretty handy set-up: provide the drugs and the sex, get photos and movies or recordings, and voila! Instant control of just about anybody!

So, while I can't take the risk of telling exactly who is who here, just let me give a general warning: drugs and pedophilia - and even arms trafficking - are connected to a lot of people who you would never, ever suspect! Imagine! A popular New Age teacher giving seminars on such things as how to create your higher astral body and meet your angel guides (for example) who also runs a cover operation for shipping arms to CIA sponsored guerilla groups and ALSO has programs for "special children"? Can we say "Star kids" and "Indigo?"

Getting back to 9/11 and COINTELPRO in that venue: if you don't already know that probably 80 to 90 percent of what is out there is noise, then you might want to get up to speed pretty fast.

Now, let's get down to some specifics. There's a new guy on the 9/11 scene who just sort of appeared out of nowhere: Daryl Bradford Smith.

Daryl has declared himself to be the "Black Mamba" of the Truth Movement!

Well, I DO declare! Hush my mouth and shiver my timbers!

I've been watching Mr. Smith (funny, that reminds me Agent Smith in The Matrix!) for a bit now. Among his earlier publications was a sort of "how to recognize agents in the 9/11 Truth Movement guide". It was simple, straightforward, easy for anyone to understand. Even though something about it was disturbing, I included it on Signs of the Times one day.

Recently, I had an exchange with a few other 9/11 researchers on the subject of DBS, and I'd like to share a few excerpts:

Daryl is telling us he has commandeered the 9/11 skeptics movement.

Hoo boy! Well, I've got this handy little booklet here entitled "How to Spot a Spy," which was put together back during the days of the "Global Movement for Justice and Eco-Peace," when COINTELPRO was running rampant and some of those groups learned the hard way. It was sent to me by a member of QFG (thanks DS) I've been thinking about updating it and making it available to 9/11 researchers. Here is what it says, mainly, synopsized and skipping some repetitive stuff:

How To Spot a Spy

One way to neutralize a potential activist is to get them to be in a group that does all the wrong things. Why?

1) The message doesn't get out. 2) A lot of time is wasted 3) The activist is frustrated and discouraged 4) Nothing good is accomplished.

FBI and Police Informers and Infiltrators will infest any group and they have phoney activist organizations established.

Their purpose is to prevent any real movement for justice or eco-peace from developing in this country.

Agents come in small, medium or large. They can be of any ethnic background. They can be male or female.

The actual size of the group or movement being infiltrated is irrelevant. It is the potential the movement has for becoming large which brings on the spies and saboteurs.

This booklet lists tactics agents use to slow things down, foul things up, destroy the movement and keep tabs on activists.

It is the agent's job to keep the activist from quitting such a group, thus keeping him/her under control.

In some situations, to get control, the agent will tell the activist:

"You're dividing the movement."

[Here, I have added the psychological reasons as to WHY this maneuver works to control people]

This invites guilty feelings. Many people can be controlled by guilt. The agents begin relationships with activists behind a well-developed mask of "dedication to the cause." Because of their often declared dedication, (and actions designed to prove this), when they criticize the activist, he or she - being truly dedicated to the movement - becomes convinced that somehow, any issues are THEIR fault. This is because a truly dedicated person tends to believe that everyone has a conscience and that nobody would dissimulate and lie like that "on purpose." It's amazing how far agents can go in manipulating an activist because the activist will constantly make excuses for the agent who regularly declares their dedication to the cause. Even if they do, occasionally, suspect the agent, they will pull the wool over their own eyes by rationalizing: "they did that unconsciously... they didn't really mean it... I can help them by being forgiving and accepting " and so on and so forth.

The agent will tell the activist:

"You're a leader!"

This is designed to enhance the activist's self-esteem. His or her narcissistic admiration of his/her own activist/altruistic intentions increase as he or she identifies with and consciously admires the altruistic declarations of the agent which are deliberately set up to mirror those of the activist.

This is "malignant pseudoidentification." It is the process by which the agent consciously imitates or simulates a certain behavior to foster the activist's identification with him/her, thus increasing the activist's vulnerability to exploitation. The agent will simulate the more subtle self-concepts of the activist.

Activists and those who have altruistic self-concepts are most vulnerable to malignant pseudoidentification especially during work with the agent when the interaction includes matter relating to their competency, autonomy, or knowledge.

The goal of the agent is to increase the activist's general empathy for the agent through pseudo-identification with the activist's self-concepts.

The most common example of this is the agent who will compliment the activist for his competency or knowledge or value to the movement. On a more subtle level, the agent will simulate affects and mannerisms of the activist which promotes identification via mirroring and feelings of "twinship". It is not unheard of for activists, enamored by the perceived helpfulness and competence of a good agent, to find themselves considering ethical violations and perhaps, even illegal behavior, in the service of their agent/handler.

The activist's "felt quality of perfection" [self-concept] is enhanced, and a strong empathic bond is developed with the agent through his/her imitation and simulation of the victim's own narcissistic investments. [self-concepts] That is, if the activist knows, deep inside, their own dedication to the cause, they will project that onto the agent who is "mirroring" them.

The activist will be deluded into thinking that the agent shares this feeling of identification and bonding. In an activist/social movement setting, the adversarial roles that activists naturally play vis a vis the establishment/government, fosters ongoing processes of intrapsychic splitting so that "twinship alliances" between activist and agent may render whole sectors or reality testing unavailable to the activist. They literally "lose touch with reality."

Activists who deny their own narcissistic investments [do not have a good idea of their own self-concepts and that they ARE concepts] and consciously perceive themselves (accurately, as it were) to be "helpers" endowed with a special amount of altruism are exceedingly vulnerable to the affective (emotional) simulation of the accomplished agent.

Empathy is fostered in the activist through the expression of quite visible affects. The presentation of tearfulness, sadness, longing, fear, remorse, and guilt, may induce in the helper-oriented activist a strong sense of compassion, while unconsciously enhancing the activist's narcissistic investment in self as the embodiment of goodness.

The agent's expresssion of such simulated affects may be quite compelling to the observer and difficult to distinguish from deep emotion.

It can usually be identified by two events, however:

First, the activist who has analyzed his/her own narcissistic roots and is aware of his/her own potential for being "emotionally hooked," will be able to remain cool and unaffected by such emotional outpourings by the agent.

As a result of this unaffected, cool, attitude, the Second event will occur: The agent will recompensate much too quickly following such an affective expression leaving the activist with the impression that "the play has ended, the curtain has fallen," and the imposture, for the moment, has finished. The agent will then move quickly to another activist/victim.

The fact is, the movement doesn't need leaders, it needs MOVERS. "Follow the leader" is a waste of time.

A good agent will want to meet as often as possible. He or she will talk a lot and say little. One can expect an onslaught of long, unresolved discussions.

Some agents take on a pushy, arrogant, or defensive manner:

1) To disrupt the agenda 2) To side-track the discussion 3) To interrupt repeatedly 4) To feign ignorance 5) To make an unfounded accusation against a person.

Calling someone a racist, for example. This tactic is used to discredit a person in the eyes of all other group members.

Saboteurs

Some saboteurs pretend to be activists. She or he will ....

1) Write encyclopedic flyers (in the present day, websites) 2) Print flyers in English only. 3) Have demonstrations in places where no one cares. 4) Solicit funding from rich people instead of grass roots support 5) Display banners with too many words that are confusing. 6) Confuse issues. 7) Make the wrong demands. 8) Compromise the goal. 9) Have endless discussions that waste everyone's time. The agent may accompany the endless discussions with drinking, pot smoking or other amusement to slow down the activist's work.

Provocateurs

1) Want to establish "leaders" to set them up for a fall in order to stop the movement. 2) Suggest doing foolish, illegal things to get the activists in trouble. 3) Encourage militancy. 4) Want to taunt the authorities. 5) Attempt to make the activist compromise their values. 6) Attempt to instigate violence. Activisim ought to always be non-violent. 7) Attempt to provoke revolt among people who are ill-prepared to deal with the reaction of the authorities to such violence.

Informants

1) Want everyone to sign up and sing in and sign everything. 2) Ask a lot of questions (gathering data). 3) Want to know what events the activist is planning to attend. 4) Attempt to make the activist defend him or herself to identify his or her beliefs, goals, and level of committment.

Recruiting

Legitimate activists do not subject people to hours of persuasive dialog. Their actions, beliefs, and goals speak for themselves.

Groups that DO recruit are missionaries, military, and fake political parties or movements set up by agents.

Surveillance

ALWAYS assume that you are under surveillance.

At this point, if you are NOT under surveillance, you are not a very good activist!

Scare Tactics

They use them.

Such tactics include slander, defamation, threats, getting close to disaffected or minimally committed fellow activists to persuade them (via psychological tactics described above) to turn against the movement and give false testimony against their former compatriots. They will plant illegal substances on the activist and set up an arrest; they will plant false information and set up "exposure," they will send incriminating letters [emails] in the name of the activist; and more; they will do whatever society will allow.

This booklet in no way covers all the ways agents use to sabotage the lives of sincere an dedicated activists.

If an agent is "exposed," he or she will be transferred or replaced.

COINTELPRO is still in operation today under a different code name. It is no longer placed on paper where it can be discovered through the freedom of information act.

The FBI counterintelligence program's stated purpose: To expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, and otherwise neutralize individuals who the FBI categorize as opposed to the National Interests. "National Security" means the FBI's security from the people ever finding out the vicious things it does in violation of people's civil liberties.

A slight breach in orthodoxy is sufficient to terrify authoritarian ideologues who see in it the collapse of the system of thought control that has been so effctive in depoliticizing American Society. Noam Chomsky.
And that's about it for the booklet: How To Spot a Spy!

Now, getting back to Daryl Bradford Smith and the above referenced article where he claims that he is the "Black Mamba of the 9/11 Truth Movement," let's look at this article which seems to be designed to implicate a Mr. Jon Carlson as a COINTELPRO agent.

First of all, I would have liked to have seen more facts about Carlson and less "ranting." I don't know who Jon Carlson is and DBS didn't do anything to enlighten me except rant and rave and make himself look foolish. However, I can certainly understand a tendency to rant now and again out of sheer frustration.

Having said that, I think that it is dangerous to fall into a "it's either black or white" judgment mode because that is what THEY do and what THEY promote. In a sense, it is the difference between the "good vs evil" via strict laws and NO justice (the psychopathic way) as opposed to the more natural and human Law of Three which posits "there is good and there is evil and there is the specific situation that determines which is which."

I know that the majority of people aren't interested in, or can't deal with, concepts of metaphyisics, religion, hyperdimensional manipulations, and so I was very glad to get the Ponerology material because that "brings it home" to 3 D. Even the guys at the truck stop can understand how an evil government can come to power with this material.

Nevertheless, there ARE many surpassingly strange things on this planet and we need to have theories and explanations that accommodate those things or we are no better than the Catholic church born out of materialistic Judaism which is the underpinning philosophy that led to the mess we are in in the first place. Judaism has been promoting the purely material, linear explanation of reality for a very long time. And anybody who goes in a different direction is immediately attacked and/or vectored. That fact should give some pause to a serious thinker.

I want to try to explain what I mean here by commenting on Smith's rant:

DBS writes: Can you see a pattern with UFOs?

# Steven Greer is very active in promoting UFOs with his Disclosure Project.

LKJ: I don't know if DBS has a particular reason for naming Steven Greer or not. I think, based on what he says further down, that his chief issue with Steven is that he is Jewish. So what? My only beef with Steven Greer is that he specifically promotes UFOs as ETs from outer space, i.e. distant worlds, phyisical explanation, and that they are just "very advanced" and therefore must be "here to help us." (You know, a being can't be more advanced if they are not "good." This is a fatal error!)

Now, first of all, let us understand that the mainstream media of the United States is, by and large, controlled by Zionists. So is the government. So, you can pretty well figure out that what is being promoted by the media and or the government is what the Zionists want you to believe.

And so, we come to the realization that the image of "aliens" that is most widespread in the U.S. is, by default, the explication that the Zionists WANT everyone to believe. This in no way obviates the reality of the phenomenon. In fact, that the phenomenon has received so much "smoke and mirrors" attention should tell us that it is serious and real, and most definitely NOT what the MSM presents.

DBS: # Stanton Friedman claims be one of the pioneers in UFO exposure.

LKJ: I've communicated with Friedman a few times over the years, have met him personally, and I don't think that he is doing any deliberate disinformation. He is sincere, works very hard, and even though I don't agree with his approach - Stanton is another one who is hard on the heels of finding a "material explanation" for UFOs - that they are ETs from distant worlds in our material, 3 D universe, I don't question his integrity. At least not at this point. He has never given any reason for anyone to question it. So, I don't get DBS' point here unless - again - his point is that Stanton Friedman is Jewish. If that is the case, then we have a better idea of what DBS is up to.

DBS: # Art Bell has been promoting aliens and other ridiculous ideas for years on his coast-to-coast radio show.

LKJ: Can't argue with the fact that Art Bell has been promoting ridiculous ideas for years, but notice that this is fairly typical of the whole ET/UFO situation: it is so obscured by noise that the true signal is completely missed.

Years of digging through cases has convinced me that there IS a signal but that the whole UFO/New Age approach is vectored by disinformation.

If you look at the pattern of disinformation surrounding 9/11, you will see exactly the same pattern of disinfo that surrounds the whole UFO/ET issue. And once you see that, you can draw the obvious conclusion that the noise exists for the very purpose of obscuring the signal. There is, so to say, an ET 9/11 - the real deal - and tons of "false research sites" promoting stupid ideas, even outrageous claims that give the whole field a bad name.

So, either DBS has fallen for this disinfo regarding UFOs and ETs in the same way that many people will be disgusted over the 9/11 Truth movement because of similar activities of disinformation artists within the 9/11 Truth movement, or DBS is one of them. Is Art Bell also Jewish? I don't know. But maybe that is DBS' point.

DBS: The pattern I see is that many of the people who are actively promoting UFOs have strong ties to Israel, or to other Zionists. How many real Jews promote UFOs?

LKJ: I fail to see what "real Jews" - or "not real" Jews - or Jews at all - have to do with the subject here. It is certainly true that the Zionist controlled media and the complicit Bush Administration are largely responsible for the disinfo about 9/11... So, just think about that for a minute. Ask yourself why the owners of the media would promote so much nonsense about UFOs ??? It is EXACTLY the same thing as why they promote so much nonsense about 9/11!!! Because there IS a "real signal" that has to be obscured!

Do you really think that if there was nothing to it that they would spend so much time obscuring it with nonsense???

Do you think that if it was really a benevolent phenomenon that they would spend so much time trying to present it as one???

But none of that has anything to do with being Jewish.

DBS::Can you figure it out?

LKJ: Question is, can DBS figure it out. It looks like he has fallen into the disinfo, smoke and mirrors trap, or... he is part of it. One thing is certain: he is promoting hate.

DBS: These UFO researchers claim to be truth seekers who want the government to stop lying about aliens, but they lie to us about Israel's role in 9/11, the attack on the USS Liberty, the assassination of President Kennedy, and other crimes.

LKJ: I'm not exactly sure what DBS is trying to say here. Is he saying that the government lies about aliens AND 9/11 and the attack on the Liberty, AND the assassination of JFK, therefore, somehow he concludes that this proves his point? (Which it doesn't.)

OR, is he saying that UFO researchers who want the government to stop lying about aliens then turn around and lie themselves about 9/11, JFK, etc... ?

I don't really hang out with the "Aliens are here to save us" gang, Jewish or not, so I'm a bit in the dark on who he is talking about here. Everyone I know who is a so-called "UFO researcher" knows quite well that Israel played a big role in 9/11, that MOSSAD was behind the USS Liberty attack, and that JFK was not assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald.

But, in the event that there ARE "UFO researchers" who subscribe to the government disinfo campaign about JFK and 9/11, and other things, I will point out that this just demonstrates how effective COINTELPRO can be. Many, many people have had experiences that make them desperate for an explanation, for a "shelter" from the government instigated ridicule and denial. That makes them RIPE to be taken in by someone who claims to represent a "strange- phenomena- friendly port in the storm." And THEN, once they have "anchored" in that port, they are susceptible to being influenced by the other ideas. It is standard disinfo/cointelpro.

DBS: Also, they lie to us about the role of the media, the banking families, and the Mossad, and they lie about the creation of Israel.

LKJ: Again, it's a bit hard to follow DBS' argument. Who is lying? The Government or UFO researchers? I think he means UFO researchers - specifically Jewish UFO researchers - in which case, again, he ought to be more specific because I certainly don't know any UFO researchers, Jewish or otherwise, who lie about any of those things. I do know quite a few that don't have much interest in those subjects, in the same way that people that are interested in researching banking families and MOSSAD and so forth don't usually have much interest in UFOs. As noted above, many people who were never interested in religion, metaphysics, UFOs, or anything else out of the mainstream interests of the guys at the truckstop, certainly knew instantly that 9/11 was an inside job. I think that if there are UFO researchers who are what DBS describes, then we have to seriously consider them as disinfo or even COINTELPRO set-up organizations. And I should point out that such operations are not restricted to Jews by any stretch of the imagination.

DBS: Some of these people, such as Art Bell, go even further by defending the government story of 9/11 and other crimes.

LKJ: Sure. Art Bell is COINTELPRO from bottom up. Why can't DBS see the connection??? The trap? Or is he deliberately not seeing it?

DBS: These people also promote one another, but they criticize or ignore people who are exposing the Israeli / Zionist connection to these crimes, such as myself, Eric Hufschmid, and Michael Collins Piper. Do you really think it is a coincidence that they don't like us?

LKJ: Well, I could say the same thing with a lot more documentation to back it up, for sure. If you read Joe Quinn's new piece Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 - and Neither Did a Boeing 757 , toward the end, there is a very clear explication of COINTELPRO in action that makes it pretty clear that NOT linking to Signs of The Times is an almost certain indication that a website is COINTELPRO. We certainly notice a lot of so-called UFO research sites that don't link to Cassiopaea except to refer to us as a "cult" or to publish defamatory remarks about us. Again, from what we have learned over the years, that's an almost certain indicator that the website is COINTELPRO.

I am willing to bet that the majority of such UFO researchers as DBS describes ALL promote the alleged "aliens" as PHYSICAL entities from distant planets with a more advanced civilization and benevolent agendas.

Well, actually, in the years since I started talking about hyperdimensional realities and a NEGATIVE "control system" similar (but more developed) to what Vallee has talked about, there has been a "reaction" in that some of the UFO disinfo trappers have started talking about something similar. But in all cases, they talk about it as a "benevolent" phenomenon. The recent TV series, The 4400 is an example. 4,400 people are abducted "from the future." Now, certainly, our Cassiopaean Transmissions claim to come "from the future," but those same C's say, unequivocally, that no "positive" being ever "abducts" anyone. Not EVER. The "good guys" don't "play chess", preferring to work within the natural order of things as a courtesy toward Creation. But here, on network TV, we have a program that mixes all the nonsensical alien stuff with our own work in such a way as to corrupt it and discredit it. Typical COINTELPRO.

The fact is, if a person does NOT allow for the hyperdimensional hypothesis, and if they are truly sincere about their seeking of answers and their desire to promote truth, they WILL be "taken out" one way or the other. We have seen it happen time and again.

And I am not saying that anybody needs to believe it; just take it as a theory and work with the theoretical constructs in terms of self-defense. If you don't, you are TOAST. Take that to the bank!

DBS: Who is Jeff Rense? Try to find information about this man. People will justify his secrecy on the grounds that he is afraid for his life, which is justifiable. However, it is also possible that he is hiding something more sinister. His stepmother, Paige Rense, is editor-in-chief of Architectural Digest. This is one of the magazines owned by Si Newhouse.

LKJ: Well, Rense is a cipher to me, too. I only recently learned that he is a close pal of Jay Weidner and that he and Jay and Vincent Bridges used to be members of Ray Flowers group. The C's pretty clearly indicated Flowers as a COINTELPRO handler. From my point of view, after a long period of observation, Rense is out there pushing the alien noise agenda in a big way. He is a "tar baby." All the folks (and there are MILLIONS of them) who KNOW that the reality is strange, or who have had truly traumatic experiences (I think a lot of it is gov mind control programs) rush to be enfolded in the arms of anybody who will give them some validation, some peace of mind about what has happened to them. And then, they are RIPE for being vectored.

This is a horrible situation, when you think about it. And it is doing nobody any good for people like DBS to come out and simply negate the reality of millions of people and make it an "either/or" or "black/white" proposition. That is exactly what the Zionists/Fundies /Bush Reich do!

DBS: For all we know, Jeff Rense truly believes in UFOs, and associates of Si Newhouse or others are encouraging his UFO habit. See our article about the media if you never heard of Newhouse.

LKJ: I don't think Jeff Rense really "believes" what he promotes. Keeping in mind the close connection between Weidner and Rense, is very instructive to read the entire Weidner exchange that I published on our website . (Weidner is referred to as "Alvin Wiley" and Vincent Bridges is referred to as "Maynerd Most" in many articles.) Some of the beliefs that Weidner espouses, that come up here and there in startling clarity, are truly scary. So, if Rense is a friend of Weidner, and it's a certainty (in my mind, you read the material and decide for yourself) that Weidner is COINTELPRO, then a lot of strange connections begin to make sense. But, I'll save all of that research for another post.

Suffice it to say that Rense publishes attacks on Art Bell, and now DBS is publishing attacks on Rense AND Art Bell. Looks like a typical COINTELPRO three way food fight designed to divert and distract and make a lot of noise and confusion.

Yes, indeed, these people KNOW that the UFO thing is NOT a physical, benevolent phenomenon. And that is exactly why they promote the opposite. And that is why we were targeted by them so early in the game. Read my article "Something Wicked This Way Comes" for insight on this one.

DBS: Why is Jeff Rense posting so many articles from Jon Carlson, Karl Schwarz, and UFO supporters? Is this your idea of serious journalism? If not, please do not support him.

LKJ: See above. DBS' journalism isn't much better.

DBS: If you cannot help, get out of my way
I am calling for Jeff Rense to immediately stop promoting Jon Carlson. Carlson belongs on the list of suspects in the 9/11 disinformation campaign, and anybody -- including Rense -- who continues to promote this man after reading his latest articles should also be considered a suspect. And Karl Schwarz should also be investigated. I also want Rense to stop promoting UFO theories. A photo that shows a blurry object in the sky is nothing more than a photo of a blurry object. Anybody who claims the blurry object is a spacecraft with aliens from Alpha Centauri is incapable of proper reasoning, or a disinformation agent who is trying to make conspiracy theories seem idiotic. People who truly believe aliens are flying around the earth should get out of the 9/11 movement and stop pretending they they are 9/11 researchers. We don't need idiots in this movement. This is a serious fight against a lot of intelligent Zionists, and we don't need morons giving us a bad image. We need to attract people who can think, not idiots who believe aliens are making crop circles, or lunatics who believe in Paranormal Holiday Stories. We will not defeat the Zionists with a horde of morons.
LKJ: Well, obviously, since my husband is an internationally known theoretical physicist, and the average IQ of the QFG is probably somewhere around 130, DBS just comes across as wildly flinging mud without rhyme, reason, or good sense. His arguments are little better than what might be constructed by an average 9 year old. At the beginning of his interview with John Kaminski, he talked about the "4,000 year old" Jewish messianic beliefs. Just one of his ignorant comments.

Again, just as the noise around 9/11 turns people off to the truth, (people like DBS) so does the noise around the UFO/alien issue turn people off. (people like Art Bell). Ideas that leave out whole, major, slices of reality - of phenomena that DOES happen - do no service to anyone and only add to the noise. But then, maybe that is DBS' agenda?

DBS: If Rense wants to promote UFOs, then he should return to his previous web site, www.sightings.com

LKJ: Rense can't. He sold the domain to Henry Winkler, a noted Zionist.

DBS: Discussions are acceptable; Deception is a crime It is acceptable to discuss the issue of whether there is a god, and whether there are several gods, but it is not acceptable to point to a blurry object in a photograph and claim that the blurry object is God.

LKJ: Gee, thanks DBS for giving us all permission to think and discuss things! And if "deception is a crime," do we arrest him now for lying about the 4,000 year old Jewish Messianic tradition? His little rant about the photo of God, etc, is actually standard disinfo ... It's called "setting up a straw man so you can knock him down." So, does that make him a disinfo artist also???

Good question. But if he's the best they've got, Rense doesn't have anything to worry about. But, maybe that's the point.

One thing we have learned is this: the disinfo only gets subtler and subtler. Once you avoid one trap, the next one is laid...

DBS: Likewise, it is acceptable to discuss the issue of whether there are aliens on the earth, but it is not acceptable to point to a blurry object in a photograph and claim that the blurry object is an alien spacecraft.
LKJ: Aside from being tediously asinine, the above is rather confusing coming, as it does, after all else he has said on the subject up to this point. However, we happen to agree with him that it is not acceptable to point to blurry objects and declare that they are alien spacecraft. We don't do that. But this remark seems to contradict what he said earlier:
"People who truly believe aliens are flying around the earth should get out of the 9/11 movement and stop pretending they they are 9/11 researchers. We don't need idiots in this movement. This is a serious fight against a lot of intelligent Zionists, and we don't need morons giving us a bad image."
LKJ: So he has contradicted himself, after doing the "set up a straw man so you can knock him down" routine, he has knocked himself down.

At the end of this really nutzoid piece of writing, DBS closes with:

Daryl Bradford Smith will no longer tolerate the contamination of evidence of Israel's complicity in world domination. They are mixing UFOs, crop circles, Remote Viewing, and other drivel to discredit the hard evidence of Zionist crimes.

Do not post Smith's material on any site that promotes such nonsense, and don't support the radio hosts who promote it.

I also am asking John Kaminski to stop posting articles on the Rense web site. John, why are you supporting Rense?

People who knowingly deceive people are criminals; con artists; swindlers. The UFO swindlers belong on the list to be guillotined. They are giving the subject of "conspiracies" a bad image, which in turn is allowing corruption to continue.

Please read our earlier article about the guillotine list before you complain about the previous paragraph.

If you think UFOs are real, all you have to do is Remote View the people at Coast to Coast radio, and others like them, and watch them laugh at the Useful Idiots who believe their nonsense.

Hmmm.... "Useful Idiots." I've heard that phrase before. Yes, it's coming to me now: I was introduced to the concept by none other than Jay Weidner.

Now, let's look again at this apparent food fight between Daryl Bradford Smith and Jeff Rense.

I did some checking around and it seems that DBS appeared out of nowhere, as far as we can tell, in February. His domain name was registered on February 8, a few days after our researchers had finished one research project and begun another project that were both related to determining and possible future exposure of, COINTELPRO, but I can't disclose either of them just now. Just suffice it to say that the emergence of this present situation relates very closely to those projects and suggests that the objects of our investigation must have friends in high places who are now setting up this present apparent food fight as a smoke screent. Rr-read this last sentence and read between the lines, please. Smith's domain was registered by proxy, by the way. I'm not even sure the guy really is in France. All that could be smoke and mirrors. His website help is based in Sarasota, Florida. In a rather short period of time, he was able to get more or less "high profile" (in alternative news context) interviewees on his show. What's up with that?

He gets all kinds of promotion from places like Godlike Productions (which we know a lot about, and which, by the way, continuously attack and defame us in truly vicious and illegal ways)and some other strange people, but when you listen to his shows, they are mostly just ignorant pot stirring. It's almost like DBS is a straw man himself, being set up to be knocked down by Rense.

Now, based on what I KNOW to be true, if he is doing these shows in France, he is breaking the law. Promoting hate, as he is doing, is illegal in France.

Anyway, less than two weeks after DBS registers his domain name, (a short time after our researchers had started the project mentioned above), Jay Weidner launched an odd "attack" on our webmaster, as I chronicled here. (Don't skip this one, it's a doozie! You wanna know how these guys operate? Read it and weep if you don't fall off your chair laughing!)

Of course, that could all be coincidental. But there were other "coincidences" related to this same gang. As it happens, immediately after Rense had me on his show to discuss my article "MOSSAD and Moving Companies", at which time he also published Jay Weidner's defamation of myself, my husband, our children, and QFG, Jay Weidner registered "cassiopaea.net" (which is referenced in the above linked exchange.

I had the feeling when Rense invited me on his show, and then published the defamatory piece by Weidner at the same time, that there was a particular agenda. I had the strong feeling that it was his intent to draw me out on the issue of MOSSAD and Zionists, to get me to say things that are illegal to say in France. Well, I refused to be drawn. I later wrote about this as follows (though, at the time, I had no idea of the close relationship between Rense and Weidner.)

As many of you know, almost exactly a month ago, I was invited to talk on the Jeff Rense show as a consequence of the MOSSAD and Moving Companies Article. What was rather surprising was the fact that Maynerd Most and Alvin Wiley saw fit to send in a libelous article to Rense about us. (Keep in mind that the term "libel" refers specifically to lies.) Rense put the article as an addenda at the bottom of an article written by Richard Sauder that mentioned Cassiopaea as a possibly valid source of factual information. We found it to be incomprehensible that Rense would invite me to speak while, at the same time publish an article libelling me. Rense himself explained that he had published articles by Alvin Wiley before and always found his research to be good. When he was notified of the facts of the situation and provided with evidence of Wiley and Most' lies, Rense removed the libelous piece and apologized.

We have certainly noted that Wiley occasionally writes op-ed pieces on political subjects, generally denigrating the Bush Regime in a mild way and that Most and his other co-horts are fairly active in political comments of a similar nature - decrying the war, the plight of the Palestinians, and so on.

So, it was certainly curious to discover that Wiley and Most would suddenly emerge in opposition to some obvious conclusions about the 9-11 event and possible government complicity. After all, we here at Signs are basically on the same page with Most and Wiley in political position, right? We are all Pro-humanity and anti-War, right? Even if we don't agree philosophically, we will certainly find a common ground politically, right?

One would think so. But we notice in Kevin MacDonald's CofC that the chief way to take apart an individualistic society is to turn the individuals against each other.

What a concept!

After all, even if - in my opinion - Wiley and Most are off in la-la land with their claims to esoteric traditions - I would have to admire any work they do to promote humanity as a whole and the anti-war position.

But exactly the opposite happened here. And I was puzzled.

Maynerd of Arabia?
Maynerd Most, journalist?

Back on 9-11, as I noted in the MOSSAD Happy Dance, I was extremely puzzled by the fact that Maynerd Most and his gang were crowing with delight at the destruction of the World Trade Center. After all, with his penchant for dressing up in Arabic outfits, that seemed to me to be a bit foolish.

At a later point in time, I really began to wonder about this possible connection to Islamic terrorists since I did find a link between Mujaheedin and Drunvalo Melchizedek and there were many connections between Maynerd Most and Alvin Wiley and Drunvalo.

However, iIt was only after a period of long observation that this theory was discarded. After reviewing the material presented in the MOSSAD and Moving Companies article, the light bulb went on and I realized that it was truly COINTELPRO at its finest.

Back to Wiley and Most and the Rense show affair.

Two days after this show, it seems that Alvin Wiley - remember Alvin? A guy who regularly posts articles attacking the Bush Administration? We are anti-Bush too, so one would think that we are "in the same camp," so to say - well, Alvin Wiley purchased "cassiopaea.net" to set up an ANTI-Cassiopaea website! (For details, see the Wiley Correspondence, and scroll to the end where these letters are posted)

Huh?

Shortly afterward, Maynerd Most and several others (though they may have just been different identities of Most himself) joined the casschat discussion list in order to begin a campaign of disruption and flaming.

Meanwhile, we discovered a website called "The Ross Institute" which appears to be VERY serious and informative. Their disclaimer states:

The information within the Ross Institute archives has been collected to offer the public a resource concerning groups called "cults," controversial organizations and movements. However, the mention and/or inclusion of a group or leader within this archive does not define that group as a "cult" and/or an individual mentioned as either destructive and/or harmful. Instead, such inclusion simply reflects that archived articles and/or research is available about a group or person that has generated some interest and/or controversy.

All the information archived must be evaluated critically, through a process of independent and individual judgment. Please note that there are links often prominently posted at the top of each individual page to a group or movement's own official website, which reflect their views. It is important to see what they have to say.

And lo and behold, what do we find on the Ross Institute list of Dangerous Cults?

Why, a link to Maynerd Most' "take" on Cassiopaea!

Now, this is going to get VERY juicy in just a minute, but before we get to the BEST part, let me just present a little exchange Ark had with Rick Ross of the Ross Institute List of "Dangerous Cults!":

From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk To: info@rickross.com Subject: correction to your lkinks.html Date sent: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 18:55:36 +0200

Hi,

My name and name of my wife is mispelled in The Cassiopeia's (Ark Jadcyzk and Laura Knight-Jadcyzk)

It should read "Jadczyk"

And if you don't mind, would you be so kind and provide also a link to the original web-site of Laura and Ark Jadczyk? http://cassiopaea.org

Thank you,

ark

From: "Rick Ross" To: "Arkadiusz Jadczyk" Subject: Re: correction to your lkinks.html Date sent: Sun, 13 Jul 2003 17:02:59 -0400

The spelling will be corrected, but there seems to be problem. The link you point out on the Institute Links page seems to go to a commercial promotions page. Where is the information specifically warning about a destructive group? Have you deleted it?

Rick Ross www.rickross.com

From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk To: "Rick Ross" Subject: Re: correction to your lkinks.html Date sent: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 07:48:33 +0200

Hi again,

First of all in The Truth about Cassiopeia: Ouiji Alien Alert you link to vincentbridges.com.

Maynerd Most is a liar: See: http://cassiopaea.com/archive/most.htm http://cassiopaea.com/archive/wiley.htm

It is true that we have a politically oriented http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/signs.htm

and scientifically oriented http://quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/homepage.htm site.

But in no way our site fits the criteria of "destructive cults".

Therefore Maynerd Most lied again when trying to discredit our site and us by suggesting to you that "Arkadiusz and Laura Jadczyk are a cult".

What I propose is: either delete the link completely, or, if you want to keep the link to the site full of lies about me and my wife, like vincenbridges.com, please be fair and add also the two links above which document the true destructive nature of Maynerd Most and Alvin Wiley.

On our site "cassiopaea" we pursue similar goal as you do. See for instance http://cassiopaea.org/cass/schwaller1.htm

Listing us as a "cult", what Maynerd Most suggests, is an error on your part. You probably did not check his facts.

The two pages: http://cassiopaea.com/archive/most.htm http://cassiopaea.com/archive/wiley.htm tell the truth about the man your link promotes.

Sincerely, Arkadiusz Jadczyk

From: "Rick Ross" To: "Arkadiusz Jadczyk" Subject: Re: correction to your lkinks.html Date sent: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 07:03:37 -0400

The spelling will be corrected.

To better understand the site and the Links page specifically, see the following:

http://www.rickross.com/disclaimer.html

Your request to add additional links is refused.

Rick Ross www.rickross.com

Regarding Rick Ross, Cletus Nelson, a Los Angeles journalist, writes (published on The Lew Rockwell site):

To best understand why agents of the federal government massacred the members of a small Texas church, it behooves the conscientious WACO historian to closely examine the social forces lurking behind this unprecedented disaster.

If there is one sustaining thread which runs throughout this deadly exercise of state power, it is an endless pattern of deception.

From the very outset, the public was falsely led to believe a multiracial spiritual community was largely comprised of gun-running "rednecks" steeped in violent apocalypse theology and martial rhetoric.

As if to further darken the picture, thinly veiled allegations of child abuse and cultic phenomenon were widely circulated on television and in the mainstream press. This egregious use of what media analysts refer to as "negative framing" would seal the fate of the controversial 7th Day Adventist sect when it was deemed politically expendable by Washington officials.

Evidence suggests that these unsubstantiated claims which continue to shade our perception of the events at Mt. Carmel can be attributed to a small cadre of para-political "watchdog" groups.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with citizens banding together to expose government waste, combat police brutality, or warn the public of faulty or dangerous products.

However, in the lucrative realm of public policy activism lurk a number of pro-government advocacy groups whose very existence rests upon the notion that cult activities, political extremism or some other unnamed evil constitutes a dangerous threat to state power.

In order to identify the alleged thought criminals in our midst, operatives aligned with these private surveillance networks infiltrate unconventional spiritual or religious movements, maintain files on American citizens, and work closely with both media and law enforcement to target individuals and organizations whose beliefs run counter to establishmentarian beliefs.

In essence, these ersatz defenders of human rights act as de facto spokesmen for our emergent surveillance society. It’s COINTELPRO redux, only this time with help from a network of dubious, yet-well compensated agents.

One such organization is the Cult Awareness Network (CAN). Although the legendary cult-busters have since disappeared from the public spotlight after suffering a ruinous civil judgement, the once prominent watchdog group still enjoy an infamous place among WACO researchers. Indeed, the first stirrings of the Koresh investigation began when a CAN affiliate named Rick Ross allegedly "deprogrammed" various former Davidians and contacted BATF officials with lurid tales of child abuse and illegal machine guns. [...]

Few bothered to question the credibility of an organization which has flung the "cult" smear at Catholic monasteries, yoga groups, and even Karate classes! Instead, the public recoiled at the stunning accusations leveled against the besieged religious group. Meanwhile, far below the media radar, longtime critics of CAN noticed a familiar modus operandi. Citing outspoken CAN opponent Dr. Gordon Melton, Carol Moore notes that the organization "has found two successful methods of disrupting groups: first, false anonymous charges of child abuse and second, kidnapping and ‘deprogramming’ members."

In the aftermath of the tragic conflagration, Ross would justify the fatal tank attack in a self-serving letter to former Attorney General Janet Reno. "One thing is sure, David Koresh was an absolute authoritarian cult leader who exercised total control over his followers/victims. In the final analysis, he decided to end the conflict." However, Ross would later be subjected to the withering cricism of Princeton University religious scholar Nancy T. Ammerman in a report prepared for the Department of Justice which challenged CAN's ersatz expertise:

"Although these people often call themselves ‘cult experts,’ they are certainly not recognized as such by the academic community. The activities of CAN are seen…as a danger to religious liberty, and deprogramming tactics have been increasingly found to fall outside the law. At the very least, Mr. Ross and any ex-members he associated with should have been seen as questionable sources of information." [...]

Thus it is imperative that we closely scrutinize the information disseminated by the watchdog element and its relationship with government agencies – lest we witness further atrocities (and the ensuing cover-ups) on American soil.

Hmmm... Well, well, well.

Maynerd Most and Alvin Wiley DO keep INTERESTING company! No wonder they went bananas over the MOSSAD article!

Coming back to Mr. Rick Ross, implicated in the Waco affair and a host of other unsavory activities that exactly fit what Kevin MacDonald has described in his study of the destruction of Western Civilization, I suppose we should be honored that our status has been bumped up so as to require the special attention of so accomplished an agent! Aside from the fact that it proves our point that the agenda of Most and Wiley and gang, from the beginning, has been to run a COINTELPRO on us - it also leads us a bit closer to the center of the web - the Masterminds of Global Terrorism.

The final email from Mr. Rick Ross is a little reply to Ark's question: "Did you really write the following:

I was not "fined $2,500,000.00." This was a civil judgment, not a "fine."

"I was never charged with "kidnapping," but instead "unlawful" or "false imprisonment."

Just curious,

ark

From: "Rick Ross" To: "Arkadiusz Jadczyk" Subject: Re: correction to your lkinks.html Date sent: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:28:18 -0400

See http://www.rickross.com/reference/scientology/Scien47.html

The site you are quoting has received recognition within the Hall of Flames section titled Flaming Websites. See

http://www.rickross.com/flamingwebsites.html

Note: See the listing/link for "Rick Ross: Guardian of the truth or garner of attention?"

This site received a maximum four flame award level, quite a stunning achievement.

Let me know when your website work is complete and I will review it for a possible award. Maybe you can earn four flames too.

Rick Ross www.rickross.com

Frankly, we think we deserve FIVE FLAMES for spotting COINTELPRO in action, especially with so many apparent links to MOSSAD.

As far as Signs is concerned, the litmus test has been applied: we KNOW Maynerd Most and Alvin Wiley are liars and Rick Ross supports their websites and refuses to post a prominent link to the report on Maynerd Most - verified in every particular.

Remember Maynerd Most? The guy doing the MOSSAD Happy Dance on 9-11 along with the moving guys on top of a truck who were watching the WTC burn? Remember Maynerd Most and Alvin Wiley? The guys who have devoted their lives to flaming and libelling Cassiopaea? And all we ever did was decline to be taken over by them.

That says it all.

Coming back now to DBS and his operations in France.

We notice that DBS uses the title: "The French Connection" .

Have a look here for the notice on my French Connection pages which were begun on March 8, 2003.

Now, obviously, I can't talk about The French Connection (mine, not DBS') for very particular reasons. But, even though I can't reveal certain details, I'm going to tell a little story that I hope will enable the reader to "read between the lines." Also, refer again to what I wrote above about drugs and human trafficking and governments and you'll have some idea of some of the forces behind the fact that I can't talk about what was there. These same forces are probably behind the events I am going to recount.

Some background: Recently a reader sent me an item that was posted on Montalk's forum:

Signs of the Times wrote:

Comment: Yes, it HAS been a "good year" for the American People, but not in the way Bush is describing it. It's been good because I.Scooter Libby was indicted, possibly leading to more indictments next year; Abramoff is getting ready to sing his lungs out, possibly leading to more indictments of Bush cronies; the Patriot Act was NOT made permanent; Bush crony, Harriet Meiers didn't become a Supreme Court judge; Bush and his Gang have been exposed as vile torturers, and breakers of the Law of the Land, and the possibility of Impeachment is looming on the horizon for next year. Yes, indeedy, it's been a good year for the American People, but a veritable annus horribilis for Bush. Let's make a New Year's wish for Bush: May you get everything you deserve in the coming New Year!

Montalk forum writer:

This was the lead comment on the C's Signs of the Times page (http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/signs.htm). Unusually positive outlook from them. I wonder if they are engaged in a bit of the wishful thinking they are usually so disdainful of. Sure, when you put it the way they just did, this was a great year for us and a bad year for TPTB, or at least Bush. Could it have been orchestrated to only look bad for him, or are the forces of goodness and STO-ness actually winning?

Perhaps these minor victories have been handed to us only to give us a false sense of victory, in turn breeding complacency? I find it hard to believe that any real positive change could be underway re: Bush. Perhaps TPTB are tiring of him, or lulling us into false hope before the next major "event." But it does seem odd that the group that is always so quick to warn of the dangers of good news is celebrating; perhaps someone is pulling their strings also, or always was.

For those who don't know, Montalk is a young kid who used to be a member of QFG. There was a parting of the ways between him and QFG during the awful summer of 2003 when the events were transpiring that I was writing about in the French Connection. At that time, QFG discovered that Montalk had a number of articles on his site that advocated keeping guns, storing food, joining militias, and hanging out with some pretty fringe characters who are undoubtedly "vacuum cleaner" operations.

Even though these were "old articles" and modified by additional commentary, based on what was happening "on the ground", so to say, in France, we could see that this was a disaster waiting to happen. At that very moment, due to the actions of Vincent Bridges and Jay Weidner in concert with Jeff Rense, Ark and I and the Signs Team were being harassed by a strange group of individuals in France who had some close connections to the French Gendarmerie which was under the control of Nicolas Sarkozy, a close friend of Netanyahu. (Yes, we have enemies in very high places; why do you think so much energy is concentrated on attacking, defaming, slandering, and even physically threatening us?) And so, we relied on the idea that, if we ASKED him to remove those articles, or to publicly distance himself from those ideas, for our safety, and to trust us that we weren't just being paranoid here, he would do so and we could pass through this danger and talk about it later. But he neither trusted our assessment of the situation, nor was he willing to act in favor of our safety.

Certainly, what Montalk had written on his website was pretty "ordinary" in the U.S. Recently Montalk defended his writing by pointing out that it

goes entirely along with law and encourages the involvement of government, as well as seeks reduction in handguns which so many gangsters and thugs like to use. It encourages responsibility among citizens and alleviates some burden off law enforcement and the military, much like the system in Switzerland. Now, how would this attract attention from three-letter federal agencies as the Cass team claims? How would this advocate the stockpiling of weapons for a physical revolution? It wouldn't...the article is a peaceful solution to the gun issue.

Guns are a last resort, but not one to be dismissed...

Frankly, despite Montalks protestations, I don't think that the above should be considered a "safe" thing to write on one's website in any country considering the state of the world and the Bush Reich's "war on terror." The reader might want to go and read this essay, and then go back and read "How To Spot a Spy" that I have transcribed above and draw some conclusions of their own. I think that any individual who is concerned about possibly being put on a list to be spied on or picked up and tossed in a gitmo camp should stay away from ANY website that even hints that it supports armed insurrection. It may be "technically legal," but then, the folks at Waco were technically legal also. After Rick Ross did his "they're a dangerous cult" rant to the authorities, nobody cared about legal technicalities: they were all burned to a crisp.

More than that, Montalk completely ignored the exact terms of what we were saying to him: that we were being set up, we could see it, and rational thinking has no bearing on a set-up. Set-ups rely on "knee-jerk" reactions being set off by false claims and taking things out of context. That's a historical fact, and those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Being associated with Montalk and his militia/gun-toting ideas - while living in France where what he was calling "reasonable" ideas are NOT acceptable - at that point would have gotten us thrown out of France in a heartbeat! Or worse, accused of being a cult with designs on the safety of God knows who, surrounded and burned out. Notice Montalks reference to "three letter agencies," as if that was the main thing we were worried about. That is completely disingenuous because of what I wrote to him at the time which included:

I am not sure you realize how all of the recent exchanges have affected us here. I'm not even sure that you understand what danger you have put all of us in. You don't have children, and it is not automatic for you to think of the consequences of actions, associations, and so on - and how it might affect everyone you love.

Well, I DO think about it all the time - not just for our family here - but for the group at large.

At this moment, it begins to look like an array of "set-ups" all the way around us, all designed to define us as a "dangerous cult." ...

At the present moment, in fact, right after the Rense article/show - someone (we don't know who) filed a complaint against us for doing "psychological damage" to them - that we are a "dangerous cult."

At any event, French intell is RIGHT NOW investigating ALL OUR CONNECTIONS. And you can bet that they will be reading everything on YOUR site also....

The fact it, Montalk had a lot more information about the situation than he has revealed on his website to date. The urgency of the matter - to take action right now - was completely lost on Montalk. He delayed, fiddled around, and wrote endless emails arguing his right to say "reasonable things" on his own website, and endlessly debating whether we might be mis-reading the situation, and maybe we were wrong, and so on and so forth. Meanwhile, days were passing and the danger was growing. Either he didn't get it, or he got it all too well and all this was just "delaying tactics." Things were happening so fast that I couldn't even write fast enough to keep up with them. More than that, there were things we could not write about without putting ourselves in greater danger. In more recent times, he has written about the matter as follows:

This article was just an idea I came up with while researching the subject for a literature class. In the way it's written, it would be benign even in the eyes of federal agencies who may instead nod at its advocacy of responsibility. The only thing the Cass team is threatened by is the illusion they created by taking selected parts out of context and ignoring the rest.

As it turned out, we were right and Montalk was wrong. Those are the facts on the ground. It was no illusion, and we pointed out from the beginning that anything that COULD be taken out of context would be, and that was the point.

Indeed, the situation grew and escalated and Ark and I were eventually summoned for interrogations. We were photographed and fingerprinted. I was ill at the time, but that didn't make any difference: the interrogation lasted almost four hours. Among the prepared questions (I was allowed to see the questions exactly one hour before they were addressed to me on the record), was the loaded one: "What is your relationship or association with the internet character known as Montalk and his ideas?"

Yup. There it was. The question that, had we answered that he was a friend and member of our group, considering his "advocacy of armed insurrection" and having guns in the closet, would have led - at the very least - to an assessment by the French government that we were potential threats to the public order.

Now, as it happened, prior to this interrogation, several other things were going on in relation to the growing threat that Montalk did not know about. Z*** was an individual who showed up on our doorstep in France (at exactly the same time) with the stated intention of "protecting" me from the many dangers he assured me were "out there" waiting to "take me out." His ideas included arming ourselves to the teeth and creating some kind of heirarchical structure where the only people who had access to me were ones vetted by - who else? - Z***! He claimed to be ex-special forces, trained in all kinds of high-falutin' martial arts and whatnot. When I politely, but firmly, refused his offers of "personal security," he left, stealing a number of things from our house before he went. I suspect that he took these items to turn them over to his Voodoo masters so they could try to make big, ugly ju-ju against me. (Sorry guys, doesn't work on me.) So, we had Weidner, Bridges (and Rense by default) broadcasting widely that we were a dangerous cult holed up in the French countryside, an association with a website that advocated guns and armed insurrection, had published a checklist to "Spot the OP," (xenophobia), and a guy on our doorstep with military connections and undoubted connections to some real cult action. (We never did find out much more about him in this respect to any degree of certainty because we sent him packing.) Meanwhile, a formal complaint that we were a cult had been filed in France, and our applications for permanent residence were an open case which included thorough background investigations by French Intell agencies.

What a set up!

We decided to consult the C's about this. The C's pointed out the fact that a trap was being laid, and something needed to be done immediately.

Of course, as described, we first gave the opportunity to Montalk to create the needed distance himself. As a member of the QFG, he was told what the danger was, was asked to do what was necessary to distance QFG from perceived association with radical, revolutionary, and even violent philosophies. We explained that it didn't matter that what he was writing was legal and acceptable in the U.S., or that he had written commentary that encouraged "government involvement" and "reduction" in handguns. What mattered was the environment WE were in, and observing history and how other groups had been similarly set up and the fact that, at that moment, we were being thoroughly investigated and even a whiff of anything "off" would be fatal.

Ark and I - and several other QFG members - wrote to him explicitly that these associations were dangerous to QFG and its entirely peaceful, philosophical aims, under the circumstances that prevailed at the time, and to please distance himself from those groups and ideas for the sake of the safety of all. He just couldn't bring himself to do it. It was easier to accuse us of being "threatened by .. the illusion they created by taking selected parts out of context and ignoring the rest."

We weren't taking anything out of context, we were taking everything IN context, in the context of historical precedent and a realistic evaluation of the clues in the environment.

It was exactly the same dynamic as it was with Vincent Bridges. He was into the Nazi black magic stuff while Ark and I and the nascent QFG were being attacked by agents of the ADL about those issues back in the summer of 2001, and when we spoke to him explicitly asking him to publicly distance himself from that nonsense for the sake of the safety of QFG, he refused. We then had to take steps of our own to make it clear to our readers that we in no way supported or subscribed to such ideas.

It seems that in both cases, Montalk and Bridges were so "identified" with their ideas, with their formulations of reality, that criticism of those formulas was taken as criticism of themselves. They don't even have to be conscious to be agents.

On the other hand, maybe they aren't so "identified" and ARE conscious of what they are doing?

We can't say.

I can say that now, after having read the little booklet on How To Spot a Spy that I have reproduced above that both of them fit the criteria for COINTELPRO agents provocateur. Can't you just see it? QFG is already accused of being a Cult by the Bridges/Weidner/Ross/Zionist disinfo campaign and what happens to cults with guns? Think Waco. We did due to the following C's session (mentioned above):

August 17, 2003

Q: (L) So what was Z**'s agenda?

A: You figured that one out.

Q: (J) Yeah he wanted to "cultify" us.

A: All of these many activities stem from the same "urge." Think about Waco and guns. Put that together with [Montalk] and his guns and you and the charge of "cult."

Q: (L) He could get us killed!

A: Stop and think about the possibility that your work was known in advance and all the preparations were made in advance to make the charge of cult mean what it does today.

Group laughter and shock at concept.

Q: (L) Was it done via time travel?

A: Not necessary. "Mass dreams of the future" anyone?

Q: (L) That's a book where people get progressed into the future and see the future. It's kind of like time travel in your head. (JH) Is that sort of like remote viewing?

A: Oh indeed!

Q: (L) So they can see the future, which has something to do with the Montauk project. And they obviously sought to do something about the future by adjusting the present, in a way. Hmmm... Montauk, Montalk... it even has a signature for anyone who cares to see it! (JH) Do the guys in the Aviary have anything to do with it?

A: You would not believe how many are involved. Many innocently of course.

It is an experiential fact that because Montalk refused to disassociate from his armed encampment ideas, QFG was placed in a very dangerous situation, especially when you include the concurrent activites of Bridges, Weidner, Rense, and then Z*** added to the local "elements" with Zionist connections. A simple request for him to publicly distance himself from those kinds of activities was met with stubborn refusal and QFG was obliged to take action to protect our lives, our liberty, and our work. It was that simple.

Now, was this a case of just Montalk's ego? In the case of Bridges and his Enochian Nazi Magick shtick, was it just his ego and his firm belief in that nonsense? Or was it something deeper?

In any event, we prefer to make it clear that we do NOT promote "revolution" or violence of any kind as the answer to the world's problems. In more recent times, Montalk has engaged in further self justification as follows:

Guns are a last resort, but not one to be dismissed...look at Nazi germany which was disarmed before the Nazis assumed control and thus left the Jews unable to resist, and look at Iraq which the Cass team cheers on for resisting the American occupation with guns and bombs. It's hypocrisy for the Cass team to both dismiss the idea of guns and simultaneously cheer their use in Iraq because America could be no different in the future. It's better to have these available and decide not to use them, than have them banned before they're needed. And if legalized, they should be used responsibly as I wrote in the article.

I think it is going way off the deep end to suggest that Signs of The Times "cheers" the use of guns in Iraq. We abhor violence of any kind. Repeatedly, readers write to us asking what to DO, and our answer is always and ever non-violent solutions. Note also that Montalk says above that he expects America to be engaged in armed violence in the future. Again I would warn anyone who does not wish to be placed on a list of people to be surveilled and/or removed to places like Gitmo, to NOT associate with any groups that promote such ideas. They are "vacuum cleaner" operations, collecting names and data for future use. It's that simple. As for QFG and its non-violent philosophies, we reiterate: Our personal safety depends on our position being made clear to the very real forces we must deal with on a daily basis. Perhaps Montalk doesn't have to worry about such forces?

In the final analysis, we can't say for sure that Montalk is COINTELPRO even if the indications suggest it. What we can say is that he is definitely not someone you would want to have to rely on in a difficult situation. But, people like Montalk and Bridges are useful in another way made clear in the following story:

A man and his dog were walking along a road. The man was enjoying the scenery, when it suddenly occurred to him that he was dead. He remembered dying, and that the dog walking beside him had been dead for years. He wondered where the road was leading them.

After a while, they came to a high, white stone wall along one side of the road. It looked like fine marble. At the top of a long hill, it was broken by a tall arch that glowed in the sunlight.

When he was standing before it he saw a magnificent gate in the arch that looked like mother-of-pearl, and the street that led to the gate looked like pure gold. He and the dog walked toward the gate, and as he got closer, he saw a man at a desk to one side.

When he was close enough, he called out, "Excuse me, where are we?"

"This is Heaven, sir," the man answered.

"Wow! Would you happen to have some water?" the man asked.

"Of course, sir. Come right in, and I'll have some ice water brought right up." The man gestured, and the gate began to open.

"Can my friend," gesturing toward his dog, "come in, too?" the traveler asked.

"I'm sorry, sir, but we don't accept pets."

The man thought a moment and then turned back toward the road and continued the way he had been going with his dog.

After another long walk, and at the top of another long hill, he came to a dirt road leading through a farm gate that looked as if it had never been closed. There was no fence. As he approached the gate, he saw a man inside, leaning against a tree and reading a book.

"Excuse me!" he called to the man.

"Do you have any water?"

"Yeah, sure, there's a pump over there, come on in."

"How about my friend here?" the traveler gestured to the dog.

"There should be a bowl by the pump."

They went through the gate, and sure enough, there was an old-fashioned hand pump with a bowl beside it.

The traveler filled the water bowl and took a long drink himself, and then he gave some to the dog. When they were full, he and the dog walked back toward the man who was standing by the tree.

"What do you call this place?" the traveler asked.

"This is Heaven," he answered.

"Well, that's confusing," the traveler said. "The man down the road said that was Heaven, too."

"Oh, you mean the place with the gold street and pearly gates? Nope. That's hell."

"Doesn't it make you mad for them to use your name like that?"

"No, we're just happy that they screen out the folks who would leave their best friends behind."

So, coming back to Daryl Bradford Smith, there are all these funny confluences, combined with DBS' ignorant rant about anybody who talks about UFOs ought not to be in the 9/11 "research" field, and it has just set the warning bells ringing like mad in my head.

What also made me wonder was him coming out with his rant about disinformation artists at the precise time he did. Now, yeah, I've been writing about this for quite some time - having been victimized by it directly and in front of thousands of witnesses. But again, let me point out that it was only AFTER I started writing about it in the way I did, that quite a few other folks "got on the bandwagon." It was only shortly after I mentioned in an article a while back that Rense never gets defamed or attacked that he suddenly started coming up with "the Jews are attacking me" nonsense and "Rense is on the gov list of disinformation sites". Reading his so-called "attack" descriptions tells me that he hasn't got a clue about what kinds of things they can do. Seems rather like damage control to me. Especially when you consider his relationship with Zionist, Henry Winkler. It's all show.

So, more and more I'm beginning to think that DBS is just set up to go after Rense as his own "personal attacker." In this way, it will actually garner sympathy for Rense. DBS is just a "useful idiot" and expendable.

In short, I think that Daryl Bradford Smith is a tar baby. His "attacks" on Rense are just smoke and mirrors. Too many coincidentally "connected" things here. Call me paranoid if you like, but after more than 6 years of this kind of thing, experiencing it, observing it, experimenting and watching reactions, I'm getting pretty good at spotting it. And spotting it is crucial if you want to survive.

I learned a lot from Vinnie and Jay. Thanks, guys.

ORIGINAL
Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: The Zarqawi Show - A Pantomime For Children Of All Ages

Joe Quinn
Signs of the Times
09/06/2006

Bush has the gall to "hail" the killing of Zarqawi while simultaneously asserting that nothing will change in Iraq. We are repeatedly told that Zarqawi was the "mastermind of sectarian attacks in Iraq", but now that he is dead, absolutely nothing will change, the attacks will continue.

Bush states all of this with the surity of a man that knows exactly who is carrying out the attacks in Iraq and that he can count on them to continue.

Do not, even for one second, be foolish enough to think that the timing of Zarqawi's death was anything but a carefully planned operation designed to force the American people to find new faith in the righteousness of the war on non-existent Islamic terror, and thereby prop up the failed state that is America under the Bush administration.

The official file on Zarqawi, whose real name was Ahmad Fadil al-Khalayleh, tells us that he was born in Jordan. Barely literate, he became a petty criminal until the call to arms came with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. After his time in the terror training camps of Afghanistan Zarqawi returned to his home with a radical Islamist agenda. The intersting part of his file, the part that is generally omitted from such reports, is that the training camps in Afghanistan before and during the soviet invasion of that country that Zarqawi attended, were funded and run by the CIA, making Zarqawi and others like him, assets of the US government.

Consider the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser, in an interview in the 15-21 January 1998 edition of Le Nouvel Observateur

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

B: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?

B: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter. We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.


Zarqawi was on the CIA's books for over twenty years and when the Neocons came to power in 2000, they immediately went about the task of gathering together a group of likely fundamentlist Islamic patsies to take the rap for the Neocon's planned war on fake Islamic terrorism.

On Wednesday morning at 6am, a U.S. airforce F-16 dropped two 500lb bombs on a single isolated safehouse outside the city of Baqubah, 30 miles northwest of Baghdad, where, we are told, Zarqawi was staying with 5 comrades. In doing so, the NeoCons sacrificed a valuable 'Islamic terrorist' bogeyman. That is not to say, however, that Zarqawi was actually in that "safe house".

As Craig Unger reported in his Vanity Fair article yesterday, during the 70's and 80's, Neocons like Michael Ledeen made something of an artform out of inventing stories of Communist threats to America. In our 'New American Century', these skills of the Neocons are being put to use in inventing equally bogus stories about Islamic terrorism. In Zarqawi, we had a creation of people like Michael Ledeen. As such, there is no reason to believe that Zarqawi was actually in that "safe house", or that he has been in Iraq in recent years.

Have you ever seen the effects of a 500lb bomb? Have you ever seen the effects of two? Generally, such bombs will obliterate everything in the immediate vicinity leaving a large crater at the site of the bombing and cause extensive damage over a wide area. Take the opportunity to watch the video on CNN of the bombing. Notice the extent of the massive explosion.

Now look at the below image of the house before it was bombed:


Realise that after these bombs, absolutely no trace of this house would be left.

Indeed, here is an image of what was left of the house:


Now look at the below image of Zarqawi who, we are told, was in the house at the time these two massive pieces of ordenance were dropped, essentially on his head:



An abrasion on his cheek and a cut on his forehead and above his left eye. All of which leads us to conclude that either 'al-Zarqawi' really was a super human Islamic terrorist or someone in the US government thinks we are all very, very stupid.
Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: The Cult of the Plausible Lie

Laura Knight-Jadczyk

"Never ascribe to malice those things which may be explained by stupidity." That is an important phrase, and a necessary one; it keeps people from being paranoid. However, it has a corollary most people don't know: "One MAY ascribe to malice those things which stupidity cannot explain."

Robert Canup

As the mail continues to come in on the COINTELPRO issue, a number of questions have been raised - mainly about how to tell the difference between Truth and Lies - and I thought I would take some time this morning to try to cover a few aspects of this issue.

I've covered many aspects of this issue here and there on our websites, but since google manages to ensure that we are suppressed on search results, many people have not yet discovered these collections of observation, evidence, and supporting material. (Regarding google, we have been collecting data and making experiments for over a year now and will soon publish some of the results, but don't expect to them to be trumpeted by google!)

The primary problem that I see humanity struggling with today is precisely delineated by psychologist Andrew Lobaczewski: it is an almost total lack of adequate psychological knowledge on the part of the masses of humanity - the population of ordinary, normal people.

Ever since ancient times, philosophers and religious thinkers representing various attitudes in different cultures have been searching for the truth as regards moral values, attempting to find criteria for what is right, what constitutes good advice. They described the virtues of human character and suggested these be acquired. They created a heritage … which contains centuries of experience and reflections. In spite of the obvious differences among attitudes, the similarity or complementarity of the conclusions reached by famous ancients are striking, even though they worked in widely divergent times and places. After all, whatever is valuable is conditioned and caused by the laws of nature acting upon the personalities of both individual human beings and collective societies.

It is equally thought-provoking, however, to see how relatively little has been said about the opposite side of the coin; the nature, causes, and genesis of evil. These matters are usually cloaked behind the above generalized conclusions with a certain amount of secrecy. Such a state of affairs can be partially ascribed to the social conditions and historical circumstances under which these thinkers worked. Their modus operandi may have been dictated at least in part by personal fate, inherited traditions, or even prudishness. After all, justice and virtue are the opposites of force and perversity, the same applies to truthfulness vs. lies, similarly like health is the opposite of an illness.

The character and genesis of evil thus remained hidden in discreet shadows, leaving it to playwrights to deal with the subject in their highly expressive language, but that did not reach the primeval source of the phenomena. A certain cognitive space thus remains uninvestigated, a thicket of moral questions which resists understanding and philosophical generalizations. […]

From time immemorial, man has dreamed of a life in which his efforts to accumulate benefits can be punctuated by rest during which time he enjoys those benefits. He learned how to domesticate animals in order to accumulate more benefits, and when that no longer met his needs, he learned to enslave other human beings simply because he was more powerful and could do it.

Dreams of a happy life of “more accumulated benefits” to be enjoyed, and more leisure time in which to enjoy them, thus gave rise to force over others, a force which depraves the mind of its user. That is why man’s dreams of happiness have not come true throughout history: the hedonistic view of “happiness” contains the seeds of misery. Hedonism, the pursuit of the accumulation of benefits for the sole purpose of self-enjoyment, feeds the eternal cycle where good times lead to bad times.

During good times, people lose sight of the need for thinking, introspection, knowledge of others, and an understanding of life. When things are “good,” people ask themselves whether it is worth it to ponder human nature and flaws in the personality (one’s own, or that of another). In good times, entire generations can grow up with no understanding of the creative meaning of suffering since they have never experienced it themselves. When all the joys of life are there for the taking, mental effort to understand science and the laws of nature - to acquire knowledge that may not be directly related to accumulating stuff - seems like pointless labor. Being “healthy minded,” and positive - a good sport with never a discouraging word - is seen as a good thing, and anyone who predicts dire consequences as the result of such insouciance is labeled a wet-blanket or a killjoy.

Perception of the truth about reality, especially a real understanding of human nature in all it’s ranges and permutations, ceases to be a virtue to be acquired. Thoughtful doubters are “meddlers” who can’t leave well enough alone. “Don’t fix it if it ain’t broke.” This attitude leads to an impoverishment of psychological knowledge including the capacity to differentiate the properties of human nature and personality, and the ability to mold healthy minds creatively.

The cult of power thus supplants the mental and moral values so essential for maintaining peace by peaceful means. A nation’s enrichment or involution as regards its psychological world-view could be considered an indicator of whether its future be good or bad.

During good times, the search for the meaning of life, the truth of our reality, becomes uncomfortable because it reveals inconvenient factors. Unconscious elimination of data which are, or appear to be, inexpedient, begins to be habitual, a custom accepted by entire societies. The result is that any thought processes based on such truncated information cannot bring correct conclusions. This then leads to substitution of convenient lies to the self to replace uncomfortable truths thereby approaching the boundaries of phenomena which should be viewed as psychopathological. [...]

When bad times arrive and people are overwhelmed by an excess of evil, they must gather all their physical and mental strength to fight for existence and protect human reason. The search for some way out of difficulties and dangers rekindles long-buried powers or discretion. Such people have the initial tendency to rely on force in order to counteract the threat; they may, for instance, become “trigger happy” or dependent upon armies. Slowly and laboriously, however, they discover the advantages conferred by mental effort; improved understanding of psychological situations in particular, better differentiation of human characters and personalities, and finally, comprehension of one’s adversaries. During such times, virtues which former generations relegated to literary motifs regain their real and useful substance and become prized for their value. A wise person capable of furnishing sound advice is highly respected.

It seems that there have been many such “bad times” in the course of human history, and it was during such times that the great systems of ethics were developed. Unfortunately, during “good times,” nobody wants to hear about it. They want to “enjoy” things, to have pleasure and pleasant experiences, and so any literature that relates to such times is lost, forgotten, suppressed, or otherwise ignored. This leads to further debasing of the intellectual currency and opens the gap for bad times to come once again. [Andrew Lobaczewski, Ph.D. Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes]

The facts are that “good times” for one group of people have been historically rooted in some injustice to other groups of people. In such a society, where all the hidden truths lurk below the surface like an iceberg, disaster is just around the corner.

It is clear that America has experienced a long period of “good times” for most of its existence, (no matter how many people they had to oppress or kill to do so), but particularly so during the 50 years preceding September 11, 2001. During that 50 years, several generations of children were born, and the ones that were born at the beginning of that time, who have never known “bad times,” are now at an age where they want to “enjoy” the benefits they have accumulated. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like that is going to happen; 9/11 has changed everything so profoundly that it looks like there will be no enjoyment by anyone for a very, very long time.

How could this happen?

The answer is that a few generation’s worth of “good times” results in the above described societal deficits regarding psychological skills and moral criticism. Long periods of preoccupation with the self and “accumulating benefits” for the self, diminish the ability to accurately read the environment and other people. But the situation is more serious than just a generalized weakness of a society that could be “toughened up” with a little “hard times”.

Lobaczewski writes: The psychological features of each such crisis are unique to the culture and the time, but one common denominator that exists at the beginning of all such “bad times” is an exacerbation of society’s hysterical condition. The emotionalism dominating in individual, collective, and political life, combined with the subconscious selection and substitution of data in reasoning, lead to individual and national egotism. The mania for taking offense at the drop of a hat provokes constant retaliation, taking advantage of hyperirritability and hypocriticality on the part of others. It is this feature, this hystericization of society, that enables pathological plotters, snake charmers, and other primitive deviants to act as essential factors in the processes of the origination of evil on a macro-social scale. [Andrew Lobaczewski, Ph.D. Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes]

We can conjecture that if one psychologist knows the above, a few others must know it as well. And maybe some of them work for the government that has taken such advantage of 911? If we think about it, it becomes quite logical that, if they know these things then they may very wll have been complicit in 911 for the very purpose of "exacerbating society's hysterical condition." As Lobaczewski notes, it is the hysterization of society that enables pathological plotters to basically take over.

Who, exactly, are the “pathological plotters,” and what can motivate such individuals during times that are generally understood by others as “good” to do things that will bring on "bad times." If times are “good,” why does anyone want to plot and generate evil? Especially since it is obvious to anyone with two neurons firing that such activity will (and has historically) lead to the destruction of the plotters themselves?

Well, certainly, the current US administration has come up with an answer: “They hate us because of our freedoms.” This is a prime example of “selection and substitution of data in reasoning” which is willingly and gladly accepted as an explanation by the public because of their deficits of psychological skills and moral criticism. The truth is somewhat different.

Unfortunately, after so long a time of being subjected to lies and disinformation, the likelihood of society being able to overcome the social and cultural programming is difficult, but not impossible. And that is where things like COINTELPRO come into play: psyops agents are masters of triggering emotional programs that put people back to sleep. As a student on the subject, Robert Canup, has said, 99% of all of the problems confronting mankind can be traced to a single cause: the problem of the plausible lie. And the plausible lie is what COINTELPRO is all about.

Plausible lies are monstrous things propagated by evil people for the express purpose of deceiving good people into doing the will of those who do not have their best interests at heart. It's that simple. The most powerful of these lies are so plausible that nobody even dreams about questioning their validity. Allow me to quote Richard Dolan on this point:

Some will dismiss this as one of the many conspiracy theories dotting America's landscape. The very label serves as an automatic dismissal, as though no one ever acts in secret. Let us bring some perspective and common sense to this issue.

The United States comprises large organizations - corporations, bureaucracies, "interest groups," and the like - which are conspiratorial by nature. That is, they are hierarchical, their important decisions are made in secret by a few key decision-makers, and they are not above lying about their activities. Such is the nature of organizational behavior. "Conspiracy," in this key sense, is a way of life around the globe.

Within the world's military and intelligence apparatuses, this tendency is magnified to the greatest extreme. [...]

Anyone who has lived in a repressive society knows that official manipulation of the truth occurs daily. But societies have their many and their few. In all times and all places, it is the few who rule, and the few who exert dominant influence over what we may call official culture. - All elites take care to manipulate public information to maintain existing structures of power. It's an old game.

America is nominally a republic and free society, but in reality an empire and oligarchy, vaguely aware of its own oppression, within and without. I have used the term "national security state" to describe its structures of power. It is a convenient way to express the military and intelligence communities, as well as the worlds that feed upon them, such as defense contractors and other underground, nebulous entities. Its fundamental traits are secrecy, wealth, independence, power, and duplicity.

Nearly everything of significance undertaken by America's military and intelligence community in the past half-century has occured in secrecy. The undertaking to build an atomic weapon, better known as the Manhattan Project, remains the great model for all subsequent activities. For more than two years, not a single member of Congress even knew about it although its final cost exceeded two billion dollars.

During and after the Second World War, other important projects, such as the development of biological weapons, the importation of Nazi scientists, terminal mind-control experiments, nationwide interception of mail and cable transmissions of an unwitting populace, infiltration of the media and universities, secret coups, secret wars, and assassinations all took place far removed not only from the American public, but from most members of Congress and a few presidents. Indeed, several of the most powerful intelligence agencies were themselves established in secrecy, unknown by the public or Congress for many years.

Since the 1940s, the US Defense and Intelligence establishment has had more money at its disposal than most nations. In addition to official dollars, much of the money is undocumented. From its beginning, the CIA was engaged in a variety of off-the-record "business" activities that generated large sums of cash. The connections of the CIA with global organized crime (and thus de facto with the international narcotics trade) has been well established and documented for many years. - Much of the original money to run the American intelligence community came from very wealthy and established American families, who have long maintained an interest in funding national security operations important to their interests.

In theory, civilian oversight exists over the US national security establishment. The president is the military commander-in-chief. Congress has official oversight over the CIA. The FBI must answer to the Justice Department. In practice, little of this applies. One reason has to do with secrecy. [...]

A chilling example of such independence occurred during the 1950s, when President Eisenhower effectively lost control of the US nuclear arsenal. The situation deteriorated so much that during his final two years in office, Eisenhower asked repeatedly for an audience with the head of Strategic Air Command to learn what America's nuclear retaliatory plan was. What he finally learned in 1960, his final year in office, horrified him: half of the Northern Hemisphere would be obliterated.

If a revered military hero such as Eisenhower could not control America's nuclear arsenal, nor get a straight answer from the Pentagon, how on earth could Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, or Nixon regarding comparable matters?

Secrecy, weath and independence add up to power. Through the years, the national security state has gained access to the world's most sophisticated technology, sealed off millions of acres of land from public access or scrutiny, acquired unlimited snooping ability with US borders and beyond, conducted overt or clandestine actions against other nations, and prosecuted wars without serious media scrutiny. Domestically, it maintains influence over elected officials and communities hoping for some of the billions of defense dollars.

Deception is the key element of warfare, and when winning is all that matters, the conventional morality held by ordinary people becomes an impediment. When taken together, the examples of official duplicity form a nearly single totality. They include such choice morsels as the phony war crisis of 1948, the fabricated missile gap claimed by the air force during the 1950s, the carefully managed events leading to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution...

The secrecy stems from a pervasive and fundamental element of life in our world, that those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo.

[S]keptics often ask, "Do you really think the government could hide something like this for so long?" The question itself reflects ignorance of the reality that secrecy is a way of life in the National Security State. Actually though, the answer is yes, and no.

Yes, in that cover-ups are standard operating procedure, frequently unknown to the public for decades, becoming public knowledge by a mere roll of the dice. But also no, in that ... information has leaked out from the very beginning. It is impossible to shut the lid completely. The key lies in neutralizing and discrediting unwelcomed information, sometimes through official denial, other times through proxies in the media.

[E]vidence [of the true nature of the nature of National Security State and how it really operates] derived from a grass roots level is unlikely to survive its inevitable conflict with official culture, [created by COINTELPRO]. [Richard Dolan, UFOs and the National Security State]

Now, even though I know I am little more than a David against the Goliath of the well-funded arms of the National Security State, such as the many diverse and often contradictory sources of information and disinformation, including the mainstream media, many alternative media sources, so-called "Truth seeking groups" of all kinds, so-called New Age and Alternative writers and Impresarios of all shapes and sizes, (most of whom are COINTELPRO bogus organizations), I will continue to point out what can be observed if your eyes are open and your neurons are firing, and what can be asserted with some certainty based on collections of evidence, both material and circumstantial. Having said that, let me ask this: If there is such a thing as a plausible lie, is it not also possible that there might be such a thing as an implausible truth?

Using Canup's example: Suppose that tomorrow when you walk out of your house, an alien spacecraft lands in front of you. Aliens get out and assault you, leaving physical traces. Next, imagine that this is not a hallucination, it is not dream; it really happens. You are now in possession of an implausible truth. What chance is there of you being able to convince anyone else of what happened to you? You know it is the truth, but no one will believe you. And the root of the problem is the fact that truth generally has a feeling of reality to it. However, that feeling of reality which makes truth generally plausible is NOT the same thing as the truth itself. Others who have not experienced aliens landing and assaulting them do not have the same feeling of reality about what you are telling them. If everyone else had experienced a similar event, with the attendant feeling of reality, the truth of that event would be accepted immediately.

In short, people believe what is "familiar," or what is part of a careful, long term program of familiarization of lies that become plausible simply because they are familiar.

When science first discoverd that solid matter was mostly empty space, many people reacted to this truth - this unfamiliar fact of our reality - with outrage. Debates over the "solidity" of matter and "kicking rocks" raged for years. It took a very long time, and a lot of work to gradually make others aware of this truth in order to make this "implausible" fact part of our awareness.

Learning about evil in our society, how it operates on the macro-social scale, is considered by many to be "unpleasant." They don't want to go there. It is too disturbing and even frightening. More than that, talking about these things as I am here is not familiar. To talk about evil as though it were a REAL concept is something we have been programmed to NOT do! As psychologist George Simon says:

…[W]e’ve been pre-programmed to believe that people only exhibit problem behaviors when they’re “troubled” inside or anxious about something. We’ve also been taught that people aggress only when they’re attacked in some way. So, even when our gut tells us that somebody is attacking us and for no good reason, we don’t readily accept the notion. We usually start to wonder what’s bothering the person so badly “underneath it all” that’s making them act in such a disturbing way. We may even wonder what we may have said or done that “threatened” them. We almost never think that they might be fighting simply to get something, have their way, or gain the upper hand. So, instead of seeing them as merely fighting, we view them as primarily hurting in some way. [...]

The legacy of Sigmund Freud’s work has a lot to do with this. Freud’s theories (and the theories of others who built upon his work) heavily influenced the psychology of personality for a long time. Elements of the classical theories of personality found their way into many disciplines other than psychology as well as into many of our social institutions and enterprises. [...]

The malignant impact of overgeneralizing Freud’s observations about a small group of overly inhibited individuals into a broad set of assumptions about the causes of psychological ill-health in everyone cannot be overstated.[…]

We need a completely different theoretical framework if we are to truly understand, deal with, and treat the kinds of people who fight too much as opposed to those who cower or “run” too much. [George K. Simon, Jr., “In Sheep’s Clothing”]

We clearly need to study this problem of macro-social evil in our world in a systematic and scientific way. And we need to get over the idea that thinking only good thoughts, thinking about happy and "nice" things is the way to good psychological health.

If physicians behaved like ethicists and failed to study diseases because they were only interested in studying questions of health, there would be no such thing as modern medicine. […] Physicians were correct in their emphasis on studying disease above all in order to discover the causes and biological properties of illnesses, and then to understand the pathodynamics of their courses. A comprehension of the nature of a disease, and the course it runs, after all, enables the proper curative means to be elaborated and employed.[…]

The question thus arises: could some analogous modus operandi not be used to study the causes and genesis of other kinds of evil scourging human individuals, families, societies? Experience has taught the author that evil is similar to disease in nature, although possibly more complex and elusive to our understanding. [...]

Considerable moral, intellectual, and practical advantages can be gleaned from an understanding of the genesis of Evil thanks to the objectivity required to study it dispassionately. The human heritage of ethics is not destroyed by taking such an approach: it is actually strengthened because the scientific method can be utilized to confirm the basic values of moral teachings.

Understanding the nature of macro-social pathology helps us to find a healthy attitude and thus protects our minds from being controlled or poisoned by the diseased contents and influence of their propaganda.

We can only conquer this huge, contagious social cancer if we comprehend its essence and its etiological causes.

Such an understanding of the nature of the phenomena leads to the logical conclusion that the measures for healing and reordering the world today should be completely different from the ones heretofore used for solving international conflicts. It is also true that, merely having the knowledge and awareness of the phenomena of the genesis of macro-social Evil can begin healing individual humans and help their minds regain harmony. [Andrew Lobaczewski, Ph.D. Political Ponerology: The Science of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes]

Now, let me recommend new readers to take a look at my post on “How to Spot a COINTELPRO Agent.” Keep in mind that the booklet I am quoting from there was compiled by activists from earlier days that had direct experiences where they were able to see only afterward how they had been duped and sidelined. My grandmother always said: “A smart man learns from his mistakes; a genius learns from the mistakes of others.” In the case of COINTELPRO, some of those activists were smart, but not geniuses. Most of them got “taken out”, and some of them literally had their lives completely destroyed because they were sincere and stubborn. The material in that booklet is priceless today because those who compiled it paid a high price to learn those things. Let's try to be geniuses here.

As Robert Canup writes, we face a particular, even monstrous, problem in our world: that most of what we know or think we know is based on plausible lies. A person who is sincere and speaks the truth really has almost no chance against a plausible liar. Yes, I know that goes against everything we have been taught from childhood in the “Land of the Free and Home of the Brave,” but it is all too sadly true. We have been taught that "the Truth will always win" and that "anybody who believes a lie about you wasn’t your friend to begin with", and a whole host of other platitudes that actually would work in a different world: a world run by people who tell the truth!

But since our world is run by people who lie for a living, you might expect that they have set things up so that liars will always win. And that is, oh so sadly, the case.

“Our culture agrees on the signs of lying. Ask anyone how to tell if someone is lying and they will tell you that they can tell by “lack of eye contact, nervous shifting, or picking at one’s clothes.” Psychologist Anna Salter writes with dry humor: “This perception is so widespread I have had the fantasy that, immediately upon birth, nurses must take newborns and whisper in their ears, “Eye contact. It’s a sign of truthfulness.” [Anna C. Salter, Ph.D.]

The problem is, if there is a psychopath – or those with related characteropathies – who doesn’t know hot to keep good eye contact when lying, they haven’t been born. Eye contact is “universally known” to be a sign of truth-telling. The problem is liars will fake anything that it is possible to fake, so in reality, eye contact is absolutely NOT a sign of truth telling. Anna Salter writes:

The man in front of me is a Southern good-ole-boy, the kind of man I grew up with and like. If anything, I have a weakness for the kind of Southern male who can “Sam Ervin” you, the Southern lawyer who wears red suspenders in court along with twenty-five-year-old cowboy boots and who turns his accent up a notch when he sees the northern expert witness coming. A “northern city slicker” on the witness stand will elicit the same kind of focused interest that a deer will in hunting season. You can have some very long days in court with men who wear red suspenders and start by telling you how smart you are and how simple and dumb they are.

I survey the man in front of me. I am not in court; I am in prison, and he is not an attorney but a sex offender, and he has bright eyes along with that slow, sweet drawl. He is a big man, slightly balding, and he has – I have to admit there is such a thing – an innocent face. …

My Southern good-ole-boy certainly knows eye contact is considered a sign of truthfulness. He describes his manner in getting away with close to 100 rapes of adults and children.

The manner that I use when I was trying to convince somebody – even though I knew I was lying – I’d look them in the eye, but I wouldn’t stare at them. Staring makes people uncomfortable and that tends to turn them away, so I wouldn’t stare at them. But look at them in a manner that, you know, “look at this innocent face. How can you believe that I would do something like that?” It helps if you have a good command of the vocabulary where you can explain yourself in a way that is easily understood. Dress nice. Use fluent hand gestures that are not attacking in any way.

It’s a whole combination of things. It’s not any one thing that you can do. It’s a whole combination of things that your body gestures and things that say “Look, I’m telling you the truth, and I don’t know what these people are trying to pull. I don’t know what they’re trying to prove, but I haven’t done any of this. I don’t know why they’re doing this. You can check my records. I’ve got a good record. I’ve never been in any trouble like this. And I don’t know what’s going on. I’m confused.”…

As if reading my thoughts, he breaks off: “You don’t’ get this, Anna, do you?” he says. “You think that when I’m asked, “Did I do it?’ that’s when I lie. But I’ve been lying every day for the last twenty-five years.”

The practiced liar: a category of liar that even experts find it difficult to detect.

Problem is, even when dealing with people who are not practiced liars, such as college students who have volunteered for a research study of lying, most observers are not as good as they think in detecting deception. The research shows consistently that most people – even most professional groups such as police and psychologists – have no better than a chance ability to detect deception. Flipping a coin would serve as well.

“If you want to deny something, make sure you’ve got an element of truth in it. It sounds like its true, and there are elements of it that are very true that can be checked out, and try to balance it so that it has more truth than lie, so that when it is checked out, even if the lie part does come out, there’s more truth there than lie.”

This man was good enough that once he got away with stomping out of court in a huff. He was accused by his sister of raping her and molesting her daughter on the same day. He played it as a preposterous charge. His sister, he told the court, had once accused his uncle of abuse. She was well known in the family for making up crazy charges like this. He said he wasn’t going to put up with such nonsense and walked out. No one stopped him, and no one ever called him back. The charge just disappeared somehow. He now admits that both charges were true.

It is likeability and charm that he wields as weapons.

The double life is a powerful tactic. There is the pattern of socially responsible behavior in public that causes people to drop their guard, and to turn a deaf ear to disclosures. The ability to charm, to be likeable, to radiate sincerity and truthfulness, is crucial to the successful liar – and they practice assiduously.

“Niceness is a decision,” writes Gavin De Becker in “The Gift of Fear.” It is a “strategy of social interaction; it is not a character trait.”

Despite the decades of research that have demonstrated that people cannot reliably tell whose lying and who isn’t, most people believe they can. There is something so fundamentally threatening about the notion that we cannot really know whether or not to trust someone that it is very difficult to get anyone – clinicians, citizens, even police – to take such results seriously.

I stare at the child’s statement in front of me. It is a report by a social worker of a four-year-old’s account of sexual abuse by her father…. [excerpts of actual report not included; read the book]

I consider the report carefully. It is filled with detail. The words are a child’s words, the description exact. It is clear this child knows what oral sex is. It shows no signs of coaching. But why was this report sent to me with all the personal names and identifying information removed?

This report, I learn, surfaced in the middle of a custody fight. Dad was a wealthy businessman, successful, well respected, and well liked. Mom was an inpatient in a drug unit. My heart sinks. It does not matter how realistic this report is, how many signs of credibility, how few signs of coaching: In our system of justice, lawyers are for sale. Dad’s money is going to buy some very good lawyers indeed. It isn’t clear that Mom has either the money or the will to oppose him. And the child: she’ll be lucky to be represented at all.

I’ve thought many times that if I were accused of a crime, I’d rather have the better lawyer than be innocent.

But it seems that the court responds appropriately and appoints two independent psychologists to make a recommendation. Two independent chances to get it right. Two people who are not beholden to either side and who can ask for any test, even a polygraph, as part of their decision-making. Two people whose job it is to know something about deception and to sort out the true from the false.

But both psychologists opt instead for what is termed and “interactional assessment.” They simply watch the father interact with his daughter, looking for signs of bonding or, conversely, fear. They believe if he abused her, she will be afraid of him; if she loves him, he is innocent. [Anna C. Salter, Ph.D., Predators, Pedophiles, Rapists, and Other Sex Offenders]

There is no research or theory to support this approach. Sex offenders are notorious for bonding with a child and using that relationship to manipulate the child into having sex with them. In addition, a child might be afraid for very different reasons; the man may have struck her mother, but never laid a hand on her, sexually or otherwise. What justification is there for believing that one can tell from the interaction between child and alleged perpetrator whether the abuse has occurred or no?

Anna Salter stood up at a conference to challenge the “interactional assessment” approach and was silenced.

In this child’s case, the alleged perpetrator is her father. Surely she loves him, even if he did what she has disclosed. He has not used violence. She does not know that there is anything wrong with what he is doing. She is four years old.

One of the evaluators notes: “Observations of father and daughter indicate a very happy, spontaneous and positive relationship.”

I sigh. As if that had anything to do with anything. The fact that she loves him doesn’t mean that he’s innocent or guilty. Then I find something in the case file that makes me sit up straight. “Of concern are the admissions by Mr. Jones that earlier in his life he had engaged in sexually inappropriate behavior with three children… These were the children of the woman he was living with at the time.

I stare at the note. This psychologist knew he’d done it before – in identical circumstances. It is a damning admission and surely means the psychologist should take this latest disclosure seriously. But he does not. Mr. Jones, it seems, is too charming, too rich, too respected. Despite knowing he is an admitted child-molester, both psychologists recommend that full custody go to Dad.

And there the story ends – in most cases.

But, in this case, the father’s attorney, so convinced that his client was innocent, sent him to a polygrapher. I know he thought he was innocent because he sent him to a very good polygrapher, not the one to whom an attorney would knowingly send a guilty client. This polygrapher is an unusually good interrogator and has a 98 % confession rate. He tells his clients:

Now the problem with the polygraph is that it can’t tell the difference between a big lie and a little lie and I would hate, I would truly hate for you to mess up your polygraph with something little that don’t amount to a hill of beans. So if there is anything, anything at all that you want to tell me before the polygraph, now’s the time so we can get it out of the way.

Under these instructions, the polygrapher found that Mr. Jones had quite a few things to say:

[I’m not including most of the confessions of this man, just selected and highly edited excerpts.]

They shower together and fondle one another. Sometimes he masturbates while they are in the shower and he encourages the child to “assist,” saying that this is “educational” for her. They sleep nude together and “sometimes things happen.” This man bought a vibrator for his four-year-old daughter. And so on.

All of these confessions were made BEFORE the polygraph. What is astonishing is that he fails the polygraph because he was withholding information on oral sex with his daughter.

I find a handwritten note from the polygrapher in the file. He faxed the report to the attorney for the father. It was a private polygraph, after all, requested by the father’s attorney and not one required by either of the independent evaluators (though they COULD have asked for it.] Within five minutes of faxing the report, the phone rang, “I’ve worked with you for twenty years,” the attorney said to him. “I hope I don’t have to remind you what privileged communication means.”

What privileged communication means is that this report fell under attorney-client privilege and therefore was suppressed. What is means is that the father’s attorney was under no requirement whatsoever to release the report to the court, and, by law, the polygrapher could not. …

What it means is that the only reports the court saw in this case were by the two psychologists who thought they could tell whether the father way lying by interviewing him and that they could tell if the child was abused by seeing if she loved her father. What it means is that, in 1996, full custody of this child went to her father where it has remained ever since.

The polygrapher, anguished by the outcome, sent the case to me after removing the real names, with the hope that I can use it for “educational purposes.”

Mr. Jones was a well-respected member of the community with a crazy wife. And he was so sincere. Clearly, the child loved him dearly. Such a man is hardly likely to be a child molester, now is he? [Anna C. Salter]

Another similar case has a report about the father:

Since the father denied the allegations, it is difficult to determine the identity of the perpetrator. In support of the father’s truthfulness… he was very forthright during the interview and testing procedures. For example, he acknowledged having difficulty in his sexual relations at time, and he openly admitted that he had a possible drinking problem …

Because he admitted some problems, the psychologist concluded that he would not lie about other, more serious problems! Because he admitted problems that were legal, she concluded he would not lie about activity that was illegal! That is just rationalization; the truth is that the psychologist just simply believed the lies.

One clinical evaluator noted in a report about a sexual predator that he “stayed back to close one of the doors, a very solicitous gesture that, as it turned out, is consistent with his general pattern of behavior.” The report went on to describe him as “kind, thoughtful, and considerate, a person who seemed to take pleasure in helping and caring.”

Instead of concluding that the man was good at creating a front, the psychologist concluded that the man was not a brutal, violent, serial rapist. Fortunately, there was considerable evidence that he was, and he was convicted. In this case, the court got it right even if the psychologist was out to lunch.

In another case, a very well known psychologist evaluated a three month old infant with bite marks all over him. Only two people had the opportunity to inflict the bite marks in the specific time frame, and they were the parents. Suspicion centered on the father. The psychologist who was asked to evaluate him reported how tenderly he wiped the infant’s nose in the evaluation, how carefully he held the baby. Based on the man’s behavior in the interview, she exonerated him and recommended custody remain with the parents. Two years later, he killed the infant. [From Predators, Pedophiles, Rapists, and Other Sex Offenders by Anna C. Salter]

This is an issue that will never die. It seems impossible to convince people that private behavior cannot be predicted from public behavior. Kind, nonviolent individuals behave well in public, but so do predators, rapists, murderers, pedophiles and COINTELPRO agents who help to shape the culture in which we live. No, they weren't always called COINTELPRO, but the principle is the same. It has been used since time immemorial. The earliest written records we have are of "clappers" in the audiences of theaters in ancient Greece. What do you think the term "Greek Chorus" means? We have exactly that in the present day in the form of the mainstream media. Did you think that, with the power of the internet to reach millions of people that the "powers that be" would have ignored the necessity of installing a "Greek Chorus" on the net? "The chorus offered background and summary information to help the audience follow the performance, commented on main themes, and showed how an ideal audience might react to the drama as it was presented. They also represent the general populace of any particular story." Discussion boards are ideal formats for "Greek Choruses" as they can be vectored to "show how the ideal audience ought to react," and to "represent the general populace." In this way, the illusion can be created of a concensus when, in fact, such a concensus may not exist.

Polls are another example of Greek Choruses or Clappers.

Consider our legal system. Here you first have to ask yourself just what kind of people were in charge of the creation and shaping of our “social norms.” Now sure, everybody will agree with the sayings that “you can’t trust a politician,” or “power corrupts” and so on, but have you ever really stopped to think about that and what it must really mean?

Most people have heard of Ted Bundy; the serial killer who was executed in Florida several years ago. Not many people are aware of the fact that Bundy was studying to become a prosecutor, and that eventually he hoped to become a judge. Those that do know that fact see it as some strangely ironic twist - an inexplicable quirk in Bundy's bizarre makeup. It never seems to occur to most people that the perfect place for a psychopathic serial killer to hide in society is as a prosecutor or a judge; but I assure you that it occurs to the Psychopaths of the world. I would estimate that about 10% of the prosecutors and judges in the United States are in fact, S.A.Ps. The ONLY difference between them and Ted Bundy is that they were able to control outward signs of their Psychopathy until they achieved their goal of being in a position of authority. [...]

John had one overriding dream; to become a judge. Here was the greatest reward possible for a psychopath: to put on the royal robes of the judiciary - to become a demigod - to have others plead to Him and beg His indulgence, to have everyone rise in awe and respect when He entered the room, for His word to literally be law, to be able to create an almost endless amount of human misery, just because He could, to punish summarily anyone who, quite correctly, displayed contempt for Him, to have the power of life and death over people, to be granted the only royal title available in the United States: "Your Honor".

How brilliant of his predecessors to slip that one past the watchful eyes of the founding fathers - who sought to establish an egalitarian society free of the mental disease of royalty. There are, he reflected, no "Your Majesties" or "Your Excellencies" in this country, but we quietly fooled everyone into accepting "Your Honors".

'John House slept soundly. In his dreams he and his kind had finally succeeded in reshaping the world into the image they wanted: the dark ages had returned. Once more the plague swept unchallenged over the country side. John could hear the voice crying out in the mud street in front of his hovel: "Bring out your dead!"

John was in his glory. This was life the way it was supposed to be. He was the new Torquemada: randomly selecting anyone who was unscarred by smallpox for a session on the rack; since anyone who had escaped disfigurement had obviously signed a pact with the devil. Here at last was an era where John and his kind could feel good by comparison: with so much misery around him John knew he was better off than those he could see dying in squalor and ignorance. John reveled in the suffering of all about him. He did what he could to make that suffering worse; no agony was so great that John House could not add to it.'

It is difficult to believe that huge parts of society have been built with the guidance of the mentally ill; but they have been. The average person is heavily invested in doing things the way Psychopaths want them done, and is unaware that the things that the S.A.Ps have them doing are psychopathic. [Robert Canup, The Socially Adept Psychopath]

Richard Dolan has pointed out that those at the top will ALWAYS take whatever measures necessary to stay at the top, and when knowledge is power, that means that they will make sure that they are in control of what people know or think they know. The sad fact is that as a society gets larger and more competitive, individuals become more anonymous and more Machiavellian. Social stratification and segregation leads to feelings of inferiority, pessimism and depression among the have-nots, and this promotes the use of "cheating strategies" in life which then makes the environment more adaptive for psychopathy in general. Such individuals may begin their lives in the lower socio-economic levels, but they often rise to the top. Psychopathic behavior seems to be on the rise because of the very nature of American capitalistic society. The great hustlers, charmers, and self-promoters in the sales fields are perfect examples of where the psychopath can thrive. The entertainment industry, the sports industry, the corporate world in a Capitalistic system, are all areas where psychopaths naturally rise to the top. Psychopaths seek power over others, it's that simple, and they gravitate to any field where there is power: medicine, law, industry, politics. It has always been that way; this is nothing new. Indeed, they comprise a very small segment of the population with an extremely large influence. It is due to this influence and the plausible lie that they can magnetize normal, decent people to follow them. They can make social conditions bad so that people feel oppressed and abused, and then they can easily blame it on someone else and agitate the people to go after and kill others based on such lies. Machiavelli discussed this sort of system plainly and openly and it has been the system of power since Cain killed Abel.

So, consider the idea that the ideas behind our social and cultural systems – including the legal system – were created by people whose agenda was to control society so that they could stay on top. And think about all the many ways they might go about doing that.

These are the same people who set up the legal system so that people would “get what they deserved”

Now, just think about that for a moment.

Imagine that you are a person at the top of the heap who knows that if you really set up a system where people got what they really deserved, you, yourself, would be instantly replaced - out the door in an instant! And so, if you are not just intent on staying on top and holding power, but cunning also, you will do everything in your power to insure that you and your kind are in charge of setting up that system, and that you remain in charge of it. You would make certain that evil was blended into the social and cultural concepts so seamlessly that nobody would ever notice.

And that is, quite literally, what happened. The individuals “at the top of the heap,” who had gotten there by being the most vile and rapacious, then set about figuring out ways to deceive the masses all the while keeping their favor and adulation. They knew they had to make laws to keep order, and they knew they had to make those laws seem fair and reasonable to the masses of people or they would lose control. Losing control was the thing to be feared as anyone who has read The Prince by Machiavelli realizes.

And so, Machiavellian manipulators at the top of the heap were deeply involved in the formation of our cultural and social norms, including our legal system.

In the earliest days of this “legal system” there was a form of “justice” called “trial by ordeal”. An example of trial by ordeal was holding a red hot iron to a defendant's tongue. The plausible lie used to justify this behavior was: if the defendant was telling a lie they would have a dry mouth and would be burned by the iron - while a truthful person would have a moist mouth and would be protected.

The fact is a NORMAL person who is telling the truth would most definitely have a dry mouth from fear, while a psychopath, who is incapable of feeling fear, would be the one with the moist mouth!!!

Now, just think about that for a few minutes.

(You might want to read my article on Ponerology and other articles on psychopathy, which quote extensively from several clinical psychologists on the subject of psychopathy just to get a real handle on the issue we are facing.)

Now, our current legal system is descended from “trial by ordeal” - and really isn't much different though it is much cleverer and simply not as obviously evil as that one was. You have already read a few examples above of just how the system works. As Anna Salter said, if she was accused of a crime, she would rather have a good lawyer than be innocent. That is a truly sad statement on our reality. Here’s a simple way to understand our legal system, adapted from the writings of Robert Canup:

Suppose that you are on a team that is engaged in a game and you discover that:

The other team gets to make up the rules. The referee plays for the other team. One of the rules is that you are not allowed to score - the other team is at no risk Only you can be scored against.

That is precisely how our social, cultural, and legal systems operate.

The conditions of our world are designed to create the maximum chance that evil will prevail and the good people will be punished by being good and telling the truth.

Punishing normal, decent, good people involves more than just creating a social system that acts against them. The system is designed to insure that these good people are subjected to as much pain as possible for the simple fact of being good and honest. An obvious example of punishing the innocent may be found in the way the victim in a rape case is treated; their reputations are dragged through the dirt - all in the name of justice of course. Note the case quoted above, of the fellow who raped his sister and her daughter and walked out of court after accusing her of being a mental case.

The system that controls our thinking is set up like the legal system. People are taught to assume that, in any conflict, one side is lying one way, and the other is lying the other way, and people can just form opinions about which side is telling the truth. They are taught that the truth will lie somewhere between two extremes.

That is a wonderfully plausible lie.

Canup suggests that, to see the evil behind that plausible lie, we must make a different assumption: let us assume that in such cases, one side is innocent, honest, and tells the truth. It is obvious that lying does an innocent defendant no good; what lie can he tell? If he is innocent, the only lie he can tell is to falsely confess "I did it."

On the other hand, lying is nothing but good for the liar. He can declare that “I didn't do it” and accuse another of doing it; all the while the innocent person is saying “I didn't do it” and is telling the truth.

The truth - when twisted by good liars, can always make an innocent person look bad - especially if he is honest and admits that he has faults. If someone is telling the simple truth, and the other side is lying through their teeth, the basic assumption that the truth lies between the testimony of the two sides always shifts the advantage to the lying side and away from the side telling the truth. Under most circumstances, this shift put together with the fact that the truth is going to also be twisted in such a way as to bring detriment to the innocent person, results in the advantage always resting in the hands of liars.

Canup points out that, even the simple act of giving testimony under oath is useless. If a person is a liar, swearing an oath means nothing to that person. However, swearing an oath acts strongly on a serious, truthful witness. Again, the advantage is placed on the side of the liars.

Proof is a familiar concept to those used to conventional logical thinking. However what passes for proof in cultural, social, and even legal terms often bears only a superficial resemblance to what would be considered proof by those who really use their minds to think.

For example: in formal mathematics, proof rules are established - postulates are set out and a structure is built based on the postulates and the theorem. Mathematical proof is pretty much inarguable: once a proof is accepted as true it is added to the pool of known truths.

In legal proof there is a set of rules and a theory which the prosecution presents, and attempts to prove the theory by clever argumentation rather than facts. Truth is not the objective. Getting other people to believe the theory IS the objective. However, the prosecution's theory is whatever the prosecutor believes that he can get away with based on what is known about the case, or what he can PREVENT from being known. What legal 'proof' does is serve as a structure for convincing a group of people of the guilt of a person, about whom they know nothing.

There is another significant difference: Mathematical proofs are judged by experts in the particular case who are free to study any and all information about the case. Legal 'proof' is judged by people who are guaranteed to be ignorant of the case, who are only allowed to study the information presented during the formal trial, and who are not even allowed to consult the texts for what the rules say.

Our culture is so permeated with this “legal argument” system that it extends into our daily experience: the one who is the slickest at using the structure for convincing a group of people of something, is the one who is believed. Very few people take the time to obtain hard facts by carefully studying any and all information about a situation.

What we see something here that is set up to deceive people by presenting a familiar structure which, upon examination, is a sham. And again, the advantages fall to the hands of the liars.

As Canup points out, in a courtroom, juries are prohibited by law from knowing anyone involved in the trial. If the defendant is a good person who is being set up and framed, people who know him well and who have had much opportunity to interact with him over a long period of time and observe him would have much more trouble accepting lies told about him. If the jurors knew the prosecutor and knew him to be a bullying liar, they might have trouble believing the lies he was telling. If the jurors knew the defendant, and know him to be a trouble making villain they might be more likely to convict him.

By the same standards, if a person who is guilty is accused of a crime that he DID commit, as we have seen above, it is all too easy to get off. Corrupt lawyers, ignorant "experts," and blind judges let guilty people literally get away with murder all the time.

But, none of the conditions conducive to finding the TRUTH prevail in a courtroom even if we have been brainwashed to think that we have the "best legal system in the world." It is not much different than "Trial by Ordeal," only the hot poker has been replaced by a system that works as effectively to the advantage of liars.

Here then we see the worst feature of the law: it is designed to make the world safe for evil people. In effect the law serves to take the horns away from the bulls, while leaving the lions their teeth and claws. Massive, overwhelming, advantage is placed in the hands of liars. Indeed, without the legal system insuring their safety, the world would be a much more difficult place for evil people.

Everyone knows somewhere deep inside, that there is something not right about our world. In fact, at the present moment, it could hardly be worse. But most people spend their lives avoiding that fact at all cost. The brutal truth is that the our social, cultural, and legal systems are all about making people helpless then hammering them without mercy - all the while involving everyone in the illusion that right prevails.

This is an issue that will never die. It seems impossible to convince people that private behavior cannot be predicted from public behavior. Kind, nonviolent individuals behave well in public, but so do predators, rapists, murderers, pedophiles, and COINTELPRO agents who operate largely to shape and vector “social norms,” or “official culture.”


Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: Pentagon's 9-11 Reverse Psychology Ruse

by Victor Thorn
Wing TV

I’ll admit it: last Tuesday when I heard that the Pentagon was going to release a new 9-11 video of Flight 77, my heart jumped into my throat because I thought: okay, the government has had 4 ½ years to get one of their Hollywood gurus like Stephen Spielberg or George Lucas to produce a primo high-tech special effects video that would clearly show Flight 77 striking the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.

But when I turned on the TV, what I saw was mind-boggling. It looked like the same exact Pentagon video that was released four years earlier. In fact, if I hadn’t been told otherwise, I would have sworn it was the same footage.

The only difference, we were told, was as Brett Baier of Fox News reported, “The Pentagon believes there’s a nose cone, then a blur into the Pentagon.” The operative word, of course, is believes because no one can see anything except a miniscule blob in the right side of one fleeting frame. And that’s it.

Vinnie Sammartino summed it up best: “I love when the Pentagon deception is talked about. It’s such a right-in-your-face lie it’s almost comical. It’s almost like they (the neocons) did this on a bet between themselves just to prove how stupid the masses are.” He continued, “There was no way anything they show us can be real. You can’t physically fly a passenger jet six feet off the ground horizontally at any high speed, which is what the video suggests happened. The lack of a vertical stabilizer mark on the wall doesn’t even matter. The very concept of FLIGHT gets in the way of the neocon lies.”

Vinnie is absolutely correct, for there are potentially 84 other confiscated videotapes available which could be shown to the American public, yet the best they can do is one fuzzy blur on one frame of a doctored video.

Russell Pickering, one of the foremost Pentagon researchers in the country, likewise blew the government’s story out the window with an appearance on WING TV (May 17, 2006). Using a conservative, logical, scientifically-based approach, Pickering explained the profound impossibilities of the Pentagon’s latest charade.

Some may ask: why did the Pentagon even produce this updated version if it was such an embarrassment? Answer: because they’re getting scared of the truth, and this was yet another opportunity to lay heavy doses of propaganda on the unwitting and the duped. But why didn’t they get a Hollywood whiz kid to create a stellar new video, you may ask? Answer: the risk was too great. All it would take was one slip-up and the entire 9-11 fiasco would be blown wide open. Sure, they’d love to conjure something up in a state-of-the-art editing room, but the potential for a major screw-up is too immense.

Yet, we’re warned, the government is going to release “more” videos in the future. Sadly, there are people in the 9-11 movement who are actually allowing this obvious reverse-psychology technique to be used on them. They say, “We better stay away from the Pentagon issue because if the government releases more footage we could be embarrassed.”

But don’t they get it? There IS no legitimate footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. None. Zero. That’s why we need to push even hard to get this information out to anyone that has eyes to see. Don’t fall for the con-job where they threaten us with more tapes. It’s a ruse, and we need to look ‘em square in the eyes and expose their lies.

The World Trade Center controlled demolitions are already an accepted fact; now the two primary physical evidence keys are: no Flight 77 at the Pentagon, and no Flight 93 in the Shanksville crater.

ORIGINAL
Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: Is 9-11 Truth Movement Sponsored by the Israeli Lobby?

by Victor Thorn
Wing TV

This could be quite possibly the biggest question ever asked of truth seekers everywhere: do you truly want to see the cold-blooded killers who were responsible for the 9-11 attacks brought to justice, or do you want to continue playing ring-around-the-rosie and tossing handkerchiefs at the issue?

I ask this question because right now we know the “hows” of 9-11 (World Trade Center controlled demolitions, and no Flights 77 and 93 at the Pentagon and Shanksville). We also know the “whys” of 9-11 (a new Pearl Harbor to facilitate a Middle East invasion).

So, doesn’t it seem like a logical step to finally focus our attention on the “whos” of 9-11?

I’m not talking about the “plumbers” who actually planted explosives inside the twin towers, or even the “Evil 13” hands-on implementers (see: Phantom Flight 93).

Instead, what I’m referring to is the ultimate driving force behind this diabolical plot: the nation of Israel. They are, as a few other brave souls have pointed out, the lumbering elephant in a room which most everyone in the 9-11 truth movement, alternative media, and patriot movement refuse to confront (or even acknowledge, for that matter).

This situation is so glaringly apparent that it seems as if the Israeli Lobby is sponsoring most every 9-11 event, along with the majority of Internet “truth” sites and radio shows. I mean, it appears as if every possible avenue of investigation is fair game (even those that are patently absurd) except for one: ISRAEL. The protection racket which has been erected around this issue is so obvious that I can’t believe more truth-seekers aren't erupting over it.

But then again, since Israel's Lobby has cornered the 9-11 market, what’s so surprising about this revelation? That’s how this entire scenario was planned from day one – way before the events of September 11, 2004 ever unfolded.

If you don’t believe me, look at the following figures in the 9-11 truth movement (some of whom have otherwise done fine work):

     Alex Jones: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
     Dave von Kleist: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
     9-11 Truth.org: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
     Dylan Avery: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
     Jim Hoffman: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
     Paul Thompson: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
     Webster Tarpley: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
     Carol Brouillet: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
     Kyle Hence: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
     David Ray Griffin: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
     Nicolas Levis: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
     Phil Berg: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
     Bob Bowman: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
     Mike Ruppert: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
     Tom Flocco: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
     Jenna Orkin: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
     Paul J. Watson: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
     Wayne Madsen: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
     Jimmy Walter: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
     Gabriel Day: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
     Janice Matthews: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
     David Kubiak: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
     Les Jamieson: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks
     M. Chossudovsky: refuses to examine Israel’s role as a key conspirator in the 9-11 attacks

I could continue for pages, but instead I’ll simply ask: why aren’t these individuals covering Israel’s direct involvement in the planning, coordination, execution, and cover-up of the 9-11 attacks?

Especially when the terrorist nation of ISRAEL was directly involved in 9-11.

If you’re still not convinced, take a look at George Noory’s Coast-to-Coast AM radio show. The only 9-11 figures who are ever full-fledged guests on his show are those who belong to the “club” – i.e. those who unflinchingly protect Israel at any cost. Furthermore, in the ten+ years that it's been on the air where literally every conceivable subject under the sun has been discussed, not once has there ever been a show devoted to Israel's multitudinous crimes - EVER! Doesn't anyone ever scratch their head and wonder why? Do you think it could be deliberate, especially considering that they're owned by Clear Channel? Also, don’t be fooled when these individuals use diversionary buzzwords such as “neo-con,” “Illuminati,” “New World Order,” or “globalist,” for they're nothing more than a way to sugar-coat the reality of this situation. Even the use of “Zionist” isn’t fully sufficient, for if we’re going to expose the true 9-11 culprits, let’s identify them forthwith: the nation of Israel and the Israeli Lobby.

Luckily there are a few courageous souls such as John Kaminski, Eric Hufschmid, Mike Rivero, Christopher Bollyn, Michael Collins Piper, Bill Brumbaugh, and the American Free Press who have exposed Israel's involvement in 9-11, while others such as Morgan Reynolds, Professor Jim Fetzer, and Vyzygoth are at least willing to discuss and/or acknowledge the problem. So, sure, the Israeli Lobby will continue to allow a few “limited hang-outs” to be thrown into the public arena (i.e. Charlie Sheen), but be damn sure about one thing: the perpetrators behind 9-11 blew their operation big-time, and they now know that more and more people realize that it was an inside job. The only thing they’re trying to salvage right now is the identity of who ultimately planned and benefited the most from 9-11 --- ISRAEL.

If you want the ultimate, unimpeded 9-11 truth, there’s only one direction left to investigate: Israel. Everything else is simply spinning your wheels (i.e. being manipulated by Israel via the assorted members of their protection racket).

ORIGINAL
Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: Jeff Rense: A Reinvention of What?

Lisa Guliani
Wing TV

Patsy Smullin has run KOBI-TV for the last 30 years, and her father founded it. If anybody would have known Jeff Rense and the supposed 5,000 newscasts he claims to have made, it would be Patsy.

As it happens, Patsy Smullin does remember Jeff Rense, and in two different telephone conversations I had with her over the past few days, she confirmed that he did have a position at her television station for a brief time as a reporter and news anchor. Smullin stressed that Jeff Rense, or “a guy calling himself Jeff Rense” (her words), was employed at KOBI (an NBC affiliate) from June 1983 to May 1984, and she is not aware of him working at any other station in the state of Oregon either prior to his employment at KOBI-TV or afterward. [I would think if he'd worked at other stations previous to his KOBI position, these would be listed on his job application or resume when given to KOBI-TV.]

Patsy had more to say. She revealed that in her experience as Jeff Rense’s employer (and this is a direct quote), “He was not known for his honesty.” Think about it. Patsy Smullin was Rense’s employer some twenty-odd years ago. After all this tiime, the characteristic that has remained clearly in her memory is that “he was not known for his honesty”. What does that say to you? According to Ms. Smullin, at that time Jeff was also involved in several court battles with other people. One wonders if it has anything to do with him not being known for his honesty?

When asked if she could elaborate on the comment she'd made regarding Rense not being known for his honesty, her response was: "Sure. He was a compulsive liar." Also, when questioned as to the claim that Jeff anchored and produced “5000 newscasts,” Patsy Smullin laughed heartily and stated, “This is absolutely false. He never did that here.” Okay, if not at KOBI-TV, then where? Perhaps Jeff Rense will reveal this to us all at some point so we can check it out.

But on his own website, Jeff Rense claims to have been an award winning news director and TV news anchor for 10-12 years (accounts vary). If not at KOBI, then where?

An American Treasure

"…an award-winning television News Director and News Anchor for over ten years, Jeff continually pushed for higher standards of journalism and responsible, intelligent reporting and inquiry. Regrettably, those goals were often at odds with the irrevocable TV news obsession for tabloid exploitation of the trivial, the tragic and the sensational. The situation became so dubious and distasteful that one day he walked away from his highly-successful news anchor/news director career (as high as a 53 Share of the audience - Nielsen) and moved to radio, recognizing it as the last viable approach to bringing reality to the American public...and now with the internet, to the world."

Interesting that Rense declares himself to have worked as a news director and TV news anchor. An online search to verify this claim will return only Jeff’s words – repeated endlessly ad nauseum - as to the truthfulness of this assertion. There is literally no data to substantiate this claim anywhere on the Internet. The claim exists only on the Rense website and a few other websites that have copied and pasted the Rense claims onto their own pages.

Here’s another variation on the same theme: Jeff Rense Hosts Sightings

"During 12 years as an award-winning broadcast journalist, Jeff anchored and produced more than 5,000 television newscasts. This devoted single dad is also author of the book AIDS Exposed and passionately investigates ways to prevent diseases and extend life. His brother is Rip Rense, longtime reporter for the Los Angeles Times. Jeff first did radio while an education major at the University of California Santa Barbara, and in 1994 he returned to this first love with the talk radio show "End of the Line." In 1997, by agreement with Henry ("the Fonz") Winkler and Paramount Pictures, this show transformed into the ratings star "Sightings."

Based on the following article he was a former news anchor at KOBI-TV. However, if one searches KOBI, there is no information on the former popular TV news anchor/news director Jeff Rense to be found.

The Truth Is Up There

"Presiding over this conspiratorial miasma is talk-radio host Jeff Rense, whose weeknight show, Sightings, is broadcast from a studio somewhere in Southern Oregon. (Citing threats to his life, Rense asked WW not to print his exact location.) Five nights a week, millions of Americans (including an estimated 21,000 Portlanders) in 120 cities tune in to Rense to catch up on the latest news on alien abduction, Bigfoot, paranormal phenomena--and chemtrails. A former news anchor at KOBI-TV in Medford, Rense began to hear reports of chemtrails in 1999."

The above page also says:

"...By the late 1980s, Rense had worked for a handful of network affiliates in the West. He said his ratings were high, and he got 'lucrative offers' from several Oregon stations. But he had also become disillusioned with TV news and decided to quit the business...." "...After walking away from his TV career path, Rense returned to Santa Barbara and opened three pet stores..."

"...By the early 1990s, he had sold his All About Pets outlets and in 1994 approached KTMS with his idea for a talk-radio show, or at least his version of one..."

A Professional Broadcast Journalist

"As an award-winning broadcast journalist, Mr. Rense has anchored and produced well over 5,000 live 30-and 60-minute television newscasts… He began his End of the Line radio show which is now in its fourth highly successful year. Recently, the End of the Line was acquired by the Premiere Radio Networks, one of the top two radio syndicators in the U.S., and renamed Sightings On The Radio through an agreement with Paramount."

"As a journalist and private citizen, he became aware of the misinformation and propaganda surrounding the worldwide AIDS epidemic. Devoting three years of his life to researching, collecting, and compiling information, Mr. Rense authored the underground best-seller, AIDS Exposed, published in 1996. This 420-page book has been acclaimed as 'overwhelming,' 'invaluable' and 'the supreme public service' by broadcasters, medical professionals, and educators alike. Appearing on scores of radio and TV talk shows as an author, Mr. Rense has also been invited to lecture at such institutions as the University of California and USC. He has also written numerous articles, papers, and reports on a wide range of subjects and acts as a consultant on many different issues."

Rense's radio show "End of the Line" was renamed "Sightings on the Radio" with Paramount's backing.

An extensive online search for articles, journalistic reports and papers from Rense’s purported pre-Rense.com prior journalism career yields nothing.

How can this possibly be if he has written ‘numerous articles, papers and reports’? His book, AIDS Exposed, does not appear to be available anymore, with the exception of potential availability of a random used copy, if you’re lucky.

A search on the publisher of this book, Bioalert Press, coughs up nothing as far as any listing for a company website. The top link on Google search for Bioalert Press says: Bookstore-- Balaam's Ass Suggests you Read These Good Books-- Health AIDS Exposed-- Jeffrey Rense-- BioAlert Press-- Order from Jeffrey Rense, Box 764, Goleta, CA 93116. www.balaams-ass.com/bookstor/health.htm -

The above Google link would not come up for me in multiple attempts on different days. Regarding the Balaam’s Ass link, one has to order the book directly from Jeff Rense. Is Bioalert Press really just Rense? Has anyone out there ever heard of BioAlert Press?

I find it very ironic that Rense claims to have become so disillusioned with the nature of the mainstream news broadcast business and its inclination to report tabloid style and sensationalistic material, when all anyone has to do is peruse the Rense.com website for 10 minutes to realize that this well-funded site – funded by the same mainstream businesses that Rense claims to detest – is full of nothing but a never-ending series of sensationalistic, tabloid-type, speculative, unsubstantiated or fabricated “news” articles. I have to ask: Is it only wrong, disillusioning and distasteful when “other” people do it, Jeff? Or are you doing it for them?

Furthermore, online searches for any evidence of Jeff Rense’s longstanding claims regarding his extremely elusive broadcast journalism career path result in even more dead ends. There is an article on the Rense website entitled “The Most Dangerous Man in Talk Radio”, authored by an alleged LA writer named Kennedy Grey.

In this article, Kennedy Grey tells us, “When Jeff Rense walked away from a #1 rated Oregon TV news anchor position, people suspected job burnout. But Rense wasn't burned out on his job - his dissatisfaction was with the entire news media mainstream itself. Grey also states that Jeff spent “Twelve years as on on-air news anchor and News Director "up and down the west coast". Grey further says, “Rense set out to re-invent himself into a liberator of truth from the confines of a corrupt and bloated news broadcast industry.” He directly quotes Jeff Rense, who states that “Radio is theatre of the mind - a classroom of the mind."

Very interesting comments, aren’t they? The news anchor/news director statement is impossible to verify via the Internet, and thus far Jeff Rense is not forthcoming with information in spite of email sent to him containing a link to our website inquiry dated Friday, May 26, 2006 entitled Who is "Jeff Rense"?.

Does anyone have a copy of any of these 5,000 Jeff Rense newscasts? We’d sure like to see one. Thus far, we have not been able to locate anyone other than one person who remembers seeing Jeff Rense anchoring a TV newscast.

Only one TV news station’s call letters has been identified thus far. KOBI-TV 5 out of Medford, Oregon, which is an NBC affiliate. Pretty slim pickings. Nevertheless, I made a few phone calls to Medford, Oregon. One would think that as popular as Jeff Rense supposedly was, surely someone would remember him from the 1980s – particularly if he had produced and anchored 5000 newscasts up and down the West Coast. I contacted the Mail Tribune and spoke with an employee in the newsroom there. She had never heard of Oregon’s (former) #1 top rated news anchor, Jeff Rense. I’m awaiting a call back from Bob Hunter, editor of the Mail Tribune newspaper, to see if he has any recollections on this matter.

“5000 newscasts” is a lot of face-time, wouldn’t you agree?

Three calls to Rense’s former place of employment, KOBI-TV, speaking to four people who worked there didn’t help Rense very much. The first three individuals I spoke to had never heard of Jeff Rense and have no idea who he is. The fourth person was the owner of KOBI-TV, Patsy Smullin.

Jeff claims to have left KOBI due to his disillusionment with the mainstream news business and the tendency of TV news to sensationalize and dip into tabloid reporting, as stated above. I read Jeff’s published claims about this to Patsy Smullin. She responded, “That’s not the reason he gave to us at all. He said he was leaving to join his wife in their pet store.” (I am currently checking out the pet store information.)

Overall, Patsy Smullin did not give the impression that Jeff Rense had been a good employee while at KOBI-TV. In fact, her remarks lead one to believe that he was dishonest and untrustworthy. It was all I could do to restrain myself from asking if he conducted newscasts while wearing a wig.

The question we are entitled to ask is: why would Jeff Rense make so many claims about himself, and why would he twist the truth and make public assertions that are simply not true? Isn’t the “reinvented Jeff Rense” supposed to be all about truth and realism as opposed to sensationalistic, tabloid-style garbage? If one looks through his massive website, is it conceivable that a person might have some difficulty trying to discern the difference between Rense shinola and honest-to-god truth? Where does one end and the other begin? Furthermore, is Jeff Rense the person we really want to ask? Maybe that’s a little like asking the Bush Gang to investigate 911? (Oh, right! That’s already been done. Vanity Fair called it a “whitewash.”)

“Jeff Rense” is a familiar name to countless political/conspiracy talk radio listeners and web surfers. In these circles, virtually everyone has heard of Rense.com. What very few people realize, or have even stopped to think about, is that very little is known about Jeff Rense himself. The available online biographical information is vague and deals in generalities, and has been copied and pasted from one web page to another over the years. The Rense legend has been dished out for public consumption in small, measured doses over time in word-bytes, with hardly anyone daring to openly question its veracity. Rense fans embrace, and often even vehemently defend the legend; those who don’t end up being ridiculed and attacked. That’s a curious feature of Rense’s position as a “Don of Conspiracy Theory.”

Jeff Rense is an interesting guy, wouldn’t you say? He’s almost a “legend,” and is even listed on a government site as the number one purveyor of “misinformation.” That’s quite an accomplishment in a world where “conspiracy theories” are mostly ignored and/or ridiculed. You could even say that it’s very good PR to get on such a list.

My curiosity about Jeff Rense began to grow when I realized that he has maintained a large Internet presence for over a decade, and despite this, there is virtually no information on him other than that which one finds on his website. How has Jeff Rense managed to keep information about himself off the world wide web all these years? That’s an interesting question.

We live in a time that discourages curiosity about the ‘wrong” topics – that’s a hallmark of the Fascist Bushistas - and it seems that questioning Rense is definitely “off limits”. We have to wonder why that is? Asking questions about the ‘wrong” people is treated almost as sacrilege. We love to hold our heroes and gurus high, don’t we? But we have learned the hard way that questions are only discouraged by those who have something to hide.

What could such a nice guy, such a great “patriot” as Jeff Rense possibly have to hide?

After spending some time combing through his claims and trying to find verification, I began to realize that “Jeff Rense” is little more than a reinvention. He has made some very interesting claims over the years, particularly with respect to his former stints in broadcasting and journalism; claims that served as building blocks in the creation of a legend, a legend constructed from the twisting of truth.

Well, let’s look at “Jeff Rense” shall we?

Claim #1: On the Rense.com homepage, we see the following:

“7-time Peabody Award Nominee”

Rense Peabody Talkers claim

Peabody Awards

Truth: The Rense.com website claims 7 Peabody Award nominations. The Peabody Awards do not have nominees. Anyone can fill out an entry, and then later the winners are announced. The following is an email from the Peabody Awards Foundation:

"The Peabody Awards program receives between 1,000 and 1,200 entries each year. We have a 15 member judging panel that meets several times during the judging season, as well as listening to/watching entries alone in their homes. They discuss all entries as a group, usually awarding between 30 and 35 Peabodys each year. There are no set number of awards given, and the board does not choose winners according to categories. We do not have a list of finalists or "nominees" as other awards programs have.

Basically we have entrants and winners.

                    Danna L. Williams Senior Administrative Assistant, emailed Feb. 6th 2006 "

In other words, you could nominate me, I could nominate you, and we could all nominate Bozo the Clown. The Peabody panel will most likely be interested in these suggestions, but ultimately it is THEY who choose the winners – not the public. There are no official lists of “nominees”. Rense’s website claim to be a “7 Time Peabody Award Nominee” is not only misleading, it means essentially nothing. It is presented to create a false impression of Rense’s achievements, basically it’s deceptive bullshit.

Claim # 2: The Rense website states: “Talkers magazine top 100 Host”

Talkers Magazine ‘Heavy Hundred’

Truth: Please note that Jeff Rense isn't listed in the top 100, and he isn't even listed in the additional 250 names cited in the rest of Talkers Top Radio Show Host picks for 2006. Rense failed to make the cut for 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, etc. Rense was on the list once about 6 or 7 years ago, according to a response to my inquiry from Talkers. In fact, they find it pretty interesting that Jeff Rense is continuing to present this claim on his website, creating the appearance of his inclusion on this popular list, when in fact he is currently not listed. Talkers characterized this misleading representation in one word: “deceptive”, saying they will be keeping an eye on Rense and any Talkers-related claims from here on. Take a look at the list linked above. Call Talkers Magazine and ask them yourself if he is indeed on the Heavy Hundred list.

Claim #3: Rense’s Myspace web page at:

Rense My Space Profile lists his location as Ashland, Oregon – yet his Rense.com fan page says he is in California. Which is it? Oregon or California? Does Rense have two residences? If so, how does one afford two residences on an Internet radio income?

Of course, the answer could be that one is his residence and the other is his business address, but again I ask: if he is just doing his thing because he is a “true patriot,” knowing how hard it is for other true patriots to make ends meet, we have to ask who is paying for his office? What money is backing him? His MySpace page states an income of $100,000-$150,000 per year. That’s a pretty good chunk of change for a guy who claims to be in the business out of the goodness of his heart and his interest in truth.

Claim #4: Jeff Rense From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Former television news anchorman Jeff Rense, who lives in Santa Barbara, California, is a popular conspiracy theorist and is the host of the Jeff Rense program which is broadcast on terrestrial radio and on the Internet. He originally became famous in the 90's with the program "Sightings". His radio program and website (See below) cover such subjects as UFO reports, paranormal phenomena, conspiracy theories, reports of new diseases and a plethora of other material rarely covered by the mainstream media. Jeff Rense leans towards a populist approach regarding politics and media. Rense does not subscribe to any conventional political standpoint and many of his views are simultaneously left and right leaning. Rense has one brother: writer, Rip Rense. His step mother, New York socialite and editor-in-chief of Architectural Digest Magazine, is Paige Rense. His father, now deceased, was sports journalist, Arthur F. Rense (1917-1990). Jeff Rense is also a vegan."

Here we learn that Rense’s views are simultaneously both left-leaning and right-leaning. Sounds like an impossible contortion to me. It is also established from more than one source that Jeff’s father, Arthur Rense, formerly a sportswriter and sometime poet, also landed a job at Douglas Aircraft doing PR. How does a poet and sports writer qualify for work as a public relations director at Douglas Aircraft, one of the biggies of the Military Industrial Complex? Here is the NY Times obituary for Arthur Rense:

Arthur F. Rense, Public Relations Executive, 74
Published: January 5, 1991
“Arthur F. Rense, a retired public relations executive, died on Dec. 28 at his home in Las Vegas, Nev. He was 74 years old. He died of leukemia, said his wife, Paige Rense, editor in chief of Architectural Digest. Mr. Rense had been director of public relations for the Summa Corporation, owned by Howard R. Hughes, until he retired in 1985. He had been public relations director for the missiles and space systems division of Douglas Aircraft Company and director of public relations at Harvey Mudd College in Claremont, Calif. Besides his wife, Mr. Rense is survived by three sons from a former marriage, Kirk of Irvine, Calif., Jeff of Santa Barbara , Calif., and Rip of Sherman Oaks, Calif.; four brothers, Randy, Andy and Frank, all of Cleveland, and William of Denver; and two grandchildren.”

Regarding Summa Corporation: The Washington Post for April 1, 1975, carried this information:

Summa Corp. is the financial umbrella under which most of (Howard)Hughes' worth is contained. . . .Most recently, another Summa "asset" hit the news: the $350 million Hughes Glomar Explorer vessel that Hughes built at the behest (and the expense of) the Central Intelligence Agency . . . Mormons, Hughes, & CIA

Summa Corporation has been tied to CIA contracts on more than one occasion, to say the least. Douglas Aircraft Company is also well-known for its numerous government contracts, not to mention the starring role it is now playing in Bush’s Endless War. So again I ask: how did “poet and sports writer” Arthur Rense end up as public relations director for Douglas Aircraft and Summa Corp? In bed with the Feds? More importantly, what kind of connections does his son Jeff have with these same gangs? After all, his views are “both left and right” which suggests that he could have “left” views to vacuum in his audience all the while subtly converting them to “right” views.

Douglas Aircraft also has ties with RAND Corporation:

RAND (Encyclopedia)

The RAND Corporation is an American think tank.

"A think tank is a group of individuals dedicated to high-level synergistic research on a variety of subjects, usually in military laboratories, corporations,... first formed to offer research and analysis to the U.S. military. The organization has since expanded to working with other government and commercial organizations Project RAND was set up in 1945 by the USAAF, under contract to the Douglas Aircraft Company. An interesting aside, Condoleezza Rice is a former RAND CorporationTrustee 1991-1997 and current Secretary of State for the United States, a war whore if ever there was one."

Okay, I think everybody knows that Summa, Douglas Aircraft, and RAND are all major players with DOD, military and intelligence agencies in the fascist government that Jeff Rense claims to oppose. Yet we find that his father, Arthur Rense, poet, sports writer, was “somehow” a public relations director for both Douglas Aircraft and Summa Corporation? I would very much like to hear Jeff Rense publicly discuss this curious fact one of these fine days and explain how he could live much of his life with alphabet soup guys swarming around and avoid being sucked into the game. Funny how this topic never seems to come up, isn’t it? Perhaps he just keeps forgetting to mention it.

Now I want to come back to the fact that Jeff Rense has been “honored” by being listed on an official government website as a major purveyor of “disinformation.” Among the conspiracy minded crowd, that is a high kudo indeed. But is it evidence that Jeff truly is a news source standing in opposition to the Bush Reich and their Endless Wars of Lies and Agression? Maybe not. As Robin Ramsay, Editor of Lobster Magazine, wrote in the February issue of Fortean Times:

Recently, the US State Department has begun trying to rebut some of the current conspiracy theories about America. Their first targets were a couple of websites - www.rense.com and Conspiracy Planet - and the late Joe Vialls, an Australian. What a boost for the named sites! Attacked by the State Department![...]

[Y]ou don't have to be a PR genius to see that what you simply mustn't do is launch official attacks: all they do is amplify and legitimise the theories by announcing that they are deemed to be worth attacking. [Fortean Times 206, February 2006, p. 19]

What a coup for Rense and Alex Jones! To be officially declared the primo disinfo sites! Now, if you know anything about COINTELPRO, you expect that the real COINTELPRO operations will be attacked "officially" in order to legitimize them exactly as Robin Ramsay has described. That also means that those who are honest and sincere seekers of truth and who do their homework and expose the lies of the Bush Reich will most certainly NOT be martyred by the official government. It's way too dangerous and gives them legitimacy. Rather, they will be defamed by the “officially designated disinformation agents” – and dare we say it? – agents of COINTELPRO - such as Jeff Rense, Alex Jones and similar disinformation agents that have received the Bush Reich seal of approval. In fact, it seems that this is a well-orchestrated plan that is described in detail in that much maligned document, “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.” A really good way to keep your eye on the ball is to consider Protocol 12...

Now, it is important when reading the Protocols to not assign it's origin to any national, ethnic, or religious group. Rather, consider it to be a statement of any group that seeks to control and dominate and use the public for their own gain Then you will truly begin to understand who is who. (Excerpts of Protocol 12: Control of the Press are located at the end of this article):

Recently, Jeff Rense accused WING TV of engaging in deception, trickery, subterfuge, lying, slandering and libel, just to name a few of the charges. He has publicly called Victor Thorn and myself “dirtball scum” and together with Alex Jones and their groupies, charged us with being “cointelpro assets, government agents and un-American operatives." True to form and apparently attached to Rense at the hip and the lip, (and linked on the official government site, I should add), Alex Jones reinforces, endorses, and repeats Rense’s vomitus, only louder. What’s amusing about this is that Rense, Jones, nor any of their groupie parrots have yet to substantiate any of these bogus charges made against us.

Let me get this straight: nobody has to qualify with data anything they say, including (and particularly) veteran journalist Jeff Rense? Alex Jones has yet to qualify any of his ridiculous comments about us either, and he refuses to hold himself accountable for his own words.

Ask yourself: Why? Is it conceivable to anyone out there that they cannot PROVE the things they say about WING TV? Moreover, this begs the question, can they prove any and all of the other “gospel-truth” claims they’ve made over the years? That is another very good question.

You see, we are supposed to just believe what they say simply because they say it. Forget about facts, data or substantiation. Forget about showing evidence of their assertions; forget about journalistic ethics; just nod your head and agree. Don’t ask questions. Gobble up the lies and twisted half-truths and get your fill of the fix du jour. After all, in the words of Jeff Rense, it is all a “theater of the mind”.

What we observe is that both Rense and Jones pander to a “least common denominator” audience demographic, the people out there who don’t bother to check things out for themselves and will just repeat what they hear and read over and over, like good little automatons. This is the ideal Rense-Jones target audience, one which will worship blindly, surrender critical thinking skills, believe without questioning or disagreement, and of course, shell out the bucks.

Incidentally, I did a search on Kennedy Grey, the LA writer who penned the article about Rense entitled “The Most Dangerous Man in Talk Radio”. He (she) is supposedly the founder of a group called RAS, an acronym for ‘Rock Against Suicide’. Unfortunately, a Google search for Kennedy Grey did not yield a website for the RAS group anywhere, but there is an interview with Kennedy Grey on this website: The Internet Nirvana Fan club.

Nirvana Fan Club. Oh boy, how impressive. A Curt Cobain suicide website.

I was not able to find any links online to Grey’s organization, RAS, or to Kennedy Grey, other than the single article he wrote which is published on Rense.com. I would like to find Kennedy Grey and ask whether he/she even bothered to check out any of the claims Rense made to him in the interview. I’d like to learn if Kennedy Grey is a real person, for that matter, or just a construct of Rense. Whatever the case may be, it doesn’t look like Grey checked out any of the statements Rense made in that interview. If some fact-checking had been done, Grey’s article would probably be written a bit differently. At the very least, it should have been.

Rense and Alex Jones enjoy howling that “Honest-to-God patriots" NEVER attack other patriots. That sounds a lot like:

"For any attempt to attack us, if such still be possible, we shall inflict fines without mercy…. No one shall with impunity lay a finger on the aureole of our government infallibility. The pretext for stopping any publication will be the alleged plea that it is agitating the public mind without occasion or justification." [Protocols]

The fact is, those who do the research know that the Founding Fathers engaged in a great deal of spirited, heated, sincere dispute with one another. Some of them hated one another with a passion, yet in spite of this animosity, worked together for the common good of all; as the cause was greater than themselves, and they all knew this to be true. So where do Rense and Jones come off bellowing such obnoxious bullshit, especially when we consider the fact that merely branding oneself a “patriot” does not necessarily make it so. I could call myself “Madonna”, but that doesn’t mean I AM Madonna.

Appearances can be very deceiving, especially when some so-called “patriots” choose to hide behind microphones in undisclosed locations, behind wigs and a couple of re-touched, photo-shopped cartoon pictures of themselves, and when all they choose to disclose is a limited amount of extremely vague babble about their alleged past accomplishments, achievements, or experience designed solely to “create a legend”.

And then, when we discover, with a minimum of investigation, that their claims do not hold up, that it is all completely manipulated, twisted, exaggerated, amplified and contorted facts designed to present a false front, we are entitled to question everything else. Why do people tell lies, whether overtly or by omission? Some do it because of mental issues, some do it for profit, and some do it just because they can.

Bottom line: Jeff Rense has falsely accused WING TV of trading in lies, deception, duplicity, innuendo, disinformation and trickery. Jeff Rense better start looking in the mirror, because I see a so-called “patriot” that needs to come clean about a few things, someone who is “not known for his honesty”.

Definitions of deception on the Web:

• misrepresentation: a misleading falsehood
• the act of deceiving
• magic trick: an illusory feat; considered magical by naive observers
• Deception is providing intentionally misleading information to others.
• To practice deceit.
• To give a false impression: appearances can deceive.
• To cause to believe what is not true; mislead.
• to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid intransitive verb : to practice deceit
• be false to; be dishonest with - 2: cause someone to believe an untruth

Stay tuned, because this investigation is not over. More to follow soon.

                    "The big print giveth and the small print taketh away."
                    ~ Tom Waitts ~

Protocol 12: Control of the Press

1. The word "freedom," which can be interpreted in various ways, is defined by us as follows –

2. Freedom is the right to do what which the law allows. This interpretation of the word will at the proper time be of service to us, because all freedom will thus be in our hands, since the laws will abolish or create only that which is desirable for us according to the aforesaid program.

3. We shall deal with the press in the following way: what is the part played by the press to-day? It serves to excite and inflame those passions which are needed for our purpose or else it serves selfish ends of parties. It is often vapid, unjust, mendacious, and the majority of the public have not the slightest idea what ends the press really serves. We shall saddle and bridle it with a tight curb: we shall do the same also with all productions of the printing press, for where would be the sense of getting rid of the attacks of the press if we remain targets for pamphlets and books? …

For any attempt to attack us, if such still be possible, we shall inflict fines without mercy…. No one shall with impunity lay a finger on the aureole of our government infallibility. The pretext for stopping any publication will be the alleged plea that it is agitating the public mind without occasion or justification.

I BEG YOU TO NOTE THAT AMONG THOSE MAKING ATTACKS UPON US WILL ALSO BE ORGANS ESTABLISHED BY US, BUT THEY WILL ATTACK EXCLUSIVELY POINTS THAT WE HAVE PRE-DETERMINED TO ALTER. WE CONTROL THE PRESS

4. NOT A SINGLE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL REACH THE PUBLIC WITHOUT OUR CONTROL. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.

5. If already now we have contrived to possess ourselves of the minds of the GOY communities to such an extent that they all come near looking upon the events of the world through the colored glasses of those spectacles we are setting astride their noses; if already now there is not a single State where there exist for us any barriers to admittance into what GOY stupidity calls State secrets: what will our positions be then, when we shall be acknowledged supreme lords of the world in the person of our king of all the world ....

6. Let us turn again to the FUTURE OF THE PRINTING PRESS. Every one desirous of being a publisher, librarian, or printer, will be obliged to provide himself with the diploma instituted therefore, which, in case of any fault, will be immediately impounded. With such measures THE INSTRUMENT OF THOUGHT WILL BECOME AN EDUCATIVE MEANS ON THE HANDS OF OUR GOVERNMENT, WHICH WILL NO LONGER ALLOW THE MASS OF THE NATION TO BE LED ASTRAY IN BY-WAYS AND FANTASIES ABOUT THE BLESSINGS OF PROGRESS. Is there any one of us who does not know that these phantom blessings are the direct roads to foolish imaginings which give birth to anarchical relations of men among themselves and towards authority, because progress, or rather the idea of progress, has introduced the conception of every kind of emancipation, but has failed to establish its limits .... All the so-called liberals are anarchists, if not in fact, at any rate in thought. Every one of them in hunting after phantoms of freedom, and falling exclusively into license, that is, into the anarchy of protest for the sake of protest.... FREE PRESS DESTROYED

7. We turn to the periodical press. … if there should be any found who are desirous of writing against us, they will not find any person eager to print their productions. Before accepting any production for publication in print, the publisher or printer will have to apply to the authorities for permission to do so. Thus we shall know beforehand of all tricks preparing against us and shall nullify them by getting ahead with explanations on the subject treated of.

8. Literature and journalism are two of the most important educative forces, and therefore our government will become proprietor of the majority of the journals. This will neutralize the injurious influence of the privately-owned press and will put us in possession of a tremendous influence upon the public mind .... If we give permits for ten journals, we shall ourselves found thirty, and so on in the same proportion. This, however, must in no wise be suspected by the public. For which reason all journals published by us will be of the most opposite, in appearance, tendencies and opinions, thereby creating confidence in us and bringing over to us quite unsuspicious opponents, who will thus fall into our trap and be rendered harmless.

9. In the front rank will stand organs of an official character. They will always stand guard over our interests, and therefore their influence will be comparatively insignificant. 10. In the second rank will be the semi-official organs, whose part it will be to attack the tepid and indifferent.

11. In the third rank we shall set up our own, to all appearance, opposition, which, in at least one of its organs, will present what looks like the very antipodes to us. Our real opponents at heart will accept this simulated opposition as their own and will show us their cards.

12. All our newspapers will be of all possible complexions -- aristocratic, republican, revolutionary, even anarchical - for so long, of course, as the constitution exists .... Like the Indian idol "Vishnu" they will have a hundred hands, and every one of them will have a finger on any one of the public opinions as required. When a pulse quickens these hands will lead opinion in the direction of our aims, for an excited patient loses all power of judgment and easily yields to suggestion. Those fools who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us. In the vain belief that they are following the organ of their party they will, in fact, follow the flag which we hang out for them.

13. In order to direct our newspaper militia in this sense we must take special and minute care in organizing this matter. Under the title of central department of the press we shall institute literary gatherings at which our agents will without attracting attention issue the orders and watchwords of the day. By discussing and controverting, but always superficially, without touching the essence of the matter, our organs will carry on a sham fight fusillade with the official newspapers solely for the purpose of giving occasion for us to express ourselves more fully than could well be done from the outset in official announcements, whenever, of course, that is to our advantage.

14. THESE ATTACKS UPON US WILL ALSO SERVE ANOTHER PURPOSE, NAMELY, THAT OUR SUBJECTS WILL BE CONVINCED TO THE EXISTENCE OF FULL FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND SO GIVE OUR AGENTS AN OCCASION TO AFFIRM THAT ALL ORGANS WHICH OPPOSE US ARE EMPTY BABBLERS, since they are incapable of finding any substantial objections to our orders. ONLY LIES PRINTED

15. Methods of organization like these, imperceptible to the public eye but absolutely sure, are the best calculated to succeed in bringing the attention and the confidence of the public to the side of our government. Thanks to such methods we shall be in a position as from time to time may be required, to excite or to tranquillize the public mind on political questions, to persuade or to confuse, printing now truth, now lies, facts or their contradictions, according as they may be well or ill received, always very cautiously feeling our ground before stepping upon it .... WE SHALL HAVE A SURE TRIUMPH OVER OUR OPPONENTS SINCE THEY WILL NOT HAVE AT THEIR DISPOSITION ORGANS OF THE PRESS IN WHICH THEY CAN GIVE FULL AND FINAL EXPRESSION TO THEIR VIEWS owing to the aforesaid methods of dealing with the press. We shall not even need to refute them except very superficially.

16. Trial shots like these, fired by us in the third rank of our press, in case of need, will be energetically refuted by us in our semi-official organs.

17. Even nowadays, already, to take only the French press, there are forms which reveal masonic solidarity in acting on the watchword: all organs of the press are bound together by professional secrecy; like the augurs of old, not one of their numbers will give away the secret of his sources of information unless it be resolved to make announcement of them. Not one journalist will venture to betray this secret, for not one of them is ever admitted to practice literature unless his whole past has some disgraceful sore or other .... These sores would be immediately revealed. So long as they remain the secret of a few the prestige of the journalist attacks the majority of the country - the mob follow after him with enthusiasm.

18. Our calculations are especially extended to the provinces. It is indispensable for us to inflame there those hopes and impulses with which we could at any moment fall upon the capital, and we shall represent to the capitals that these expressions are the independent hopes and impulses of the provinces. Naturally, the source of them will be always one and the same - ours. WHAT WE NEED IS THAT, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS WE ARE IN THE PLENITUDE POWER, THE CAPITALS SHOULD FIND THEMSELVES STIFLED BY THE PROVINCIAL OPINION OF THE NATIONS, I.E., OF A MAJORITY ARRANGED BY OUR AGENTUR. What we need is that at the psychological moment the capitals should not be in a position to discuss an accomplished fact for the simple reason, if for no other, that it has been accepted by the public opinion of a majority in the provinces.

19. WHEN WE ARE IN THE PERIOD OF THE NEW REGIME TRANSITIONAL TO THAT OF OUR ASSUMPTION OF FULL SOVEREIGNTY WE MUST NOT ADMIT ANY REVELATION BY THE PRESS OF ANY FORM OF PUBLIC DISHONESTY; IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE NEW REGIME SHOULD BE THOUGHT TO HAVE SO PERFECTLY CONTENDED EVERYBODY THAT EVEN CRIMINALITY HAS DISAPPEARED ... Cases of the manifestation of criminality should remain known only to their victims and to chance witnesses - no more.

I think that all of the above may sound very familiar to all of you reading this. The only difference is that now we work with the Internet and not printed materials. But the principles are the same.

ORIGINAL
Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: Jeff Rense Retains Lawyer; Uses Coercion and Intimidation

by Lisa Guliani
Wing TV

After the publication of an article that I wrote for WING TV entitled Jeff Rense: A Reinvention of What?, we now have official confirmation that Jeff Rense has retained the services of a lawyer who is resorting to coercion and intimidation tactics in trying to pressure Patricia Smullin (owner of KOBI-TV in Oregon) into reversing herself by signing a pre-scripted statement in order to avoid a potential “defamation lawsuit.”

In fact, this is what Attorney-at-Law Eugene V. Anderson wrote in a letter dated May 31, 2006 in which he wants Ms. Smullin to actually sign a statement that he himself wrote and SCRIPTED for her in advance. The next three paragraphs are what Jeff Rense's legal gun "suggests" that Ms. Smullin write and sign:

“You had virtually no day to day contact with Mr. Rense during his tenure at KOBI-TV where he worked under the then news director, Alan Goldberg, as an anchor/director, from May 1983 to June 1984. While at KOBI Mr. Rense worked extremely hard, producing, writing, and anchoring both the 6-7 and the 11 pm newscasts, Monday through Friday. Mr. Rense was a superb anchor/producer and he earned KOBI an Arbitron rating for his newscasts of a 53 point share, which is unprecedented in our station's history.

I categorically deny the quotations attributed to me in the Wingtv.net article titled “Jeff Rense: A Reinvention of What?” by Lisa Guliani. I deny stating that Jeff Rense is a ‘compulsive liar’. I deny stating that Jeff Rense is ‘not known for his honesty.’

I deeply regret the totally untrue statements attributed to me in the Wingtv.net article, and I hereby issue a heartfelt, formal and public apology to Mr. Rense. I personally have a great deal of professional respect for Jeff Rense.”

To read Attorney Anderson’s entire letter, click here:
Jeff Rense Lawyer (page one)
Jeff Rense Lawyer (page two)

Now remember, Ms. Smullin didn’t write a single word above; Jeff Rense’s lawyer did! And, of course, if Ms. Smullin ever signs this SCRIPTED statement (that she didn’t even write), then Jeff Rense (by dangling the threat of a defamation lawsuit in her face) would publish it on his website and pull a bait-and-switch in a transparent attempt to discredit my article. But as can be seen from the SCRIPT, his underhanded tactic has now been exposed.

ORIGINAL
Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: Abovetopsecret.com, Project Serpo Psy-ops, and the Pentagon's Flying Fish

Laura Knight-Jadczyk

From the 'Protocols of the Pathocrats':

[T]o sow discord in all parties, to dislocate all collective forces which are still unwilling to submit to us, and to discourage any kind of personal initiative which might in any degree hinder our affair. THERE IS NOTHING MORE DANGEROUS THAN PERSONAL INITIATIVE: if it has genius behind it, such initiative can do more than can be done by millions of people among whom we have sown discord.

For the last few years, our website, Signs of the Times has sought, in all honesty, to present the daily news as truthfully as possible. Signs of the Times is one of the very few news and information portals on the web that remains uncorrupted in any way and is staffed by a small group of people who are dedicated to one thing - bringing the Truth to the general public. We are able to do this because we rely solely on support from our readers and our own hard work: book sales. You may not necessarily agree with our take on events but I would hope that you agree that alternative media is now essential to the preservation of our basic freedoms. As I wrote in my editorial for the Signs of the Times Podcast on February 19, 2006:

Knowledge is power. Those who control information can control the masses; it's that simple.

As we researched the subject of the media, we came across The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. As everyone knows, this is a vicious anti-Semitic hoax. We agree. We do not for a minute think that this represents Judaism or ordinary Jewish people.

What was shocking for us was our realization that the Protocols is being implemented almost line by line by many of the members of the Bush Administration and the various government 'think-tanks' that formulate their policy. In other words, the Protocols is not a hoax because it is nonsense, but rather it is only a hoax because it was attributed to Jews.

Here, we present the text of Protocol 12 from which several excerpts were read on the podcast and which we jokingly referred to as "The Gospel According to Karl Rove."

Read it and understand that this is, indeed, the number one issue that America must deal with before they can do a single other thing.

PROTOCOL No. 12 Control of the Press

1. The word "freedom," which can be interpreted in various ways, is defined by us as follows -

2. Freedom is the right to do that which the law allows. This interpretation of the word will at the proper time be of service to us, because all freedom will thus be in our hands, since the laws will abolish or create only that which is desirable for us according to the aforesaid program.

3. We shall deal with the press in the following way: what is the part played by the press to-day? It serves to excite and inflame those passions which are needed for our purpose or else it serves selfish ends of parties. It is often vapid, unjust, mendacious, and the majority of the public have not the slightest idea what ends the press really serves. We shall saddle and bridle it with a tight curb: we shall do the same also with all productions of the printing press, for where would be the sense of getting rid of the attacks of the press if we remain targets for pamphlets and books? The produce of publicity, which nowadays is a source of heavy expense owing to the necessity of censoring it, will be turned by us into a very lucrative source of income to our State: we shall lay on it a special stamp tax and require deposits of caution-money before permitting the establishment of any organ of the press or of printing offices; these will then have to guarantee our government against any kind of attack on the part of the press.

For any attempt to attack us, if such still be possible, we shall inflict fines without mercy. Such measures as stamp tax, deposit of caution-money and fines secured by these deposits, will bring in a huge income to the government. It is true that party organs might not spare money for the sake of publicity, but these we shall shut up at the second attack upon us. No one shall with impunity lay a finger on the aureole of our government infallibility. The pretext for stopping any publication will be the alleged plea that it is agitating the public mind without occasion or justification. I BEG YOU TO NOTE THAT AMONG THOSE MAKING ATTACKS UPON US WILL ALSO BE ORGANS ESTABLISHED BY US, BUT THEY WILL ATTACK EXCLUSIVELY POINTS THAT WE HAVE PRE-DETERMINED TO ALTER. WE CONTROL THE PRESS

4. NOT A SINGLE ANNOUNCEMENT WILL REACH THE PUBLIC WITHOUT OUR CONTROL. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.

5. If already now we have contrived to possess ourselves of the minds of the GOY communities to such an extent the they all come near looking upon the events of the world through the colored glasses of those spectacles we are setting astride their noses; if already now there is not a single State where there exist for us any barriers to admittance into what GOY stupidity calls State secrets: what will our positions be then, when we shall be acknowledged supreme lords of the world in the person of our king of all the world ....

6. Let us turn again to the FUTURE OF THE PRINTING PRESS. Every one desirous of being a publisher, librarian, or printer, will be obliged to provide himself with the diploma instituted therefore, which, in case of any fault, will be immediately impounded. With such measures THE INSTRUMENT OF THOUGHT WILL BECOME AN EDUCATIVE MEANS ON THE HANDS OF OUR GOVERNMENT, WHICH WILL NO LONGER ALLOW THE MASS OF THE NATION TO BE LED ASTRAY IN BY-WAYS AND FANTASIES ABOUT THE BLESSINGS OF PROGRESS. Is there any one of us who does not know that these phantom blessings are the direct roads to foolish imaginings which give birth to anarchical relations of men among themselves and towards authority, because progress, or rather the idea of progress, has introduced the conception of every kind of emancipation, but has failed to establish its limits .... All the so-called liberals are anarchists, if not in fact, at any rate in thought. Every one of them in hunting after phantoms of freedom, and falling exclusively into license, that is, into the anarchy of protest for the sake of protest....

7. We turn to the periodical press. We shall impose on it, as on all printed matter, stamp taxes per sheet and deposits of caution-money, and books of less than 30 sheets will pay double. We shall reckon them as pamphlets in order, on the one hand, to reduce the number of magazines, which are the worst form of printed poison, and, on the other, in order that this measure may force writers into such lengthy productions that they will be little read, especially as they will be costly. At the same time what we shall publish ourselves to influence mental development in the direction laid down for our profit will be cheap and will be read voraciously. The tax will bring vapid literary ambitions within bounds and the liability to penalties will make literary men dependent upon us. And if there should be any found who are desirous of writing against us, they will not find any person eager to print their productions. Before accepting any production for publication in print, the publisher or printer will have to apply to the authorities for permission to do so. Thus we shall know beforehand of all tricks preparing against us and shall nullify them by getting ahead with explanations on the subject treated of.

8. Literature and journalism are two of the most important educative forces, and therefore our government will become proprietor of the majority of the journals. This will neutralize the injurious influence of the privately-owned press and will put us in possession of a tremendous influence upon the public mind .... If we give permits for ten journals, we shall ourselves found thirty, and so on in the same proportion. This, however, must in no wise be suspected by the public. For which reason all journals published by us will be of the most opposite, in appearance, tendencies and opinions, thereby creating confidence in us and bringing over to us quite unsuspicious opponents, who will thus fall into our trap and be rendered harmless.

9. In the front rank will stand organs of an official character. They will always stand guard over our interests, and therefore their influence will be comparatively insignificant.

10. In the second rank will be the semi-official organs, whose part it will be to attack the tepid and indifferent.

11. In the third rank we shall set up our own, to all appearance, opposition, which, in at least one of its organs, will present what looks like the very antipodes to us. Our real opponents at heart will accept this simulated opposition as their own and will show us their cards.

12. All our newspapers will be of all possible complexions -- aristocratic, republican, revolutionary, even anarchical - for so long, of course, as the constitution exists .... Like the Indian idol "Vishnu" they will have a hundred hands, and every one of them will have a finger on any one of the public opinions as required. When a pulse quickens these hands will lead opinion in the direction of our aims, for an excited patient loses all power of judgment and easily yields to suggestion. Those fools who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us. In the vain belief that they are following the organ of their party they will, in fact, follow the flag which we hang out for them.

13. In order to direct our newspaper militia in this sense we must take special and minute care in organizing this matter. Under the title of central department of the press we shall institute literary gatherings at which our agents will without attracting attention issue the orders and watchwords of the day. By discussing and controverting, but always superficially, without touching the essence of the matter, our organs will carry on a sham fight fusillade with the official newspapers solely for the purpose of giving occasion for us to express ourselves more fully than could well be done from the outset in official announcements, whenever, of course, that is to our advantage.

14. THESE ATTACKS UPON US WILL ALSO SERVE ANOTHER PURPOSE, NAMELY, THAT OUR SUBJECTS WILL BE CONVINCED TO THE EXISTENCE OF FULL FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND SO GIVE OUR AGENTS AN OCCASION TO AFFIRM THAT ALL ORGANS WHICH OPPOSE US ARE EMPTY BABBLERS, since they are incapable of finding any substantial objections to our orders. ONLY LIES WILL BE PRINTED

15. Methods of organization like these, imperceptible to the public eye but absolutely sure, are the best calculated to succeed in bringing the attention and the confidence of the public to the side of our government. Thanks to such methods we shall be in a position as from time to time may be required, to excite or to tranquillize the public mind on political questions, to persuade or to confuse, printing now truth, now lies, facts or their contradictions, according as they may be well or ill received, always very cautiously feeling our ground before stepping upon it ....

WE SHALL HAVE A SURE TRIUMPH OVER OUR OPPONENTS SINCE THEY WILL NOT HAVE AT THEIR DISPOSITION ORGANS OF THE PRESS IN WHICH THEY CAN GIVE FULL AND FINAL EXPRESSION TO THEIR VIEWS owing to the aforesaid methods of dealing with the press. We shall not even need to refute them except very superficially.

16. Trial shots like these, fired by us in the third rank of our press, in case of need, will be energetically refuted by us in our semi-official organs.

17. Even nowadays, already, to take only the French press, there are forms which reveal masonic solidarity in acting on the watchword: all organs of the press are bound together by professional secrecy; like the augurs of old, not one of their numbers will give away the secret of his sources of information unless it be resolved to make announcement of them. Not one journalist will venture to betray this secret, for not one of them is ever admitted to practice literature unless his whole past has some disgraceful sore or other .... These sores would be immediately revealed. So long as they remain the secret of a few the prestige of the journalist attacks the majority of the country - the mob follow after him with enthusiasm.

18. Our calculations are especially extended to the provinces. It is indispensable for us to inflame there those hopes and impulses with which we could at any moment fall upon the capital, and we shall represent to the capitals that these expressions are the independent hopes and impulses of the provinces. Naturally, the source of them will be always one and the same - ours.

WHAT WE NEED IS THAT, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS WE ARE IN THE PLENITUDE POWER, THE CAPITALS SHOULD FIND THEMSELVES STIFLED BY THE PROVINCIAL OPINION OF THE NATIONS, I.E., OF A MAJORITY ARRANGED BY OUR AGENTUR. What we need is that at the psychological moment the capitals should not be in a position to discuss an accomplished fact for the simple reason, if for no other, that it has been accepted by the public opinion of a majority in the provinces.

19. WHEN WE ARE IN THE PERIOD OF THE NEW REGIME TRANSITIONAL TO THAT OF OUR ASSUMPTION OF FULL SOVEREIGNTY WE MUST NOT ADMIT ANY REVELATION BY THE PRESS OF ANY FORM OF PUBLIC DISHONESTY; IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE NEW REGIME SHOULD BE THOUGHT TO HAVE SO PERFECTLY CONTENDED EVERYBODY THAT EVEN CRIMINALITY HAS DISAPPEARED ... Cases of the manifestation of criminality should remain known only to their victims and to chance witnesses - no more.

The position of freedom of expression particularly when it is expressing Truth, is now very serious as the world is slipping steadily into a manufactured chaos - manufactured as described above...

Our website - Signs of the Times - represents one of many alternative sites but we seem to be doing something that most of the others aren't doing as we have now been attacked by some "serious heavies" in the form of the world's biggest, meanest, law firm that just happens to be based in Virginia - and we all know who else comes from Virginia - this is no coincidence.

As many of the readers of Signs of the Times are aware, this attack was launched via a gang we have suspected to be agents of Pentagon psy-ops - abovetopsecret.com and friends - on the night of the 22nd. We became aware that there was a problem only after many of our readers had sent emails asking why Signs of the Times was inaccessible.

Since we experience regular DOS attacks, but have learned to deal with them quickly and efficiently (with the help of the server techs), we first thought that this might be the problem. It was only after writing to the server people that we became aware that the problem was something "other" than just simple DOS attacks. The server techs told us that they had discontinued our service because of having received a notice of "copyright infringement." Well, heck, we get that all the time but the server techs have NEVER been intimidated before; so what was up with this? we wondered. Since the server people know what our site is about and this has NEVER been an issue before, just what was going on here? (To get an idea of some of the nonsense that goes on behind the scenes, have a look HERE).

That was the first clue that tactics were being used that had never been used before.

We got on the phone to the server techs and basically explained to them that heck, if someone is accusing us of copyright infringment, we need to know who it is and what they are claiming is copyright violation so we can take care of it. It was then that the techs forwarded to us the letter from the attorney claiming to represent abovetopsecret.com as follows:

Go HERE to read the letter since we aren't going to risk our server people being threatened again by publishing it on our site.

Now, you will notice that the above letter has certain details removed. Why? Well, that's an interesting part of the story that tells us a great deal about Wayne Jaeschke and Abovetopsecret.com. Let me explain:

As soon as we received the information from our server, and determining from their fear of Mr. Jaeschke that something other than a letter was behind this, we removed the "offending articles" from the server and placed them elsewhere. Since there was no copyright violation (as we had been assured by our own legal counsel), but the fear that was evident in the attitude of the server techs suggested that something more was going on with this issue, we made this decision to place the articles elsewhere. And then, in order to explain the disruption and notify our readers of what was going on, we posted Jaeschke's letter on the Signs of the Times Forum.

Since we were still sitting at our computers (it was the middle of the night here in France) working on changing links and putting in redirects, we were immediately aware when, a few minutes later, the site was taken down again. So, we were back on the phone to the server people who told us that Mr. Jaeschke had called them and demanded that his contact details be removed. (At least that is what they told us; what Jaeschke actually said to them, we have no way of knowing.) We explained that we couldn't do that if the site was not working, so they re-activated it.

I was IN THE PROCESS of doing it, trying to upload the changes, when the site disappeared again!

Yup, three times in less than an hour!

We were back on the phone asking "what's wrong THIS time???" It seems that Jaeschke was screaming that he was getting death threats already because we had posted his info and what he REALLY wanted was that his entire letter be removed, not just the contact details.

The server techs were REALLY scared! We patiently explained that Wayne is just a cointelpro agent and internet psy-ops game player using his position as an attorney to intimidate them. So, after they got calmed down a bit, the site went back up and they stayed on the phone until I gave them the signal that the letters had been removed from all three threads.

I actually felt sorry for those poor fellas! And that kind of terror is what psychopaths count on and that is why it is so important to study psychopathy, to know them fully and well so that you are not susceptible to their maneuvers and manipulations! In this day and time, a course about psychopaths ought to be required for anybody in a position to be intimidated or coerced by such blatant strong-mouth manipulation.

Possibly utilizing the "special psychological knowledge" of the psychopath that Andrew Lobaczewski describes in his work on Ponerology, good ole Wayne did such a number on those poor tech guys that they folded instantly. Seeing how Mr. Jaeschke managed to intimidate the heck out of the tech's really makes you wonder just what kinds of things he said to them on the phone? Geez! Didn't Hannibal Lecter convince a guy to swallow his own tongue? But I digress...

Nevertheless, at this point, the fog began to clear! What Mr. Jaeschke was really concerned about was the public association of his name or the name of his firm with abovetopsecret.com. That's why I wrote in the previous post that it became clear that this was supposed to be a "stealth" attack. We were never supposed to SEE the letter from abovetopsecret.com's attorney, Wayne C. Jaeschke, Jr. of Morrison & Foerster LLP in McLean VA . Nobody was ever supposed to see it. It was sent to our host server, not to us. Notice on the scary letter above the intimidating footer that says:

This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message.

Well, I had certainly read it and, as far as I was concerned, as the subject of the message, I was "authorized to receive for the addressee". And since I was "authorized" to receive, I was certainly entitled to "use, copy and disclose" to everyone the message and the information contained in the message.

Wayne, if you don't agree, sue me, please!!! And also explain to me why we have never received an official letter in the mail - as is standard operating procedure - regarding this matter? Is it because you don't want any hard evidence floating around about your close association with abovetopsecret.com?

As I said, Wayne's pathetic screaming and crying that he was getting death threats within 5 minutes of his publicly available contact details appearing on the internet is what clued us into the fact that it was his exposure as an associate of abovetopsecret.com that was at issue. Why? Because every single one of the contact details that Wayne claims were exposing him to mortal danger just happen to be published on the Morrison and Foerster website which also tells us this:

The International Law Firm for Israeli Companies

Morrison & Foerster combines extensive experience representing Israeli companies in cross-border business transactions and litigation with the high- tech focus of its Silicon Valley practice.

We offer our Israeli clients comprehensive, global legal services that only an international law firm with over one thousand lawyers in nineteen offices around the world can provide in intellectual property, litigation, public offerings, technology transactions, M&A, corporate finance and all other areas of law they face as international players.

Gee, I wonder if they represent Israeli Moving Companies such as the ones that employed the Five Dancing Israelis on September 11, 2001, Urban Moving Company? But I digress...

Getting back to Wayne: is what is said about the Northern Virginia office where Wayne is one of a whole gaggle of associates:

1650 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 300 McLean, Virginia 22102 Phone: (703) 760-7700 Fax: (703) 760-7777

Key Facts about Morrison & Foerster’s Northern Virginia Office

Managing Partner: Brian Busey

If you click " List of Attorneys in our Northern Virginia office" you can then select Wayne's name:

Wayne C. Jaeschke Associate Primary Office: Northern Virginia Email: wjaeschke@mofo.com Phone: (703) 760-7756 Fax: (703) 760-7777

These are the same phone numbers and the same email that were on the above email to our server techs. What's more, you can even have a look at Wayne's mug... Have a quick peek...

Whiny looking guy, isn't he? Geez, reminds me of a story on Signs of the Times about How to spot a baby conservative - Whiny children, claims a new study, tend to grow up rigid and traditional.

Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative. ... The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals. The study from the Journal of Research Into Personality isn't going to make the UC Berkeley professor who published it any friends on the right. Similar conclusions a few years ago from another academic saw him excoriated on right-wing blogs, and even led to a Congressional investigation into his research funding. [...]

Shades of the Protocols!

The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity. The confident kids turned out liberal and were still hanging loose, turning into bright, non-conforming adults with wide interests. The girls were still outgoing, but the young men tended to turn a little introspective. [...]

He reasons that insecure kids look for the reassurance provided by tradition and authority, and find it in conservative politics. The more confident kids are eager to explore alternatives to the way things are, and find liberal politics more congenial. In a society that values self-confidence and out-goingness, it's a mostly flattering picture for liberals. It also runs contrary to the American stereotype of wimpy liberals and strong conservatives.

Of course, if you're studying the psychology of politics, you shouldn't be surprised to get a political reaction. Similar work by John T. Jost of Stanford and colleagues in 2003 drew a political backlash.

The researchers reviewed 44 years worth of studies into the psychology of conservatism, and concluded that people who are dogmatic, fearful, intolerant of ambiguity and uncertainty, and who crave order and structure are more likely to gravitate to conservatism. Critics branded it the "conservatives are crazy" study and accused the authors of a political bias. [...]

More action according to the Protocols?

Whether anyone's feelings are hurt or not, the work suggests that personality and emotions play a bigger role in our political leanings than we think. All of us, liberal or conservative, feel as though we've reached our political opinions by carefully weighing the evidence and exercising our best judgment. But it could be that all of that careful reasoning is just after-the-fact self-justification. What if personality forms our political outlook, with reason coming along behind, rationalizing after the fact?

It could be that whom we vote for has less to do with our judgments about tax policy or free trade or health care, and more with the personalities we've been stuck with since we were kids.

Ragarding the above conclusions, taken in context with the Protocols of the Pathocrats, we have to consider psychopathy and other pathological conditions and how psychopaths can influence those with mental deficits at the social, national, and even global level. It could be said that being whiny and insecure may very well be evidence of congenital mental deficits that tend to make an individual more susceptible to Ponerological dynamics.

Speaking of Ponerology, How many of you are aware that Signs of the Times is never officially censored, but that the censorship imposed on us is covert and comprehensive. We have received many emails from readers about this issue and just the other day a reader who is an EXECUTIVE in a big multinational company branch in the UK sent me the following screen shot that he recently started getting on his computer when he tries to access Signs of the Times:

Go HERE to see the screen shot since we aren't going to risk our server people being threatened again by publishing it on our site.

Now, as I said, this is an executive who generally logs onto Signs to dowload the news for reading later at home. He is not using his work computer to "waste time" or diddle around. Generally, executives are allowed to access whatever they like on their work computers. More than that, Signs of the Times is not a "Newsgroup" or "Bulletin Board," it is an Alternative News Source. I understand that we are also totally black-listed in China.

But back to Wayne's tantrum about his contact details being revealed. Fact is, the law firm actually publishes Directions to their location along with a handy little map. Gee, isn't that right down the road from the CIA? As one of the posters to our forum points out:

"MoFo is a heavyweight law firm. Sort of like the Mercedes-Benz of law firms. These aren't ambulance chasers. Their meat and potatos are IP law and other big corporation stuff. Intel retains them, among others. They don't usually bother with harassment suits, but as long as your coin is good (and plenty), they'll do whatever you want. Whoever is behind this has a lot of coins to throw around."

Another poster responded:

Having said that, there are two Wayne Jaeschke's at MoFo (is that name symbolic?), most likely father and son, of which our Wayne is the son. It seems that while MoFo might be the 'Mercedes Benz' of law firms, Wayne junior isn't up to much other than intimidating customer support at server companies and trying to find new ways to build bigger and better speakers, probably so he can listen to a recording of his own voice telling himself what a big, powerful lawyer he is.

Whether or not MoFo actually represents abovetopsecret.com, for our purposes, the most significant thing about Wayne Jaeschke's letter to our server people (that we were never supposed to see) was that it confirmed the close association of Jaeschke with the abovetopsecret.com "Three Amigos". This brings us to something else most interesting, the whole so-called Project SERPO hoax that abovetopsecret.com - with the gleeful assistance of attorney Wayne Jaeschke - has been running on the internet since last fall. There is a discussion about that on our forum also, which includes many fun facts and findings, and on that discussion page you can see a very interesting image about half way down which I am including here for the reader's convenience..

This is an image of an email that Bill Ryan of Project SERPO sent to me claiming that it had been sent to him by "friends" who were on the list of recipients. When I initially published it on the forum, I blacked out the name of the sender because I wasn't at all sure that a respectable attorney with a reputable law firm would actually be doing what this email suggests he is doing: creating a hoax to propagate on the internet via abovetopsecret.com. But now Jaeschke's involvement with ATS is on the record (even if he did not intend it), I am publishing the image without the name of the sender blacked out:

Go HERE to see the image since we aren't going to risk our server people being threatened again by publishing it on our site.

In short, this high-end corporate attorney is VERY thick in the whole Abovetopsecret gang activity. (Funny, QFG only ever had ONE attorney member and he only lasted about a week. He couldn't stand being in a group that demands the truth, I guess.)

You can see that this email comes from Wayne at "speakerbuilder.net. This is Wayne's "hobby site" where he likes to be called "The Rev". Hmmm... that's pretty suggestive of some strange mental quirks, not the least of which might be fundamentalist conservatism. If you click "email the Rev" you will get this publicly available email address. so if he starts yelling that his contact details are being revealed, he's full of it.

From this email we surmise that Wayne and the abovetopsecret.com Three Amigos and possibly others are communicating about their Hoaxing Activities re: Project SERPO. Apparently the set-up was to create a food fight about Serpo between Ryan and abovetopsecret.com in hopes that I would run to the defense of Ryan and get stuck in the Serpo Tar Baby. The above referenced "Friday the 13th" message was supposed to be the big expose that Serpo was a hoax. Had QFG been defending Serpo, we would have had significant egg on our face. As you can see from the email exchange posted on our forum, we suspected this from the beginning. We haven't been researching UFO and related matters this long to not recognize COINTELPRO when we see it.

One of the things that clued us in was that Bill Ryan removed the list of recipients before sending the email image to me, and my suspicions were raised even higher because he chose to send me an image rather than forwarding the email itself with the headers intact. My guess is that he was on the list of recipients as well.

In short, it tells us that the whole Serpo story is a creation, a game, put together by this bunch of sick turkeys.

Notice also Victor's (Martinez) comment: "If and when the official program goes into effect with legitimate, mainstream news media sources. " That definitely suggests that Victor is convinced that he is in contact with a gov intell guy - or that someone is - and that this whole program is sanctioned by the US psy-ops gang. Victor's question: "were ALL of the postings fake" tells us that he is not completely on the inside.

I'd bet dollars to donuts that Wayne is the author of ALL of the Serpo hoax material with maybe a little help from William Irvine and Mark Allin and Allin's Halliburton employee wife, "Val Hall". In short, abovetopsecret.com is just a nest of vipers, hoaxers and probably a central node for internet COINTELPRO funded by the Pentagon and backed by Dick "Shoot First, Ask Questions Later" Cheney.

Meanwhile, a reader of Signs of the Times has sent me a link to another blog, State of the Nation, which carried the following comments the day after our little "event."

Anatomy of a COINTELPRO shakedown II

The image above is the cover of the book Agents of Repression by Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall. It is great for getting some history of COINTELPRO but to see how COINTELPRO is used today, which the authors admit would require a whole other book, you may want to read the accounts of Laura Knight Jadczyk. It’s not just used against minority or counter cultural political groups. Why would power hungry psychopaths limit it to such groups anyway? It was afterall successful, and now they have both big and small fish to fry. Ms Jadczyk is now one of the many fishes in their sight.

A while back, based on her work, I detailed how COINTELPRO agents work. The chief activities of such agents is to limit anyone with a following that shows the true state of the nation and the world. As Agents of Repression and Ms Jadczyk’s blog will show you, they spread disinformation, infiltrate legitimate groups, harass and sic their big guns on workers for truth.

This woman must have angered someone in both high and low places because they got some really big guns to shut down her website yesterday. These were lawyers from McLean, Virginia acting on behalf of a group whose activities were detailed on the anatomy of a cointelpro shakedown.

Ms. Jadczyk has documented her experiences and findings beyond what I wrote a while back. The following links lays it all out.

COINTELPRO Updates:

More Updates

Further updates

Inside Scoop

The spider and the fly

The plausable lie

The magus and the swamps of Eugnosia

By the last link, she had decided to lay off the ATS business and I thought they had gotten to her. I thought they scared her into not revealing what she was learning about Above Top Secret (ATS). I still followed her various writings because ATS isn’t the world. They’re just one of many on our planet who knowingly or unknowingly become agents of repression. I was happy however, see that they did not manage to scare her off and her website is back up. They are certainly trying hard to neutralize her.

It is a real lesson on the ways in which COINTELPRO has our nation in the state that it is in now.

Well, you can say that again!

One of the more interesting responses that we have received to our forum posting of the information that ATS was behind the website shutdown is the following forum posting regarding the Project Serpo :

My first impression upon reading the ATS "attack" emails sent to Bill Ryan reflected my opinion of ATS itself: a business. Just as Ms. Knight Jadczyk touched on, they are all about marketing. I see a website littered with advertisements; I see a website trying to sell me something.

So I thought to myself Mr. Ryan here had a good idea but his execution (ie writing and such, as rs cited about story building) was poor. As a business, perhaps ATS saw serpo.org as a good opportunity for money if the Skeptic Overlord took over the marketing and consumer manipulation to match how they make their $$$ over at ATS. From an Occam's standpoint, it might just be simple, if not dirty and bullying, business. Capitalism and all that nonsense.

Except for Mr. Ryan's attitude and activity towards Ms. Knight Jadczyk. Once told that she thought his serpo stuff was all hokey, followed by her inability to provide any assistance, a man with his concern for what he purported (his credibility and website) would have moved on to someone else he thought could help him out if he really thought he was in a pickle. But his continued communication with her shows his concern and attention toward her, not his own business, perhaps shedding light of a different agenda all together.

For ATS and Serpo to all be in cahoots, months and months worth at that, all just to set a trap that in itself isn't definite (ie one would need to go for the cheese to get caught in the trap) seems quite elaborate. Elaborate actions dictate a very serious motive, ie Ms. K must have really pissed off someone, or that it really isn't so elaborate. There is the offchance that ATS and co. are all crazy and they like spending months and months building a card castle just so no one would go inside it.

But simplicity usually lays a heavy hand on human motive, even in the intelligence field. Cointelpro or what have you, people are people first, and people's actions and choices have been observed long enough to get a good idea of using one thing to get a type of reaction. This is why those hollywood blockbusters bust so much block. So the question is, what would have happened if Ms. K decided to go along with the whole hullaballoo so diligently put forth by these conniving con-men?

Editorials notwithstanding, any one of the possibilities here is just that, a possibility. The most weight can be given to one if we can get an idea of which way they are blowing the wind. Discredit to a nice author with a newfound penchant for genealogy? Or this website, and its mentally delicious Pentagon presentation? Judging from how they act on their own boards, ATS would hardly be above stating "Admin of this board is attatched to Loony Bin Mcgee and his Alien Silliness!" followed up with Hoots n Hollers from their camp followers. But all this activity just to try and paint a bad picture of a "competitor" board? That's a whole lot of effort involved here just to gain more webtraffic. Then again, I am constantly amazed at the lengths capitalists go to to get more bang in their buck.

But if this is political that would easily explain away the effort used here. Perhaps the business end of it is just a kicker, a nice bonus. The real intent to Lie and smudge away at someone else's tasty truths, especially if those truths reveal a not so nice view of ones' self (or history, such as shooting our own five sided buildings). Information is puported to be the most valuable commodity. Perhaps that is the showdown here: two cookies vying for the public's mouth; one a tasty truth, the other a tasty something but accompanied by a nightstick. Perplexing quandary at best. Yummy in my tummy or a safety net?

What is becoming increasingly clear from this Stealth Attack, and other signals, is that Signs of the Times is probably the most dangerous site on the internet from the perspective of the Powers That Be. For them to take the risk of exposure as they did (and did they get exposed!) only convinces us that the issues raised in the Flying Fish article and the Pentagon Flash are of such importance that they will pull out all stops to defame, harass, stalk, and intimidate us with the ultimate goal of destruction. They want to see SOTT disappear from the Web, that is certainly clear and it is now becoming even clearer just WHO is behind it.

Now, we are no strangers to COINTELPRO. We have been targeted since I started investigating UFOs in 1993 and talking about it back in 1995. It started out being MUFON and UFO true believer types. Then, it was the New Age types. Then, of course, the standard religious types... though they aren't as bad as the UFO/New Age types. At first, it all seemed to be just random: jealousies, people whose beliefs were being threatened, and so on. And certainly, to a great extent that can be true all by itself. But later on, after I began writing the Wave Series, exposing so much of the New Age Sewage, it got more serious and "dedicated." We have our own full-time agent of defamation who doesn't even have a real job - he seems to have absolutely unlimited time to devote to destroying us, our peace of mind, our reputations, our work, our lives, the lives of our children, our friends, our groups, etc. - Vincent Bridges, associated with Jay Weidner, associated with Jeff Rense, with Ray Flowers, with Drunvalo Melchizedek, funded to the tune of several million by Jirka Rysavy, Czech millionaire who many claim is just a CIA front man with has his fingers in a LOT of New Age pies. At present, their favorite tactic is to post endless defamatory lies on "cointelpro friendly" forums, or to sign on to legitimate forums under various internet "handles" - or anonymously - and whenever a positive reference is made to our work to jump in and rant "cult, cult" or make some of the most bizarre accusations I've ever heard of. My personal favorites are that my husband is funded by George Soros and I plagiarized my autobiography! (Yeah, go figure.)

So, it seems that we were targeted quite early on, but for the past few years, it has taken a more serious turn, obviously because of our 911 research including the "Pentagon Strike." Vinnie and gang are no longer sufficient because people are starting to recognize that when gangs rant "cult," they are identifying themselves as lower level COINTELPRO throwaways. Now they brought in some bigger boys waving their manufactured "creative commons" flags the way Bush waves his "I'm eavesdropping because I can" flag. Remember from the Protocols:

Freedom is the right to do that which the law allows. This interpretation of the word will at the proper time be of service to us, because all freedom will thus be in our hands, since the laws will abolish or create only that which is desirable for us according to the aforesaid program.

It'll be interesting to see what the next maneuver is!

The subject of the 911 strike on the Pentagon was subjected to intense cointelpro activity - as described in the Protocols above - from the very beginning so that now, even the so-called 911 truth seekers will nod their heads sagely and say "Yeah, it's just a set-up to make the whole 911 truth movement look silly."

I beg to differ.

I admit that I thought exactly the same thing in the beginning when our readers began to write to me and ask me about Theirry Meyssan's book. In fact, I even wrote comments to that effect and urged everyone to NOT touch this one with a mile long pole.

But even though I had made that initial assessment, based on what seemed logical to me, I still put our researchers on it because I WAS curious. And as the info kept coming in, it looked more and more like the Pentagon was, indeed, the "smoking gun" of 911 - even moreso than the collapse of WTC building 7.

I wrote my article "Comments on the Pentagon Strike" based on what info we had collected and as time went by and more data came in, we have added to it.

The Pentagon Flash Video was based, in part, on this article. What really shocked us was the way the video "took off" on its own. I'm not exaggerating when I tell you that it has been viewed by at LEAST 500 million people. Yeah, half a BILLION (and that was six months ago when we assembled the data for a count). It took down about five dedicated servers that were hosting it. It also triggered some VERY interesting reactions. But what I want to point out here is that the extraordinary popularity of this video says one thing: people know subconsciously that it is TRUE, that there was no Flight 77 at the Pentagon. Now notice carefully that I do not say that there was no PLANE, because there certainly was. It was just not Flight 77 nor anything like a Boeing 757.

This short little video did what no other work on 911 "Truth" had done up to that point: it triggered a whole lot of active "damage control" as we will see in a few moments.

What I noticed about the reactions to the Pentagon Strike that we have received via email is that they are overwhelmingly positive. Sensible people who can see through Bush and the Neocons have no problem seeing that there was no Flight 77 at the Pentagon. The negative reactions are also interesting; they fall into two categories: 1) honest, sincere people who have been influenced by the cointelpro/psy-ops who then, without even being aware, become de facto cointelpro agents; 2) the REAL cointelpro/psy-ops agents.

To give an example of what I think is the former type: not too long ago, Jeff Wells, on his Rigorous Intuition blog made the astonishing remark that:

"I've posted a number of times on the blog about the mistake of constructing 9/11 "truth" upon the sand of physical evidence. The "no plane" hypothesis (more than a hypothesis for many; more like an unforgiving creed) is one of the most egregious missteps. One I believe encouraged, if not led, by COINTELPRO."

First of all notice that, like a robot, he is repeating "no plane," as though that is what is being said. It is not. What is being said is that it was NOT a Boeing 757. But this is the first clue that Jeff Wells is mechanically repeating something that has impressed itself on his mind in some way.

The second thing to note is this astonishing phrase: The "sand of physical evidence" ??? !!!!

Now, let me say right up front here that being accused of being cointelpro ourselves is truly bizarre, but not unexpected; after all, that's what cointelpro does: muddy the waters, create foodfights, and generally make it impossible for people to get together and actually make a difference.

The very fact that Jeff Wells can say that (and I think he's a sincere guy) just proves my point about psy-ops and how it affects the mind. It demands of us the question: how someone can be so mentally divided that, on the one hand, they can question why the majority of Americans cannot see through Bush and the Neocons as an evil Fascist system, and on the other hand, turn around and do just what those people who support Bush are doing: believe that "witness testimony" is more reliable than physical evidence! Isn't that something of a contradiction? That's the same kind of general hystericization that has taken over the minds of Americans and makes it almost impossible to show them facts about Bush and Gang and to get them to see the reality. That's the same kind of mindset that allows Americans to sit by complacently while Bush and the Neocons wage pre-emptive war, torture, divest Americans of their rights, engage in illegal spying, vote fraud, destroy the economy of America, and the whole host of criminal activities going on in this country. And if anybody thinks that this gang of criminal psychopaths can't run psy-ops to produce "innocent" witnesses to say anything they want them to say, or to even buy witnesses, think again! And if you still think you can vote the bastards out of office, you had better wake up before it is too late.

So, when somebody says: "the mistake of constructing 9/11 "truth" upon the sand of physical evidence" what he is really saying is that he MUST acknowledge that the physical evidence (or lack thereof) is compelling, but still - because COINTELPRO has been run so effectively on the 911 truth movement - OR because most of the 911 Truth Movement IS COINTELPRO - he just has to go with the "witnesses." And many people will do that because the alternative is far too horrible to contemplate.

And that is the big problem with the whole 911 truth movement. COINTELPRO that produces such muddled thinking as is evidenced in Jeff Wells, a guy I used to read faithfully and really admired. In the case of Jeff Wells and most of the 911 researchers, I am reminded of the Protocols above, where it says:

When a pulse quickens these hands will lead opinion in the direction of our aims, for an excited patient loses all power of judgment and easily yields to suggestion. Those fools who will think they are repeating the opinion of a newspaper of their own camp will be repeating our opinion or any opinion that seems desirable for us. In the vain belief that they are following the organ of their party they will, in fact, follow the flag which we hang out for them.

That is exactly what is being done with the 911 movement.

Turning now to Joe's Flying Fish article that abovetopsecret.com and Wayne Jaeschke and their bosses in the Pentagon are so desirous of making disappear from the internet, Joe Quinn wrote the following::

We notice that very few items of so-called "conspiracy theory" have rattled the "Bushes" quite like our Pentagon Strike Flash did. The Pentagon Strike video came out on August 23rd 2004. Probably nobody really noticed it at that point, but it hit a chord of response in the hearts of millions of people around the world. They began to madly download and forward it to their friends and relatives. Latest stats on how many people have viewed it to date are 500 million!

Apparently it even landed in the email box of the Editor of the Washington Post, which is why Carol Morello sent us an email asking for an interview. Or so she said. My suspicion was that the Post was instructed to do "damage control", albeit oh, so gently!

Now, look at this mini-timeline:

August 23rd 2004: Pentagon Strike Video which propagates wildly for a month.

September 11, 2004: CatHerder post to Above Top Secret forum.

September 21st 2004: First contact by Carol Morello of the Washington Post

October 7th 2004: Washington Post article

It was an interesting feeling to know that if they hadn't seen the Pentagon Strike before, certainly George and Dick, Karl and the gang were watching it after the Washington Post wrote an article about it.

October 19th 2004: George Bush visits New Port Richey - a previously unscheduled "whistle-stop" on his campaign trail. NPR is very small, not likely to be a major target of any presidential candidate, but it just happens to be Laura Knight-Jadczyk's hometown. It was our initial reaction that Dubya's visit to Laura's little home town - certainly of no importance on the campaign trail - was deliberately done to send a message to her. Fact is, her daughter's ex-boyfriend wrote to tell her that he had been among those selected to shake the hand of George W. himself! Now, how's that for a coincidence?

As to exactly what Carol Morello of the Washington Post wrote to Laura, here is the pertinent passage which is actually quite revealing:

A couple of editors here saw the video/film, and I was asked to find out what I could about it. As you can imagine, we continue to have an intense interest on the attack on the Pentagon and the people who were affected.

I've just begun reporting, so it would be premature to tell you what "perspective" my story would have.

My initial impressions are that the questions and theories expressed in the video got a spurt of attention in early 2002, after the publication of a best selling book in France, then the furor died down for a while, and now they have re-emerged with the extraordinarily wide dissemination of this video on the Internet.

The 911 Commission report appears to have done little to dampen the controversy. I hoped to speak to you about how and why you posted it on your web site, what kind of response you've received and what you think about it. […]

Notice that she attributes the resurgence of interest in the "Pentagate" problem to the Pentagon Strike video. Can we say "damage control"?

And if there is damage control, then that means there is damage.

Up to this point in time, the only acknowledgement the administration ever gave to such issues was to refer vaguely and dismissively to "conspiracy theories". Now, suddenly, it seems that dealing with the "conspiracy theories" in a direct manner was seen to be imperative. "9/11: Debunking the Myths" came out in Popular Mechanics Magazine in March of 2005, just five months after the Washington Post article. That's pretty fast work.

Under the tutelage of Editor in Chief Jim "Oh look, a tank!" Meigs, Popular Mechanics assembled a team of researchers, including "professional fact checkers" (impressive eh?) to debunk the 16 most common claims made by conspiracy theorists about 9/11. Unsurprisingly, the PM editors claim that, in the end:

"we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate."

In fact, a careful analysis of the article shows that at most, just three of the sixteen claims could have been the result of "reporting error", forcing us to assume that, in the razor-like, emotionally unclouded cerebrum of Jim Meigs, at least 13 of the conspiracy claims about 9/11 are the result of "cynical imaginations aiming to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate".

The sad fact is that, while Popular Mechanics claims to be interested in understanding what really happened that day, their rebuttal of sixteen of the most common claims by so-called "conspiracy theorists" about 9/11 isn't worth the $3.57 of server space that it has so far cost them to publish it.

If there is one glaring hole in the arguments put forward by 9/11 conspiracy "debunkers", it is the fact that such people have never come up with a reasonable argument to explain why, in the wake of 9/11, so many obviously intelligent citizens became gripped by the uncontrollable urge to continually waste their time recklessly and fecklessly "injecting suspicion and animosity into public debate" for no apparent reason. It really is a mystery. Maybe they're trying to take over the world or something.

On the other hand, it doesn't take a degree in psychology to understand the primary motivations of the conspiracy debunkers. You see, the very last thing that many Americans (and others) want to believe is that their government would attack its own people. For 9/11 "debunkers", logic and intellect have no part to play in investigating the question of what really happened on 9/11. It's pure emotion all the way. [...]

Most people think that "conspiracy theories" are made up by "conspiracy theorists", but the term "conspiracy theory" is most often used by those people who have most to gain from the ridicule of the allegations that are directed at them. The tactic has been used to such great effect over the years that certain high crimes committed by government have become the touchstone by which all other "conspiracies" are measured.

Take the folks at Popular Mechanics. In dealing with 9/11 they simply couldn't resist referencing that other most despicable crime committed by a US government - but of course, to them it's just another "theory":

"Don't get me wrong: Healthy skepticism is a good thing. Nobody should take everything they hear--from the government, the media or anybody else--at face value. But in a culture shaped by Oliver Stone movies and "X-Files" episodes, it is apparently getting harder for simple, hard facts to hold their own against elaborate, shadowy theorizing."

Did you catch it? The reference to Oliver Stone can mean only one thing: Jim's "fact checkers" contacted the CIA, and they told him straight up that some bullets really can do magic things.

So far, we have been generous to the people at Popular Mechanics. We have assumed that they are simply well-intentioned but misguided souls. However, it appears that there is a more sinister, and dare we say it, "conspiratorial" side to Popular Mechanics' "innocent" debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theories. You see, it turns out that one of the main contributors to the article is one Benjamin Chertoff, a cousin of the new Dept. of Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff.

American Free Press' Christopher Bollyn, who dug up the information, also claims that Ben Chertoff's mother was a Mossad agent. While there is, as of yet, no evidence of any working relationship between the two, it is certainly noteworthy that the cousin of the current Homeland Security Chief, (who, in his previous incarnation as head of the Justice Department's criminal division was instrumental in the release of obvious Israeli spies before and after 9/11), happens to be behind a high-profile attempt to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories. [...]

According to another 9/11 researcher:

"The editors of Scientific American followed in the footsteps of Popular Mechanics in exploiting a trusted brand in order to protect the perpetrators of the mass murder of 9/11/01. The column by Michael Shermer in the June, 2005 issue of Scientific American, titled Fahrenheit 2777, is an attempt to deceive the magazine's readers into dismissing the overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was an inside job without ever looking at that evidence. More specifically, Shermer attempts to inoculate readers against looking at the decidedly scientific refutation of the official story… […]

According to another 9/11 researcher:

"The editors of Scientific American followed in the footsteps of Popular Mechanics in exploiting a trusted brand in order to protect the perpetrators of the mass murder of 9/11/01. The column by Michael Shermer in the June, 2005 issue of Scientific American, titled Fahrenheit 2777, is an attempt to deceive the magazine's readers into dismissing the overwhelming evidence that 9/11 was an inside job without ever looking at that evidence. More specifically, Shermer attempts to inoculate readers against looking at the decidedly scientific refutation of the official story… […]

Shermer's column exhibits many of the same propaganda techniques as the ambitious feature article in the March issue of Popular Mechanics by Benjamin Chertoff, for which Shermer professes admiration:

'The single best debunking of this conspiratorial codswallop is in the March issue of Popular Mechanics, which provides an exhaustive point-by-point analysis of the most prevalent claims.'

Comparing the two attack pieces is instructive. Both pieces mention a similar range of issues, with Shermer adding Jewish conspiracy rumors and UFOlogists to the mix...

This last is undoubtedly a direct reference to Signs of The Times, while avoiding giving a direct link to our website out of fear that the reader might be influenced.

Shermer uses an array of deceptive methods to persuade the reader that challenges to the official story of the 9/11 attack are worthy only of ridicule and should not be scrutinized. His primary technique is to use hoaxes and unscientific ideas to "bracket" the valid ideas that he seeks to shield the reader from.

That Shermer went to such great lengths to thoroughly misrepresent the painstaking, scientific, evidence-based work of many researchers is a testament to the success of the Pentagon Strike Video! It really stepped on a sore toe. And that tells us something important, the same thing Carol Morello of the Washington Post wrote:

"…the questions and theories expressed in the video got a spurt of attention in early 2002, after the publication of a best selling book in France, then the furor died down for a while, and now they have re-emerged with the extraordinarily wide dissemination of this video on the Internet."

We notice that never, in any of the two major "debunking" articles that followed fast on the heels of the Pentagon Strike video, was the video ever even mentioned by name, nor was our website mentioned. Other books, other researchers, other web sites were mentioned, but the deliberate avoidance of Signs of The Times - the origin of the Pentagon Strike, was conspicuous. We notice the same trend in the Above Top Secret forum.

Again we point out: debunkers are sent in only when damage control is needed. And damage control is only needed when it is thought that there might be damage. That means that the Pentagon Strike is understood clearly, in the minds of the perpetrators, to be the weak link in their chain of lies.

Debunkers are sent in not to give answers to the outstanding questions, but to push the emotional buttons of the public, to reassure people who really want "a reason to believe" that their government is not lying to them. [...]

As Laura Knight-Jadczyk notes in her book 9/11:The Ultimate Truth, the attack on the Pentagon is the Achilles Heel of the entire 9/11 coverup, and for one very good reason: while we all saw repeated footage of Flight 11 and Flight 175 crash into the WTC towers, and we all saw the wreckage of Flight 93 and have hundreds of eyewitness testimonies that a commercial airliner did indeed crash in Pennsylvania, there is no reliable evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on September 11th 2001. No one has seen any footage that shows Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, and the tapes that actually exist that could easily and immediately prove what did hit that day, have been confiscated by the FBI and the U.S. government studiously refuses to release them.

The US government claims that a Boeing 757 impacted the Pentagon on 9/11, many people dispute this, yet the same American government refuses to release video tapes that would put the matter to rest and show once and for all what hit the Pentagon. Use your head and ask yourself, "why?"

There is one very obvious answer.

In other words, you can push arguments about the WTC building's collapse from now 'til doomsday and get nowhere... Even if you prove that it collapsed due to explosives, you can't ever prove that those planes that flew into the WTC buildings were not big passenger jets with alleged Arab hijackers onboard. Even if you forced the government to admit that, yes, there were explosives that brought down the building, it can so easily be attributed to "terrorists" in a big "discovery" of bait and switch. That's why they don't really worry too much about the WTC attacks. That's why all manner of conspiracy theories about the WTC are tolerated with disdainful amusement.

But notice that there is NO real amusement about the Pentagon Strike. Oh, sure, they work really hard to poke fun at it, but the fact is, the Pentagon Strike video - and our work on that subject - is the one and only thing that has baited the Beast from his lair and it was for THAT reason that special "agents" like The Washington Post, Popular Mechanics, Scientific American, abovetopsecret.com and Wayne Jaeschke have been employed to stop it! To STAMP it out! To get RID of it! At ALL costs! Heck, that's probably what was on Dick Cheney's mind when he shot his buddy... he was having a waking dream and thought he was pointing the gun at the SOTT team!

The fact is, there is NO defense against the facts on the ground at the Pentagon except the word of a small group of "special" witnesses against another group of witnesses who say that it was NOT Flight 77. Think about it. As I happens, Dave McGowan, a pretty clever guy, has addressed these issues thoroughly. He writes:

A popular hobby of late among some 9-11 researchers seems to involve disparaging the efforts of, and questioning the motives of, those researchers who refuse to ignore the fact that the available evidence is entirely inconsistent with the crash of a jetliner at the Pentagon. These individuals generally refer to certain other Pentagon investigators as "no-plane" theorists. For the purposes of this article, I have adopted a name for them as well: Tattoo theorists. This appellation is, of course, an homage to the "Fantasy Island" character best known for the tag line, "Ze plane! Ze plane!"

Two of the most aggressive of the Tattoo theorists, by the way, are Jim Hoffman and Brian Salter, both of whom were on the other side of the fence, so to speak, until fairly recently. If you have ever known someone who quit smoking and thereafter embarked on a mission to browbeat and berate every other smoker on the planet, then you have a pretty good idea of how the Tattoo theorists operate.

On February 24, Brian Salter (questionsquestions.net) posted a histrionic denunciation of Pentagon "no-plane" theorists that included the bizarre claim that any efforts to "keep the unnecessary no-plane speculation alive just helps to smear 9-11 Truth activists as hateful maniacs. Maybe that's the idea."

Well, I guess the jig is up. Mr. Salter, it seems, has figured out our diabolical plot. All along, the real goal has been to cast 9-11 researchers as - dare I say it? - hateful maniacs. In fact, the 'talking points' that I receive from my secret CIA backers routinely contain such notations as: "Operation Hateful Maniacs is, as you know, proceeding on schedule; prepare to shift into the next phase of the program, Operation Deranged Psychopaths."

Of course, it could also be that those of us who continue to focus on the glaring inconsistencies in the official story of what happened at the Pentagon are actually pursuing the truth, which is what a "Truth activist" is supposed to do, rather than peddling entirely speculative drivel about a mythical 'plane bomb,' which is what the Tattoo theorists choose to do.

The primary strong-arm tactic of the Tattoo theorists is to cast "no-plane" theorists as part of a Cointelpro-type operation aimed at undermining the 9-11 skeptics' case. The "no-plane" theories, it is claimed, are "straw man" arguments, propped up specifically so that they can be easily brushed aside by "debunkers," thus discrediting the 9-11 movement in its entirety by attacking at points of greatest vulnerability.

In his blog, Salter claims "media debunkers have shown maximum enthusiasm for portraying [Pentagon no-plane theories] as the heart and soul of 9/11 skepticism and making it the centerpiece of practically every hit piece." (http://questionsquestions.net/blog/) Hoffman has written that "the prominence of the no-757-crash theory will damage the cause, particularly as it reaches a wider audience less inclined to research the issue ... The mainstream press is casting the no-757-crash theory as a loony construct of conspiracy theorists, and representative of all 9/11 skepticism." (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html) Mark Robinowitz has joined the chorus by claiming "'No Planes' has been the most effective means to discredit issues of complicity inside the Beltway." (http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html)

Obviously then, everyone is in agreement (as if they were all reading the same 'talking points') that we must immediately drop all support for the "no-plane" theories, because if we don't, we will continue to furnish the enemy with useful ammunition with which to attack and discredit us. Sounds like a good plan -- except for the fact that it is based on a false premise.

The reality is that there have been almost no mainstream media 'debunkings' of the 9-11 skeptics' case, and there is a very good reason for that: the cumulative case that has been painstakingly compiled is (despite the spirited efforts of people like the Tattoo theorists) a formidable one that major media outlets, along with most so-called 'alternative' media outlets, have wisely chosen not to confront.

By far the most ambitious, high-profile media 'debunking' of the claims made by 9-11 skeptics has been the hit piece that graced the cover of the March 2005 edition of Popular Mechanics magazine (http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html). Since it is known that this article was co-written by Benjamin Chertoff, reportedly a cousin of our very own Director of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, then it is probably safe to assume that a primary objective was to knock down all the 'straw men' arguments that had been carefully planted and nurtured by government operatives. That is, after all, how this game is played, as the Tattoo theorists readily acknowledge.

We should, therefore, expect to find that the Popular Mechanics article focuses considerable attention on the Pentagon "no-plane" theories, and on the Pentagon attack in general. But what we find instead is quite the opposite; instead of emphasizing questions about the Pentagon, the issue is downplayed and given very little attention -- which isn't really surprising given that the attack on the Pentagon has always been, from day one, relegated to the status of a relatively insignificant footnote.

The PM article presents what it says are the top sixteen claims made by 9-11 skeptics, coupled with what are supposed to be 'debunkings' of each of those claims. The claims are grouped into four categories, which are presented in the following order: "The Planes" (the ones that hit the towers); "The World Trade Center" (the collapse of the towers); "The Pentagon"; and "Flight 93." Five of the sixteen claims examined concern the collapse of the WTC towers, four concern Flights 11 and 175, four concern Flight 93, and just three concern the Pentagon attack. In terms of word count, the article runs (minus the introduction) about 5,200 words, and it breaks down roughly as follows: collapse of towers - 2,050 words; WTC planes - 1250 words; Flight 93 - 1150 words; and the Pentagon - a paltry 750 words.

So if we are to use the focus of mainstream media attacks to gauge the points of greatest vulnerability in the 9-11 skeptics' case, then, in terms of both word count and number of claims examined, the collapse of the Twin Towers would be, by far, the weakest leak in the chain (which is kind of ironic, when you think about it, considering that most, if not all of the Tattoo theorists actively promote the theory that the towers were brought down with explosives). As for Pentagon "no-plane" theories, they are, according to the given criteria, the point of least vulnerability. [...]

Claims concerning the Pentagon attack don't make an appearance on the Popular Mechanics list until well into the second half of the article. And once they do appear, they are given very little print space. The three claims 'debunked' in the PM piece barely scratch the surface of the cumulative case that has been built to challenge the official version of the Pentagon attack. And the 'debunking' of even these cherry-picked 'claims' is pathetically inept. The undeniable lack of aircraft debris from the alleged crash, for example, is brushed aside with nothing more than this ludicrous emotional appeal from an alleged blast expert and witness to the aftermath of the attack: "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box ... I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

You would think that if the Pentagon attack theories were the 'straw men' that the Tattoo theorists claim, then the 'debunkers' would be better prepared to knock those straw men down, and they would devote more print space to doing so. Instead, we find the Pentagon attack being downplayed in a major media attack on the 9-11 skeptics movement -- at the very same time, curiously enough, that a number of 9-11 skeptics have begun aggressively demanding that all "unnecessary speculation" about the Pentagon attack be dropped, and at the very same time that a new purported Pentagon skeptics' site suddenly appeared, professionally designed and complete with new interviews and photos (from insider sources), numerous omissions, copious amounts of spin and disinformation, a new DVD for sale, and, of course, enthusiastic backing from the Tattoo theorists and other 9-11 skeptics.

I have to say, quite frankly, that all of this just seems too well choreographed for my tastes. And, I have to also say that the Tattoo theorists' recent efforts to bury the Pentagon "no-plane speculation" seem rather desperate and overreaching.

I suggest that all of you read Dave's newsletter linked above with the Protocols of the Pathocrats held firmly in mind. As another poster in the Signs of the Times forum wrote:

Eye-witness testimony is notoriously pliable, and when already primed by FOUR airliners being hijacked, two have been flown into the World Trade Centre Buildings, and then something hits the Pentagon, it has to be one of the four airliners. It's in the programming, the priming, the following demonstrates this theory...

From 'Forensic & Criminal Psychology' Dennis Howitt:

"Few would doubt that human memory is fallible. An intriguing demonstration of this was a study of memory concerning the crash of an EL AL Boeing 747 jet onto a residential area of Amsterdam (Crombag et al., 1996). The crash had only been verbally reported on news bulletins as NO FILM OR VIDEO OF THE PLANE CRASH EXISTS [emphasis mine] Apart from eyewitnesses, no one could have seen the events. Nevertheless, participants in the research were misled into thinking that they may have seen such images on television by asking them about their recollections of the news coverage. Substantial numbers of participants in the study readily provided visual details of the crash as if they had seen it on film.[...]

"The key finding of the research is the failure of participants to recognise the falsity of their claims. That is to say, they did not realise that they were manufacturing memories."...]

This is not to say that eyewitnesses are not at all reliable, they are, but the essential point in the above is that with the right 'cueing' (programming) a vast number of people can be led to manufacture memories. Very sad isn't it, and it is easy to see the comparison here with how most people were led to believe it was a hijacked passenger airliner that hit the pentagon.

The truth is: NOBODY saw Flight 77 fly into the Pentagon. It didn't happen.

And so it is: Joe Quinn's rebuttal of the Pentagon Strike rebuttal, created and propagated by abovetopsecret.com, is just too dangerous to be allowed to continue to be "out there."

Even if it is completely legal to write a critical analysis as Joe Quinn did - utilizing the original article for the critique (how else can you write an analysis?) - covert intimidation and coercion from a fancy law firm in Virginia has been initiated to force the removal of this article from the internet after the pathetic efforts of the abovetopsecret.com "Three Amigos" didn't do the job. This was never supposed to be made public, it was designed to quietly and covertly "kill the messenger."

Discerning those whose intent is to deceive from those who are already deceived, but sincere, is very difficult but it can be done if people will begin to educate themselves and deal with the FACTS. Really and truly grokking COINTELPRO and the damage it does, and learning how to combat it, is a MUST if anything positive is ever to happen on this god-forsaken planet.

At this point, you can pretty well discern the COINTELPRO alternative sites from the sincere ones by who publishes this Exposure of abovetopsecret.com and who doesn't. Right about now, it IS that simple.

Now those of you that have read this far, let me mention that we removed our fundraiser, our fun little "Send Dick Cheney to the Moon" thing because, after a month, we raised less that 20% of our target - that is, double digits in thousands, not triple digits. Meanwhile, we know that the moveon.org people who haven't yet awakened to that fact that all their efforts and all their money is just going down the drain in the face of criminal fascists were able to raise several million dollars. That is another reason for COINTELPRO, to deprive the legitimate and UNCORRUPTED researchers of funds desperately needed to place the truth before the masses of people in a way that can compete with the Fox News type brainwashing.

Do you see moveon.org getting attacked? Do you see their website being taken down? In fact, please try to think of any other website that has been so thoroughly subjected to defamation, repeated DOS attacks, personal harassment, stalking, and now outright assault and intimidation from people with obvious connections to the Bush Neocons.

You can't. There isn't another website that can demonstrate with hard evidence, documentation, the level of attack that SOTT has been subjected to for the past five years.

Think about it.

And think about how much you might want us to continue to be available to you for news, analysis, commentary, and just the TRUTH.

When we are gone, who will take our place?


Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: Ruppert and Hopsicker Co-Opting the 9-11 Truth Movement Or Exposing the Big Con - Lies and Disinformation At The End Of Civilisation As We Know IT

By Joe Quinn

Febuary 7 2005: In looking at the best known "big names" among those individuals allegedly attempting to uncover the truth about 9-11, high up on the list (at the moment anyway) we find Mike Ruppert of ‘From the Wilderness’.

Ruppert has been making alternative news headlines for the past few months over two issues: the flack he has been taking, and giving, in a war of words with several high profile 9-11 investigators, and the issue of "Peak Oil". Quite often the two controversies are related.

It all began, it seems, with another 9-11 investigator, Dick Eastman, and some comments that he made about Ruppert's focus, or lack thereof, on the Pentagon attack and the evidence for the "no plane" scenario. Ruppert, true to his apparent love of litigation, threatened to sue Eastman, which, not being the most diplomatic response, got Eastman all flustered and the games where on.

Allegations flew back and forth, but sadly for corporate America, no lawsuits. Enter Victor Thorn (real name Scott Makufka) and owner of the Wing TV website. Thorn, apparently just your average dedicated 9-11 investigator, soon became aware of the spat between Ruppert and Eastman and decided that the best place for Ruppert and Eastman to discuss the matter like civilised truth seekers was on Thorn’s internet radio show. Thorn however, made the mistake of mentioning Eastman’s allegations in his invitation email to Ruppert, which was construed by Ruppert as an attack and resulted in Thorn joining the ranks of those threatened with legal action by Ruppert.

Now I have never met nor corresponded with Mr Ruppert, so I have to rely on the opinions of others who have met him or had some interaction with him to come to some idea of what kind of a guy he is. In all of the opinions of Ruppert that have been bandied about in recent months, the one that keeps popping up, and which is admitted to by even his friends, is that he is somewhat ‘excitable’. Frankly, given Mike’s situation, I can understand.

If we look at what thrust Mike into a unique position among 9-11 researchers, we find that it was not his research into 9-11, but rather his shocking revelations about "peak oil". Now it is no surprise that, from Mike’s point of view, this particular issue would eventually eclipse the events of 9-11 altogether, as he stated in his recent lecture at Washington University. After all, what’s the point in pursuing the prosecutions of Cheney and the boys when a large percentage of the population, according to the peak oil scenario, will never get to enjoy the trial anyway?

Thinking a little more deeply about the matter, I would venture to say that, if it were I that had uncovered - (alone or with the subtle help of parties unseen) - information that "proved conclusively" that there was no more oil and that mechanised humanity was in for a very nasty surprise, complete with the whole die off scenario etc, I might be a little testy sometimes too. If I subsequently realised (by my own efforts or with the subtle help of parties unseen), that the dissemination of this all-important information was my responsibility alone, I hope I would be excused for getting a little paranoid now and then. And in the case that I had come to the conclusion (alone or with the subtle help of parties unseen), that there would be lots of people out there pretending to be 9-11 researchers who, in reality, were just attempting to discredit me and my very important message to humanity, I’m damn sure I might strike people as ‘uptight’. Heck, I might even get defensive and aggressive at times, especially in my dealings with people that I suspected to be such disinfo artists - which could be anybody. I might even threaten to sue a bunch of them.

We should all therefore be reading between the lines with Mike and his temperament, but we should not waste too much time on it, and look more closely instead at his message.

If we look at the situation dispassionately (not an easy thing to do given the subject matter - "you’re all gonna die" - tends to make people a little emotional don’t ya know), what seems to be true about Mike’s message is that it is so shocking that it tends to have the effect of suspending the critical thinking capabilities of people who hear it. In a way it is like one of those doomsday cults where blind faith is asked for and given because: "we’re all gonna be toast pretty soon anyway, so what have you got to lose?"

It is also, coincidentally, a very good way to focus attention away from 9-11.

Of course, I am not saying that Mike is running a cult of any description, I am just saying that, whether Mike is aware of it or not, his message tends to promote emotional rather than critical thought, and thinking with our emotions tends to exacerbate an already problematic situation.

I think I can say without much fear of dispute, that, whether he planned it or not (or whether someone else planned it with him in mind), Mike has become somewhat of a saviour for his followers.

By his own admission, the following are Mike’s core beliefs about what needs to be done:

Instead of advocating war I oppose it. Anyone who has attended any of my more than 35 lectures in eight countries (more than 15,000 live audience members) will know, of a certainty, that my position on solutions is absolutely clear. I advocate an immediate cessation of all military conquest and imperialism by the US government and industrialized powers; an end to the war on terror.

I advocate an immediate convening of political, economic, spiritual and scientific leaders from all nations to address the issue of Peak Oil (and Gas) and its immediate implications for economic collapse, massive famine and climate destruction (partially as a result of reversion to coal plants which accelerate global warming). This would, scientifically speaking, include immediate steps to arrive at a crash program – agreed to by all nations and in accordance with the highest spiritual and ethical principles – to stop global population growth and to arrive at the best possible and most ethical program of population reduction as a painful choice made by all of humanity.

I hope that the sharp and sudden increase in heart rate and blood pressure that the words "population reduction" must surely have caused in readers was not too much to handle, and that we can continue and rationally consider the practicality of just what is being suggested by Mike.

The first question that can be reasonably asked is: "What planet has Mike been living on for the past 50 years?"

Please tell me when exactly the wonderful, life-respecting, spiritual beings took over the planet? Was it while I was at the toilet?

Seriously though, can ANYONE imagine Cheney or Putin or Blair or Zhu Rongji, or any other world leader for that matter, who by definition of their position of power have been completely corrupted by that power, suddenly exhibiting "the highest spiritual and ethical principles"? Just about every world leader, including the supposedly "spiritual" ones, have been presiding over mass depopulation for centuries, and they didn’t need any stinkin’ ethics or morals to do it; glee and relish was all it took!

When Mike was challenged by Victor Thorn of Wing TV about his stance on the depopulation question, he stated that, ideally, the job of depopulation would:

" […] include people of more humane vocations than those of the economists, politicians, and financiers who are currently in charge of most domestic and international institutions".

Sure, we would all like to have those "of more humane vocations" included, Mike, but, last time I checked, it was still the "economists, politicians, and financiers" that were running the show. Better yet, let’s have more humane people make the decisions, not simply those who are in positions where the illusion of humaneness is part of the job description.

Mike continues in this vein with his basic point being that it would be better that the several billion of us that sadly have to "go", be put to sleep by the Dalai Lama than prematurely euthanised by the Nazi Neocons.

Again, really Mike, it’s not much of a choice. Either way you are asking us to make the ‘ultimate sacrifice’ in order to clear the board for the "economists, politicians, and financiers" to just start all over again. THAT is the reality of the situation and it’s time we all grew up and accepted it.

The bottom line with Ruppert is that, while his alarmist, doomsday message is a real attention grabber, his solution to the problem really isn’t a solution at all, and for this reason it would be better if he were to just make his point and quietly sit down.

Another troubling aspect of the whole Mike Ruppert travelling show is the fact that he enjoys a level of exposure that is denied most other 9-11 researchers. He seems to have few problems in securing speaking appointments in places like Washington University or the Commonwealth club and having his book "requested by more than 120 press agencies from around the world", including "the largest and most powerful", and certainly the many lawsuits that he has either started or threatened to start must require considerable cash flow.

If there is one thing that the honest modern day truth seekers must come to terms with, it is that nothing is ever made easy. Everything must be worked for, and exposing the truth generally does not pay well in monetary terms. That is not to say that all those penniless "alternative" editorialists are on the level, but if you have a product to sell and maintain, be it a lie or the truth, you need exposure, and the type of exposure Ruppert is getting is usually beyond the reach of those of us who ARE on the level and attempting to scrape a living from it.

It is indeed strange to realise that, for all Mike’s supposed savvy as an ex-LAPD cop, he, like Hopsicker, seems unable to really grasp the true nature of the people that control this planet. On the contrary, Mike would have us believe that he and his little band of researchers should be credited with uncovering and bringing the "reality" of Peak oil, not only to the little people, but also to the Finance Ministers of the world’s seven largest nations! As he triumphantly stated in an essay last October:

WE DID IT!

World’s Seven Largest Economies (G7) Admit They Have No Idea How Much Oil Is Left - Issue Emergency Call for Transparency at DC Summit

A Challenge to the Flat-Earth, Abiotic Oil Advocates and Cornucopian Economists - It’s Now or Never

by Michael C. Ruppert

In the article, Ruppert claims that he and, "a group of dedicated men and women, recognized as being in the forefront of the movement to place Peak Oil front and center on the world’s agenda" had singled-handedly brought the reality of peak oil to the attention of the world’s leaders. Misunderstood ‘new-age’ platitudes about a single person being able to ‘change the world’ aside, is it really reasonable to think that a group of citizens would just stumble upon information as important as "peak oil" BEFORE the people that have been using oil to control and manipulate the world for decades?

If your answer is yes, as Mike’s seems to be, then we humbly propose that both you and Mike are woefully ignorant of the true nature of the control system on this planet.

But then again, wishful thinking WILL get you, EVERY time.

In a final flourish to the article Ruppert states that: "this book may change the outcome of the (2004) election". To which we say: if Mike’s election predictions are anything to go by, we can all relax about "Peak oil" as he presents it.

According to Mike, when big government and big oil exploration and drilling companies proclaim to the world that "we’re scraping the bottom of the barrel here folks", it is not that these patently corrupt men are attempting to manipulate world opinion, but rather that, faced with the dire consequences that peak oil portends for humanity, they are simply concerned for our well-being and future. Ruppert fails however to address the question of whether or not it is reasonable to believe that such men would suddenly undergo a complete reversal of the ethics that had motivated them up until that point in their lives.

As we all know, oil does not naturally flow out of the ground pre-refined into the various forms that are required to keep the post-industrial world turning and well-fed. There is a long and costly process involved in getting the oil to the gas station, and it would not happen if it were not financed by the large multinational oil companies that naturally have very close ties to the governments that require the oil in order for them to have a country and a population to rule over.

If there is an alleged shortage of oil, it is just as plausible that such claims are the result of some new government/corporate strategy rather than the actual drying up of resources.

Consider also the fact that, if we are to believe that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were solely to steal the oil resources of those countries, then things have not panned out as the Neocons hoped. Most reports have been telling us that the expected reserves in Iraq are just not there. Which begs the question: are we really to believe that all the big brains in the US "think-tanks" did not foresee this?

Of course I am not for a moment suggesting that depopulation does not form a part of the plans of ‘the powers that be’. There is too much evidence that governments have, for many years, been working on developing ever better ways to kill ever more people. My problem with Ruppert is that by promoting his "peak oil" debate, he ever so subtly diverts attention away from those who are really responsible for our current predicament and lays the blame for the impending demise of civilisation as we know it at the door of mother nature and the unfortunate fact that she has run out of oil.

How tragic.

While I cannot prove it, I would venture to say that Ruppert is being backed; possibly financially, probably with information, and almost definitely in terms of exposure. Having said that, it is possible - but not likely - that he himself knows little about where the money, information or exposure are really coming from. Such is the nature of the murky world of CoIntelPro and the fate of those who unwittingly become mired in it.

Which brings us to another high profile 9-11 investigator. Daniel Hopsicker of Mad Cow Morning News. The bulk of Hopsicker’s research centers around alleged chief hijacker Mohammed Atta and his association with the CIA and their drug running activities in Florida. Hopsicker’s "smoking gun" is that Atta and 6 other hijackers got their "wings" at a Florida Flight School that was also used for drug running by the CIA. Added to that is evidence that the hijackers received further training at Maxwell Air Force Base in Montgomery, Alabama. Hopsicker states:

"The most extraordinarily-damning fact that’s been dredged up so far about the 9-11 attack is this one, unearthed in Florida:

"During the same month that Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi began flying lessons at his flight school, the flight school owner’s Lear jet was seized by DEA agents who found 43 pounds of heroin aboard."

It goes to the heart of the relationship between Mohamed Atta and his Hamburg cadre and their criminal hosts here in the U.S. and leads directly to the network supporting, employing, and/or doing business with the terrorists.

Now, I am not contesting any of these details, in fact, it is rather curious that Hopsicker is able to glean such detailed and explosive information about the undoubtedly "top secret" activities of the phoney hijackers, purely as a result of honest and diligent research. Get real!

Hopsicker raises further suspicion and further dilutes his credibility by insisting that all roads simply HAVE to lead to Saudi Arabia, summing up his stance by saying:

Any 9-11"expert" whose revelations don’t frequently use the word "Saudi" in conjunction with the word "Florida" is peddling a red herring.

There are a lot of problems with "the Saudis did it" argument, the most obvious being that this is the main allegation not-so-subtly hinted at by Michael Moore in his widely advertised docu-movie, Fahrenheit 9-11. Given what we know about the mainstream media and it’s subservience to US government interests, it is unlikely that such a movie would have received such publicity if the allegations therein were actually factual.

Secondly there is the problem of the Saudi/bin Laden link. By now most serious researchers should be aware that bin Laden has been a CIA asset since the time of the Russo-Afghan war. During those years, bin Laden was the CIA’s man in Afghanistan and was used to recruit, train and funnel money and arms to the small group of fundamentalist Islamic ideologists and fighters that gave the Russians such a hard time. Of course, the CIA did not dirty their hands directly, preferring to use bin Laden’s folks in the Saudi regime as their middlemen. Having successfully schooled this band of merry Islamophiles in the art of expelling a world superpower from their country, they were then used as the scapegoats in various false flag operations that culminated in the 9-11 attacks. The BBC documentary "The Power of Nightmares" does a good job of summing up this aspect of the global shell game.

Thirdly there is the problem of the major source of the Saudi Arabia/9-11 link - Pakistani Intelligence – an organisation that is generally accepted as being little more than the CIA in SW Asia.

Did the Saudis know about 9-11?

A new book claims that Saudi princes and a Pakistani official knew Osama bin Laden would strike America that day. But some critics say the whole story could be a neoconservative fabrication.

By Mark Follman Oct. 18, 2003

When U.S. and Pakistani special forces raided a house on the outskirts of Faisalabad, Pakistan, on March 28, 2002, and successfully nabbed top al-Qaida operative Abu Zubaydah, the mood at CIA headquarters was upbeat. Langley watched the early morning raid via satellite, and once a Pakistani intelligence officer and some quick voice prints confirmed Zubaydah’s identity, the CIA knew it had captured one of its most sought-after adversaries, a figure who could potentially reveal the full story of the 9-11 terrorist plot. Shot several times in the raid, Zubaydah was given enough medical treatment to ensure his survival and hauled away for questioning. According to a new book, what Zubaydah said -- after being subjected to highly controversial interrogation methods -- stunned intelligence officials.

In his book "Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9-11," Gerald Posner makes an explosive allegation: Top figures in the Saudi and Pakistani governments had been directly assisting Osama bin Laden for years and knew al-Qaida was going to strike America on Sept. 11. Posner cites two unnamed U.S. government sources, both of whom he asserts are "in a position to know," who he said gave him separate, corroborating reports. One source is from the CIA and the other is a senior Bush administration official "inside the executive branch," he told Salon in an interview.

According to Posner’s account, four Saudi princes and the head of Pakistan’s air force were deeply involved with Osama bin Laden for years, some of them meeting with him well after al-Qaida began its terror attacks on U.S. targets overseas in the mid-1990s. The fact that some of the figures were so highly placed makes it hard to dismiss the possibility, if the allegations are true, that the heads of the Saudi and Pakistani governments signed off on the policy.

Saudi, Pakistani and U.S. government officials (the latter off the record) have dismissed the story as false. Zubaydah himself subsequently recanted his claims, saying he lied to avoid torture, according to Posner. But Posner thinks the allegations are credible -- not least because four of the five supposed conspirators died under strange circumstances -- and believes the U.S. wants to downplay them for an obvious reason: They’re too hot to handle, painting as they do two crucial allies as working hand-in-hand with America’s Public Enemy No. 1.

But several intelligence analysts and experts on Saudi Arabia doubt the story’s authenticity. While acknowledging that Saudi Arabia has supported fiery proponents of militant Islam and took an early see-no-evil approach to bin Laden, they say it would be highly unlikely that top members of the Saudi royal family would be so deeply involved with a global terrorist organization -- one that seeks to destroy the Saudi regime itself as part of a worldwide jihad against infidels and their allies.

As if to perpetuate the myth of a bona fide "war on terror", Hopsicker also repeatedly makes reference to "the terrorists", apparently taking as gospel the government - spun lie that "Arab terrorists" actually exist as an organised group dedicated to destroying everything American. Again, readers should watch the BBC-aired documentary "The Power of Nightmares" for evidence of this. It is hard to believe that a seasoned supersleuth like Hopsicker is not aware of the vast amount of evidence to suggest that the entire concept of an organised worldwide terrorist network is completely bogus.

Hopsicker is also insistent that the "no plane at the Pentagon" crowd are disinfo artists. Thankfully however, and as if to save us wasting any more time, Hopsicker graciously gives his CoIntelPro position away completely by claiming that anyone caught promoting the idea that the 9-11 airplanes could have been flown by remote control are obviously disinfo artists. Which, if Hopsicker is correct, means that Boeing must also be part of the 9-11 truth movement.

The more we look into the backgrounds of the main players involved in 9-11 research, the more links we find. Ruppert was a member of Hopsicker’s CIA drug running online discussion list. It is interesting therefore that Hopsicker and Ruppert have since had somewhat of a falling out in recent months, mainly due to information that Hopsicker dug up on Pinnacle Quest International (PQI), a company offering "little-known insider secrets of wealth creation" to its customers and from which Ruppert had accepted 4 all expenses paid trips to Cancun with a $1,000 dollar speaking fee. Hopsicker claims that PQI runs scam operations, and with a price tag of $7,500 for 21 CDs, we tend to agree with him. Unsurprisingly, as a result of this interaction with Hopsicker, Ruppert threatened to sue.

Now all of this gives the impression that Hopsicker and Ruppert are on opposing sides and one of them is telling the truth and the other is selling the lie. But as I have already mentioned, nothing is ever that simple in the world of CoIntelPro. You see, even with his "peak oil" slant, Ruppert and his message ran the risk of being just one more voice in the melee of 9-11 investigators and investigations currently entrenched on the internet. In the world of CoIntelPro, there are many ways to draw attention to the lie that you have to sell, and each particular method is tailored to be most effective in deceiving a specific audience. In the case of the conspiratorially-aware members of the alternative news communities on the net, one way to draw attention to disinformation is to have someone attack it AS disinformation.

The benefit of this tactic is that a very convincing argument can be made that the lie is in fact a lie, but care must be taken to leave the issue unresolved and ambiguous. Once the attack has been launched, it is then time to proclaim loudly that the lie is being attacked because it is the truth, which goes down well with conspiracy theorists. This type of CoIntelPro operation presents a more or less win-win scenario for CoIntelPro. In the best-case scenario, that section of public opinion that recognises that our leaders lie to us all of the time will tend to believe that the person being attacked is most likely to be telling the truth. If this is not successful, then, at the very least, much-needed attention is drawn to the lie and invariably infighting in the ranks of genuine truth seekers will have been fomented.

Not bad for a day's work.

The really interesting thing about Hopsicker and Ruppert however, is not what they disagree on but what they seem to agree on.

As stated, many people make the mistake of thinking that the job of CoIntelPro is to simply provide false leads and directly attack genuine 9-11 truth seekers. The fact is that their task is much more complex. Quintuple reverse psychology is not out of the question here, and I'm not joking.

Looking at the current infighting going on at present, it would appear that CoIntelPro agents have done a fine job. No one knows who is who anymore, everyone suspects everyone else, and those members of the public whose minds are not, as yet, welded shut will be the ones to suffer most from the lack of coherent information about what really happened on 911, who really is to blame, or what the real issue is.

For any 9-11 investigator to come out and say that a 757 plane definitely hit the Pentagon is to rob the public of the singularly most important aspect of 9-11 and the one that has the chance to blow the whole dastardly plot wide open.

Certainly, there is much evidence that shows that Flight 11 and Flight 175 really did hit the twin towers, forcing 9-11 investigators to resort to other, and less convincing, aspects of the events of that day to make their case that it was an inside job.

This brings us to the point about the Pentagon attack which is that there exists striking evidence to suggest that it was NOT a 757 that hit the Pentagon, and it is for this very reason that Flight 77 presents THE best opportunity to bring the 9-11 deception to public awareness.

Think about it. If it can be proven that something other than Flight 77 bored that hole through 3 rings of Rummy’s fortress, then it is not necessary to dig for non-existent "smoking gun" evidence that someone "stood down" America’s air defences or about any of the many other suspicious "anomalies" on 9-11, because the game would be up.

Even among those researchers who have spent time and effort on the Pentagon Strike, I know of very few that have looked at one of the most intriguing questions about that event. If we accept the evidence that points clearly to some sort of modified drone craft equipped with a warhead, like the "Global Hawk", having struck the Pentagon, the next question we must ask is, what reasoning was used to decide which part of the building to hit and who to ‘take out’?

Consider the following most interesting news report:

[…] Vice Adm. Darb Ryan, chief of naval personnel, was in his office at the Navy Annex about halfway between Trapasso’s home and the Pentagon. Having learned that New York had been attacked, he was on the telephone recommending the evacuation of the Pentagon "when out of the corner of my eye I saw the airplane" a split second before it struck.

Ryan was overheard reporting some of the initial damage assessment, which included spaces belonging to the chief of naval operations (CNO), the Navy’s tactical command center on the D-ring, an operations cell and a Navy intelligence command center. These included up to four special, highly classified, electronically secure areas. Many of the enlisted sailors involved were communications technicians with cryptology training who are key personnel in intelligence gathering and analysis. Some personnel were known to be trapped alive in the wreckage.

OTHER NAVY PERSONNEL confirmed the admiral’s initial assessment and said the dead numbered around 190, 64 on the aircraft. Among them was Lt. Gen. Timothy Maude, who was in the Army support and logistics section. Many others were Navy captains, commanders and lieutenant commanders with offices between the fourth and fifth corridors (the western wedge of the Pentagon). The Navy’s special operations office, which oversees classified programs, had moved out of the spaces only a few days before. All but one of the senior Navy flag officers were out of the building. Vice Adm. Dennis McGinn, deputy CNO for warfare requirements and programs, was near the impact area but escaped without injury.

One of the aircraft’s engines somehow ricocheted out of the building and arched into the Pentagon’s mall parking area between the main building and the new loading dock facility, said Charles H. Krohn, the Army’s deputy chief of public affairs. Those fleeing the building heard a loud secondary explosion about 10 min. after the initial impact.

The E-ring floors above the tunnel dug by the aircraft collapsed, leaving a gap in the Pentagon’s outer wall perhaps 150 ft. wide. Fuel triggered an intense fire that caused the roof of the damaged E-ring section to give way at 10:10 a.m. It was still burning 18 hr. later. Fire fighting was hampered by reports that twice sent personnel fleeing the area. First, at around 11:28 a.m., a warning that "an aircraft is in the air" sent police, FBI and other security personnel to passages under I-395 that lead away from the Pentagon. They quickly returned, but at 11:34, shouted and radioed warnings of another possible explosion sent people running again. However, by 11:40 FBI teams had returned with brown paper bags and gloves to scour the Pentagon grounds for debris in an area bordered by Pentagon City, Arlington Cemetery and the Potomac River.

F-16s from the District of Columbia Air National Guard periodically circled the Pentagon at altitudes low enough to frighten grade school teachers and students in nearby Alexandria. Later, the patrols were shifted to a higher altitude and continued through the night.

Confusion about what had happened, among the 20,000-24,000 employees leaving the Pentagon on foot in long lines, largely reflected where they were in the building when the aircraft struck. The Navy and Army spaces absorbed the damage. Navy officers not in the aircraft’s direct path reported heavy safes being flung across rooms and people thrown from their chairs. They variously identified major damage between the fourth and fifth or third and fourth corridors. No one knew the full extent of the damage. Air Force officers on the opposite side of the building heard or felt nothing until alarms went off. Even then, they thought it was a false fire alarm until orders were passed to evacuate the building.

Just what, we wonder, was so special about those "four special, highly classified, electronically secure areas" belonging to the ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence) that they had to be ‘taken out’ along with many Navy "communications technicians with cryptology training"? Clearly there is an important lead to be followed here, but both Hopsicker and Ruppert give it a wide berth, preferring to tell the public that Flight 77 really did hit the Pentagon piloted by Arab terrorists and "the 9-11 cause is no longer useful as a political tool by activists" respectively.

It is for these reasons that I frown upon researchers like Hopsicker, Ruppert and others who either refuse to seriously consider, or dismiss out of hand, the idea that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon. If we look at their reasoning for this stance, we find that there is none, other than that they appear to simply not like the idea that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Perhaps such a concept sits outside of their personal realm of belief, but, if so, it is, as I have already stated, a mistake to make emotional judgements when the intellect is called for, and it is an outright crime to attempt to pull the public into one’s subjective world. It is only through a rigorous pursuit of *objective* truth, without pity for our own illusions and beliefs that the big lie about 9-11 can and will be exposed.

Suspicions are further compounded when we discover that these same people who want us to suspect Saudi Arabia and to believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon, combine their promotion of this "party line" with vigorous condemnation of the "Israel did it" crowd. There is much to explore on the Israel question and much evidence, going way back, that Israel, to all intents and purposes, calls the shots in the US.

Just how far does the power of the Pro-Israel lobby go? Powerful enough to play a leading role in 9-11?

It is definitely NOT beyond the realm of possibility, and it is NOT for Ruppert Hopsicker or anyone else to assert outright that it is, particularly when they refuse to fully investigate the matter. Their position is similar to that of the Bush gang who also rule out, a priori, that it was something other than a conspiracy hatched by a man living in a cave and carried out by 19 crazed "Arab terrorists" several of whom happen to have been confirmed to be still living.

The truth is that the real reasons for the events of 9-11 are much more insidious than any of the theories that have to date been proffered. As part of the process of investigation, most 9-11 investigators have, at least once, suggested that if everyone were just to look to "who benefits", the solution to the whole enigma would quickly present itself. The important thing to remember about the "who benefits" approach however, is that, having identified the party that benefits the most from an event, that lead must be doggedly pursued, regardless of the lack of evidence of that party’s involvement in the event. Indeed, in such a case, a lack of evidence can constitute the most important piece of evidence if we consider that those with the most to gain often have the most to lose if their involvement were to be revealed. And in this case, the wherewithal needed to pull off such a major attack and deception is so vast, that those responsible would certainly have the means and know-how to plant evidence to blame it on others while eliminating the evidence that points back to the truly guilty parties.

As the twin towers crumbled to the ground, the average Western citizen’s perception of Arabs, already suffering from long years of subtle propaganda by the Western press, took an equally disastrous nose-dive. In one fell swoop, millions of people in that big nebulous area of the world known to many Americans as "the Middle East" became "dangerous terrorists" and the soon-to-be recipients of the whipped-up fury and indignation of the American people, conveyed on their behalf by the "world’s most awesome military machine". 9-11 then, certainly secured the enthusiastic consent of the American people for an invasion of whichever country the US government decided to frame for the attacks.

However, it is our contention that Ruppert’s argument that the 9-11 attacks were carried out to facilitate an oil grab by the US government in the face of "peak oil" also makes little sense.

As a result of the first gulf war and under the oil for food program, any Iraqi oil resources that were required for American consumption had already been secured by US interests, so there was therefore little to be gained by the US government embroiling its military in what was always going to be a costly and unwinnable guerrilla war. One has only to look at the pre-eminent global position of the US over the past 50 years to see that its policies were already working quite nicely. So why risk military and economic catastrophe by invading Iraq? Indeed, there was little to be gained from the most recent US invasion of the Middle East if it is understood only in terms of securing oil for consumption. The invasion, in fact, uses up VAST quantities of oil, to what end?

Imagine that, for whatever reason, you were planning a radical reshaping of the Middle East, and you had concluded that, to get the job done, war and the destruction of an entire race of people therein was necessary. Imagine also that you are well aware that you cannot just unilaterally set off a major conflagration, principally because public opinion and certain other nations would not stand for it. Realising that you need some way to mould public opinion towards accepting war and at the same time render impotent those nations that pose a threat to your plans, what might be the best way to do it?

By far the most effective tool for shaping public opinion is fear. And by far the best way to control other nations is economically, or rather, through the control of their oil supply. Hence, 9-11 and the "war on terror".

Unless the US actually physically controls Middle Eastern oil reserves, however, they have no way of controlling to whom those reserves are sold. The only way to do so is to fabricate a reason for invading each oil-rich country in turn and either permanently occupy them or install a proxy government that will do your bidding. This, it would seem, is the process we see unfolding currently with the "war on terror" and the invasion of Iraq. Iran is probably next. Venezuela may follow. Of course, the public must be given a plausible reason as to why the wells have "run dry", which is the reason for the dissemination of the peak oil myth.

However, maintaining the military necessary for such a task demands tremendous economic and human resources. The costs are driving the United States further and further into debt. At the same time, Bush is giving tax breaks to his wealthy support base, narrowing the income base within the US to pay for his military follies. This makes the US more and more dependent upon foreign governments to shore up the US debt, to the cost of nearly $2 billion a day. The day that the rest of the world decides to take a hit on the value of their dollar reserves in order to bring the US predator to its knees, is the day the war machine will begin to collapse, bringing down with it the fabled "American Way of Life".

But what can be the motivation behind such an insane plot? What can drive a group of people, against all reason and logic, to risk the economic destruction of their own country and therefore their power base?

Such a question cannot be answered without looking at the one country for which successive US governments have bent over backwards to accommodate; which takes us back to Israel.

There is much evidence to warrant an in-depth investigation of the role played by agents of Israel in the 9-11 attacks. Yet the ubiquitous, tiresome and completely baseless threat of being labelled "anti-Semitic" for criticising the actions of the Israeli government effectively prevents all but the most courageous from following the leads. Coincidence? We think not.

During the Clinton years, significant efforts had been made to bring the plight of the Palestinian people and the need for a just solution to the Middle East conflict to the attention of the international community. While Israel had successfully scuppered the Camp David peace talks by making demands which they knew the Palestinian people, and therefore Arafat, could not accept, Israel was finding itself increasingly isolated and increasingly pressured to make the concessions that peace required. Once 9-11 happened, all bets were off.

In fact, on September 10th 2001, the Washington Times ran an article entitled, "U.S. troops would enforce peace under Army study" which detailed the findings of an elite U.S. Army study center plan devised for enforcing a major Israeli-Palestinian peace accord that would require about 20,000 well-armed troops stationed throughout Israel and a newly created Palestinian state. The most interesting aspect of the report was the mention of a 68-page paper by the Army School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS) drafted to analyse the daunting task facing any international peacekeeping force if Israel and the Palestinians ever reached a peace agreement back by the United Nations.

In the report, we are told that:

"the School for Advanced Military Studies is both a training ground and a think tank for some of the Army’s brightest officers. Officials say the Army chief of staff, and sometimes the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ask SAMS to develop contingency plans for future military operations. During the 1991 Persian Gulf war, SAMS personnel helped plan the coalition ground attack that avoided a strike up the middle of Iraqi positions and instead executed a ‘left hook’ that routed the enemy in 100 hours."

The exercise was undertaken by 60 officers dubbed "Jedi Knights," as all second-year SAMS students are nicknamed. The SAMS paper attempts to predict events in the first year of a peace-enforcement operation, and sees possible dangers for U.S. troops from both sides. It calls Israel’s armed forces a "500-pound gorilla in Israel. Well armed and trained. Operates in both Gaza [and the West Bank]. Known to disregard international law to accomplish mission. Very unlikely to fire on American forces. Fratricide a concern especially in air space management."

Of the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, the SAMS officers say: "Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act."

The day after the 9-11 attacks, then former Israeli Prime Minister and current Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, when asked what he thought about the event, stated that it was "very good for Israel".

Indeed it was.

9-11 created much-needed sympathy and vindication for the "war on Arab terrorism" that Israel fraudulently claims it has been silently fighting for many years. Again we must ask, who had the motive AND the capability to carry out the 9-11 attacks, and who stood to benefit the most?

Just hours after the attacks, George Friedman proclaimed Israel as the primary beneficiary. "The big winner today, intended or not, is the state of Israel," wrote Friedman, who said on his Internet website at stratfor.com adding: "There is no question that the Israeli leadership is feeling relief." Again we come back to the question that all serious criminal investigators begin with – "Who benefits?"

There exists much evidence, conveniently overlooked by certain 9-11 investigators, including Ruppert and Hopsicker, to strongly suggest that agents of Israel were deeply involved in the events surrounding the 9-11 attacks. For example:

There is the fact of the Israeli spy ring, as exposed, surprisingly, by Fox News’ Carl Cameron. In the four part series aired on Fox News in December 2001 Cameron reports many interesting facts such as:

Two Israeli companies Amdocs and Comverse InfoSys, (now called Verint), manage just about every aspect of the US telephone system.

Amdocs is responsible for billing and records for almost all phone calls in the US. Cameron states: Amdocs has contracts with the 25 biggest phone companies in America, and more worldwide. The White House and other secure government phone lines are protected, but it is virtually impossible to make a call on normal phones without generating an Amdocs record of it.

In recent years, the FBI and other government agencies have investigated Amdocs more than once. The firm has repeatedly and adamantly denied any security breaches or wrongdoing. But sources tell Fox News that in 1999, the super secret National Security Agency, headquartered in northern Maryland, issued what's called a Top Secret sensitive compartmentalized information report, TS/SCI, warning that records of calls in the United States were getting into foreign hands in Israel, in particular.

Investigators don't believe calls are being listened to, but the data about who is calling whom and when is plenty valuable in itself. An internal Amdocs memo to senior company executives suggests just how Amdocs generated call records could be used. "Widespread data mining techniques and algorithms.... combining both the properties of the customer (e.g., credit rating) and properties of the specific ‘behavior….’" Specific behavior, such as who the customers are calling.

Note the comment that "the White House and other secure government phone lines are protected." Well, it just so happens that Comverse InfoSys provides the wiretapping equipment and software for US law enforcement agencies. Cameron tells us:

Every time you make a call, it passes through the nation's elaborate network of switchers and routers run by the phone companies. Custom computers and software, made by companies like Comverse, are tied into that network to intercept, record and store the wiretapped calls, and at the same time transmit them to investigators.

The manufacturers have continuing access to the computers so they can service them and keep them free of glitches. This process was authorized by the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, or CALEA. Senior government officials have now told Fox News that while CALEA made wiretapping easier, it has led to a system that is seriously vulnerable to compromise, and may have undermined the whole wiretapping system.

Indeed, Fox News has learned that Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director Robert Mueller were both warned Oct. 18 in a hand-delivered letter from 15 local, state and federal law enforcement officials, who complained that "law enforcement's current electronic surveillance capabilities are less effective today than they were at the time CALEA was enacted."

Comverse insists the equipment it installs is secure. But the complaint about this system is that the wiretap computer programs made by Comverse have, in effect, a back door through which wiretaps themselves can be intercepted by unauthorized parties.

Adding to the suspicions is the fact that in Israel, Comverse works closely with the Israeli government, and under special programs, gets reimbursed for up to 50 percent of its research and development costs by the Israeli Ministry of Industry and Trade. But investigators within the DEA, INS and FBI have all told Fox News that to pursue or even suggest Israeli spying through Comverse is considered career suicide.

To this last comment we have to ask: Just what level of power do Israeli interests wield in the halls of power in the US that any investigation into Israeli spying activities on US soil against US intelligence agencies can be so completely quashed? Would this constitute a level of power and control that would allow those interests to carry off a terrorist attack like 9-11 and have it blamed on "Arab terrorists"?

Most assuredly.

Cameron goes on to tell us that a group of 140 Israeli spies were arrested prior to September 11, 2001, in the US as part of a widespread investigation into a suspected espionage ring run by Israel inside the US.

US Government documents refer to the spy ring as an "organised intelligence-gathering operation" designed to "penetrate government facilities". Most of those arrested had served in the Israeli armed forces – but military service is compulsory in Israel and a number also had an intelligence background. Many were posing as art students.

These spies were spread out across the US, usually living close to suspected Arab terrorist cells. One group were living just a few blocks away from chief Hijacker Mohammed Atta in Hollywood, Florida. Cameron reports that, according to intelligence sources within the US, a number of the terrorist cells that they had been watching changed their activities and routines immediately after having cover taps put on their communications by intelligence agents.

Now think about this. You have a group of at least 140 Mossad agents and/or their accomplices running around the US with apparent impunity prior to 9-11 conducting a "spying" operation that is designed to "penetrate government facilities". You have two Israeli companies that control the entire US telephone and telephone wiretapping technology that are suspected of passing sensitive information to Israel. You have US intelligence agencies realising that, on a number of occasions, terrorist suspects that they had sought to wiretap and survey immediately changed their telecommunications processes and acting much differently as soon as the, supposedly secret, wiretaps went into place.

But it doesn’t end there.

On the morning of September 11th and just as the WTC towers were crumbling the 5 Israelis were caught doing the "happy dance" as they videotaped the Twin Towers fall. They were spotted by a woman who called the police who contacted the FBI. The 5 were apprehended in a moving company van, which contained $4700 in cash, box cutters and recently taken photographs, one image showing a hand flicking a lighter in front of the destroyed buildings as if mocking the event. The driver of the van later told the arresting officers:

"We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem."

Did this most interesting comment give the world a tantalising glimpse into the REAL reason for and, at the same time, reveal the perpetrators of the 9-11 attacks??

The 5 were detained for two months during which time at least two were identified as active Mossad agents. They were subjected to polygraph tests which one of them resisted for 10 weeks before failing. Now ask yourself: What questions might have been asked of this person during the test? We will probably never know, but we can speculate that he was probably asked direct questions about his involvement in the WTC attacks, and he, as a Mossad agent working for the state of Israel, lied.

On their return to Israel, the 5 appeared on an Israeli television show where they made the following telling remark:

"The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event."

Which begs the question: How can you document an event if you do not know beforehand that it is going to happen?

We should not forget the fact that an Israeli firm was in charge of the security and passenger screening at Logan airport where both WTC planes took off and that an Israeli instant messaging company, Odigo, received a warning about the WTC attacks 2 hours before the first plane hit the WTC. This warning originated in Israel.

As reported by ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky, the Mossad had a secret history of supporting radical Islamic groups for its own purposes, and as Seymour Hersh, veteran investigative journalist writing in The New Yorker on Oct. 8, pointed out:

"many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues about the terrorists’ identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found."

Evidence for the fact that Israeli interests in the US possess vastly disproportionate power was highlighted by US Congressman Jim Moran (Democrat of Virginia) speaking at a 2003 public forum in his congressional district and reported in the New York Times of March 15, 2003, where he stated:

"If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this. The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going, and I think they should."

By "Jewish community" Moran was certainly not talking about the average Jewish American or the average Jew in Israel, but rather the leaders of the Jewish community, those that proclaim to be acting in the interests of ordinary Jews.

The above facts are indisputable and constitute just the tip of the iceberg of what is clearly deep involvement by the agents of the state of Israel in not only the 9-11 attacks but American politics in general.

We will leave it to our readers to decide if there is any disingenuousness in Ruppert and Hopsicker’s dismissal of the Israel question and ponder the implications that such a stance holds for their status as genuine 9-11 researchers.

One of the most interesting aspects of the broader 9-11 investigation that we have recently been exploring concerns the evidence for the fact that there are two very different types of "Jews". Briefly stated (and you will want to read the previous link to get the full and in-depth analysis) those Jewish/Zionist leaders that claim to be acting in the interests of the Jewish people may not in fact be Jewish, in terms of being Semites at all, but are in fact of Aryan origins. Then, there are the truly Semitic Jews - people closely related to the Palestinians, genetically speaking. In the event that the reader does not understand the importance of this issue, read again our report on Ethnic Specific Weapons. For the reader that can read between the lines, this fact should provide serious pause for thought when considered in light of the Nazi agenda during WWII and the many credible attestations of the disturbing actions of certain "Zionists" in relation to the suffering of Jews in the concentration camps and, of course, the events of 9-11 and all that had resulted. The fact is that one of the major results of the last Great War was the creation of the state of Israel at the cost of the lives of several million ordinary Jews along with 60 million other human beings. Strong evidence is available to suggest that that particular war was as manipulated as the current "war on terror" and that certain so-called "Zionists" played a major role in said manipulation. An extremely pressing question that we all need to ponder therefore is: Is another "Great War" looming? And, as has been the case so often in the past, will history once more repeat itself?

Now I understand that all of the above paints a complex and somewhat confusing picture, and you may be struck with the feeling that there is still something missing, some factor that is needed to explain that recklessness with which the main global players are toying with the planet and the lives of every individual on it. One might even say that they are acting like men who have nothing to lose. We have already made a case to suggest that peak oil is a distraction and certainly not the main issue.

So what IS the main issue?

In August 17, 1999, the Knight Ridder Washington Bureau published an article by Robert S. Boyd entitled: Comets may have caused Earth’s great empires to fall which included the following: (emphases, ours)

Recent scientific discoveries are shedding new light on why great empires such as Egypt, Babylon and Rome fell apart, giving way to the periodic "dark ages’’ that punctuate human history. At least five times during the last 6,000 years, major environmental calamities undermined civilizations around the world.

Some researchers say these disasters appear to be linked to collisions with comets or fragments of comets such as the one that broke apart and smashed spectacularly into Jupiter five years ago.

The impacts, yielding many megatons of explosive energy, produced vast clouds of smoke and dust that circled the globe for years, dimming the sun, driving down temperatures and sowing hunger, disease and death.

The last such global crisis occurred between AD 530 and 540-- at the beginning of the Dark Ages in Europe -- when Earth was pummeled by a swarm of cosmic debris.

In a forthcoming book, Catastrophe, the Day the Sun Went Out, British historian David Keys describes a 2-year-long winter that began in AD 535. Trees from California to Ireland to Siberia stopped growing. Crops failed. Plague and famine decimated Italy, China and the Middle East.

Keys quotes the writings of a 6th-century Syrian bishop, John of Ephesus:

"The sun became dark. ... Each day it shone for about four hours and still this light was only a feeble shadow."

A contemporary Italian historian, Flavius Cassiodorus, wrote:

"We marvel to see no shadows of our bodies at noon. We have summer without heat."

And a contemporary Chinese chronicler reported, "Yellow dust rained like snow."

Dendrochronologist, Mike Baillie, established that:

Analysis of tree rings shows that at in 540 AD in different parts of the world the climate changed. Temperatures dropped enough to hinder the growth of trees as widely dispersed as northern Europe, Siberia, western North America, and southern South America.

A search of historical records and mythical stories pointed to a disastrous visitation from the sky during the same period, it is claimed. There was one reference to a "comet in Gaul so vast that the whole sky seemed on fire" in 540-41.

According to legend, King Arthur died around this time, and Celtic myths associated with Arthur hinted at bright sky Gods and bolts of fire. In the 530s, an unusual meteor shower was recorded by both Mediterranean and Chinese observers. Meteors are caused by the fine dust from comets burning up in the atmosphere. Furthermore, a team of astronomers from Armagh Observatory in Northern Ireland published research in 1990 which said the Earth would have been at risk from cometary bombardment between the years 400 and 600 AD.

[...] Famine followed the crop failures, and hard on its heels bubonic plague that swept across Europe in the mid-6th century. [...]

Now these are not the voices of the evangelical, "the end of the world is nigh", types, but rather sober university professors who have spent many years in scientific research in their chosen fields. The conclusions they have come to are shocking for sure, but it behooves all of us to put aside our sacred cows for a moment and look at the facts. Over the past few years the incidence of meteorite sightings and impacts around the world has gone through the proverbial roof, as have several of the meteorites, although in opposite directions. We have been charting these events for the past 2 years, and we can safely say that something is definitely ‘up’.

Given the controlled nature of not only the media, but also the academic world, if there was a threat to our planet from some sort of cyclical cometary shower as suggested by Ballie and Boyd, the chances of such information coming to general public awareness, against the wishes of the ruling elite, are very slim. The likelihood is that our leaders would do everything within their power to conceal such information, forcing those members of the public with a drive to know the truth to collect and decipher the bits and pieces of ‘loose’ data themselves. This is exactly what we have been doing for many years now.

The fact is that the idea that the earth experiences cyclical catastrophes, and that a select few of the "elite" are in possession of this information, explains rather well the current warmongering by the US and the political maneuvering by other major powers.

Think about it. If the people who are really in control of the US government know that, in the very near future, the demographics and power balance on the planet are going to be radically and unpredictably restructured by meteorite impacts, they would surely seek to prepare for such an event. Having held power for so long, their preparations would most likely center around a strategy to ensure that, when the dust settles and they emerge from their bunkers, they are able to retake control of the planet. Practically, this would involve a process of conquering as much of the planet and its resources as possible, and we note that this is essentially what successive US governments have been doing for the past 50 years.

If there is one thing above all others that has lead to the precipice upon which we currently sit as a species, it is knowledge, or the lack of it, and the fact that certain small groups of so-called ‘elite’ have always sought to maintain a monopoly on it at the expense of the masses of humanity. Clearly, therefore, it is knowledge that is and always has been the most prized ‘commodity’ on this planet. Unfortunately, the catch 22 to beat them all is the fact that almost no one realises this.

Why?

Because the knowledge that knowledge is key has been deliberately and rigorously denied them by the propaganda of religion where "faith" and "blind belief" in the leader is the key to salvation. The salient point is that it is, and always has been, only in the darkness of ignorance of the true state of their reality that ordinary people can be merrily led down the path that leads, over and over again, to their own destruction.

In summing up, I will leave the final words to Patrick Mooney of Unlearning.org

Whether Peak Oil is true or not is ultimately irrelevant. The energy crash and the economic chaos it causes have been on the agenda of the Bilderbergers and like organizations for some time now. It is a necessary step to re-drawing the political lines of power across the globe to more accurately reflect the one world police state of inhuman design.

The Earth has reached the point where human consciousness will no longer tolerate authoritarian controls on its destiny. The Illuminists know this and plan to break this spirit with a harvest of blood reaped with war, famine and misery. Ruppert would have us spare the Illuminati the trouble of such an expensive use of energy by getting the most "enlightened" of us to sheepishly march to our own end. Those who remain alive must do so in communities that will seem more medieval than post-modern.

Fortunately, there is a way out of all this, if the planet is willing to see through the present "crisis". The crisis we are in is not one of energy or economy, but of consciousness. As long as our consciousness remains mired in the present problems, we will not be able to transcend them to arrive at enlightened solutions

ORIGINAL
Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: Mossad and Moving Companies:Masterminds of Global Terrorism

Laura Knight-Jadczyk

June 2, 2003: The other day I was scanning the news reports and came across a rather mundane item that really got me to thinking. It simply read:

Cloudcroft chief stops Israelis with suspicious cargo
By  Michael Shinabery Staff Writer, Alamogordo Daily News

CLOUDCROFT, NM -- That they were speeding through the school zone first got his attention.

That they had Israeli driver's licenses and expired passports made him suspicious.

Cloudcroft Police Chief Gene Green stopped the 2-ton van on Thursday, for speeding. Initially, Green thought the truck was commercial because of exterior markings. But when he found it was out of Chicago, he asked for documentation such as logs books and manifests.

"They said this is a U-Haul truck and handed me a rental agreement (for) in-town delivery only in Illinois, (which) had expired two days before," Green said. He called for backup, and Otero County Sheriff's Deputy Billy Anders, who patrols the Sacramento Mountains, arrived, along with Capt. Norbert Sanchez and Det. Eddie Medrano.

"We got them out and started digging a little deeper," Green said, "got permission to search the truck. They claimed they were hauling furniture from Austin to Chicago." When officers advised the men they were not exactly en route from one town to another, Green said the two men claimed they were Deming bound. "But they couldn't give us an address in Deming they were going to," he said. "Once we got into the truck, they had some junk furniture I wouldn't have given to Goodwill."

Also inside the vehicle were, Green said, "50 boxes" they claimed was a  "private" delivery, but the men insisted they had no "idea what was in them."

At that point, the officers called for drug-sniffing and bomb-sniffing dogs.  The men were turned over to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and U- Haul recovered the truck.

Contents of the boxes remain unknown, pending  investigation.

Well, don't that just beat all? Another "moving company" with Israeli drivers with bad papers, and nobody even noticed...

Well, I noticed.

Not only did I notice, I remembered the strange story about a similar event:

On May 7, 2002, local police authorities pulled over a Budget rental truck in  Oak Harbour, Washington near the Whitney Island Naval Air Station.  The driver  and his passenger were Israeli nationals, one of which had entered the country  illegally.  The other had an expired visa.  Tests performed on the vehicle  revealed that there were traces of TNT on the gearshift and RDX plastic  explosives on the steering wheel.  But no actual explosives were reported to  have been found in the truck.  [Fox News, 5/13/02]

A report in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer the following day reported that the  FBI performed follow-up tests on the truck which turned-up negative.  One  source speculated that perhaps the original tests had actually detected just  cigarette residue, and not explosives.  [Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 5/14/02,  Jerusalem Post, 5/14/02]. 

Critics argued that it would make no sense for U.S. authorities to use a method of  testing that could be skewed by cigarette residue.  The website  whatreallyhappened.com remarked:

“The specific claim is made that residue from a cigarette lighter confused the  tests for TNT and RDX. That doesn't explain why the trained bomb-sniffing dog,  who surely knows the difference between explosives and cigarettes [else he would false-positive every smoker, ashtray, and convenience store he came  across] gave the first indications of explosives in the truck that led to the  tests in the first place. Likewise, were the chemical tests unable to  discriminate between tobacco and TNT/RDX, which are chemically quite different  from tobacco combustion products, they would give false positive results for  every vehicle ever tested in which smokers had ever ridden. Given the  likelihood of finding tobacco residues in any car, such tests would have to be  designed to tell the difference. The same is true for other products from non- electric cigarette lighters, the vast majority of which are butane.”

The same website also provided references to three documents with detailed  information on the tests used to detect TNT and RDX.   None of the documents  indicated that the presence of cigarette residue might induce inaccurate test results.  [International Society for Optical Engineering 1984; Cold Regions and  Research Engineering  Laboratory 5-1996; Security Management n.d.]

I also remembered another peculiar item: the so-called Urban Moving Company that some researchers suggest was a cover for Mossad.

Many observers have suggested that Israel had foreknowledge of the 9/11  terrorists attacks. Some have even argued that they may have been behind the  attacks, and it seems that the funny stories about Israelis with trucks and bad papers just keep popping up here and there.

On September 11, five employees of Jewish owned Urban Moving Company were detained as a result of  witness accounts that they were taking pictures of the flaming ruins of the  World Trade Center and celebrating!

Yes indeedy! Shortly after the collapse of the towers a witness called the police and  reported that the 5 individuals were, “going to unusual lengths to photograph  the World Trade Center ruins” and they were obviously and blatantly “making light of the  situation.”  The witness stated that these men were on the roof of the office  of their employer, Urban Moving Company, and were posing, dancing, and  laughing.  [New York Times 10/8/01;  Bergen Record 9/12/01;   Ha'aretz 9/17/01;   Gotham Gazette 11/2/01]

After their indiscreet celebration on the roof of the building, the five Israelis headed down to  a nearby parking lot where they mounted the roof of their truck and resumed  their photographing and celebrating.  Another witness called the police and  told them that the men were smiling, dancing, and giving each other high-fives while viewing the destruction of the symbol of Free Enterprise in America.   [Gotham Gazette 11/2/01;  ABC News, 6/21/02]

A few hours later, the five Israelis were stopped by police while driving their  truck.  One individual had $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock, while another had  two foreign passports.  They were also found to be in the possession of a box- cutter, which they presumably had because of their job as professional movers.   [New York Times 10/8/01;   Gotham Gazette 11/2/01;   ABC News, 6/21/02]

On September 14, Dominic Suter, the owner of the moving company, left the  country very abruptly after FBI agents indicated that they wanted a second  interview with him.  According to ABC News’ 20/20 [ABC News 6/21/02], “Three  months later  20/20's cameras photographed the inside of Urban Moving, and it  looked as if the business had been shut down in a big hurry. Cell phones were  lying around; office phones were still connected; and the property of dozens of  clients remained in the warehouse.  The owner had also cleared out of his New  Jersey home, put it up for sale and returned with his family to Israel.”  [New  Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety, 12/13/01;  Gotham Gazette 11/2/01;   ABC News, 6/21/02;   Forward, 3/15/02]

Shortly after the arrest of the men, FBI officials suspected that the Urban Moving company was an Israeli intelligence front.  Vince Cannistraro, a former  chief of operations for counterterrorism, told ABC News that the FBI was  concerned that the moving company had been “set up or exploited for the purpose  of launching an intelligence operation against radical Islamists in the area,  particularly in the New Jersey-New York area.” [ABC News, 6/21/02]

The five employees that were taken into custody were all former members of the  Israeli Army.  After being transferred to jail, the FBI’s Criminal Division  sent the case to the Counterintelligence Section on account of suspicions that  they were Israeli spies.  They were then detained for more that two months.   Some of them spent 40 days in solitary confinement.  [New York Times 11/21/01;  ABC News, 6/21/02]

Naturally, several individuals attempted to research this item. One high-ranking U.S. intelligence source told Forward magazine that  intelligence agents’ investigation of Urban Moving Company led them to believe  it was a front for the Israeli Mossad.  It should be noted that, at present there is no publicly  available information that conclusively confirms this allegation.  However  the above described incident, reported by various news sources, certainly casts a very dark shadow  of suspicion on the company and its employees.

It seems that Urban Moving Company was not an isolated phenomenon.

According to a small local newspaper in  Pennsylvania, The Mercury, three Israeli employees working for Moving Systems,  Inc. were detained by police on October 11, 2001, after being caught illegally  dumping garbage from their moving truck into the dumpster of a restaurant.  The  suspects had fled the seen after being confronted by the restaurant’s manager,  who immediately reported the incident to the police. [The Mercury 10/17/01]

The Mercury reported: “The area was searched by township police, and the  vehicle was spotted parked on the curb in front of John Kennedy Ford on Ridge  Pike, just west of Industrial Way.  An officer proceeded to make contact with  the occupants of the truck by knocking on the cab, according to reports. 

A  Middle Eastern [an Israeli according to Executive Intelligence Review3/29/02]  man, later identified as Ron Katar, 23, exited the sleeper area of the cab and  said that the operator - Elmakias - was across the street as he pointed toward the Don Rosen  Porsche dealer, reports said. 

Elmakias and a white female, Ayelet Reisler, 23,  were approaching the vehicle from the dealership, but the female then began  walking in a different direction, acting as if she were not with Elmakias,  according to reports.  . . .

Elmakias said that his destination was New York  and that he was also coming from New York. He said he was in Plymouth because  he was supposed to make a pickup from a male in the morning and pointed toward  the Storage USA facility on Belvoir Road and West Ridge Pike, police said.   Elmakias could not, however, provide a name or telephone number of the  customer.” [The Mercury 10/17/01]

A search of the truck turned up detailed video footage of the Sears Towers  along with several other suspicious articles.  It was also discovered that the  driver of the truck had falsified his driver log.

As of this date, no ties to Israeli intelligence have been made.  [The Mercury  10/17/01]

Then, of course, there was the "Art Scandal."

It seems that Israeli ‘art students’ -  Israelis posing as ‘art students’ selling their art  [actually made in China], - were suspected of spying for Israel. They were detained by  the FBI and later deported to Israel on account of visa violations.   The FBI first took notice of them in January of 2001.

A highly detailed DEA report that was acquired by French intelligence analysts documented 180 cases of Israeli art students  infiltrating DEA facilities.  It provided names, drivers' license numbers,  addresses and phone numbers of the Israelis. [DEA report 6/01;  Insight  3/11/02] 

Despite official confirmations of the report, other U.S. officials  denied its existence.  In response, Intelligence Online released the document  to CreativeLoafing.com who published it on the Internet for the public.  [DEA  report 6/01] The Associated Press also reported that it had a copy [AP 3/9/02] The report acknowledged that the art students “may well be an organized  intelligence-gathering activity.”  [DEA report 6/01;  AP 3/5/02; Sun Sentinel  3/7/02]

Bill Carter, a spokesman for the FBI, said, “After an agency reported  suspicious activities by those so-called students, the FBI conducted an  investigation and determined that there was no credence to the assumption that  this was an Israeli spying operation. None of the Israelis were charged with  espionage and they were all deported by the INS for visa violations.” [Forward  3/15/02]

Now, here is where things get VERY INTERESTING!

You see, five of the so-called Israeli Art Students that weren't really art students, had been living at 4220 Sheridan St in Hollywood, Florida. 

What is so interesting about that address?

It just so happens that four of the five so-called 9/11 hijackers  that were on AA Flight 11 [Mohammed Atta, Abdulaziz Al-Omari, Walid and Waïl Al- Shehri] and one of the five hijackers [Marwan Al-Shehhi] from UA Flight 175 had at one time  or another also resided in Hollywood, Florida. 

Where in Hollywood?

Why, it just happens that Mohammed Atta, the presumed lead  hijacker had lived at 3389 Sheridan St, only a few blocks away from the Fake Israeli Art Students! [Le Monde  3/5/02; Reuters 3/5/02; Jane's Intelligence Digest, 3/15/02;  Salon, 5/7/02]  

Well, don't that just beat all! And to think, Florida Senator Bob Graham was having breakfast with Pakistani ISI chief Mahmoud-Ahmad on the morning of September 11 - the same ISI chief who was later linked to Mohammed Atta by virtue of the fact that he transferred a LOT of money to the guy.

Hmmm... I smell a rat somewhere!

Of course, the Israelis have a good reason for this: they were "investigating terrorists!"

We are assured by German news sources that: “between December  2000 and April 2001 a whole horde of Israeli counter-terror investigators,  posing as students, followed the trails of Arab terrorists and their cells in  the United States. In their secret investigations, the Israelis came very close  to the later perpetrators of Sept. 11. In the town of Hollywood, Florida, they  identified the two former Hamburg students and later terror pilots Mohammed  Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi as possible terrorists. Agents lived in the vicinity  of the apartment of the two seemingly normal flight school students, observing  them around the clock.” [Der Spiegel 10/1/02]

I guess they didn't observe them "around the clock" enough to see when they were getting on those planes that were hijacked. A failure of intelligence? What's more, this truly pathetic "explanation" doesn't explain the joy of the Israelis at the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, nor why Bob Graham was having breakfast with the guy who paid off Mohammed Atta...

Well, it gets deeper: In addition to the close proximity of the Israeli ‘art students’ to the Florida-based hijackers, other ‘art students’ in Texas, California, and Arkansas were  operating close to several of the other hijackers suspected of taking part in the 9-11 attacks.  [DEA report 6/01]

And if that doesn't just crumble your cookies, how about the fact that six of the students had mobile phones that had been purchased by a former  Israeli vice consul in the U.S.?  [Le Monde 3/5/02]

The passports of the students revealed that they had been visitors in several  different countries including, Thailand, Laos, India, Kenya, Central and South  America, Australia, Germany, the Netherlands and Canada.  [Insight 3/11/02]

In spite of the findings of the DEA report, the students were deported back to  Israel on account of visa violations.  [AP 3/5/02]

Now, let me try to understand this: at that point in time when every single American citizen was subject to being a suspected terrorist, a gang of Israelis with "SPY" practically branded on their foreheads, were simply shipped home with NO QUESTIONS ASKED?!

EXCUUUSE ME?!

We had to stand in line for four hours - with our dog and four children - at the Miami Airport to have our luggage searched by hand, to be scanned, inspected, questioned, suspected, and in every way insulted by privacy violations - and these thugs just went home to do the happy dance?

What is the Bush Reich covering up by protecting Israeli spys who are claimed to have been monitoring Islamic terrorists, but apparently not well enough to know what they were really up to, or didn't bother to tell Georgie and his gang of warmongers? The question these facts bring to mind are crucial. Is the U.S. government complicit in Israeli spying activities? Are the Israelis spying on Americans with the permission of America's own elected officials? Ooops! sorry. Lost my head. I forgot for a moment and thought we had elected officials. Now I remember: America is the new Banana Republic with fixed elections, courtesy of the Bush gang.

Well, anyway, back to the problem at hand: It just so happens that Israeli suspects also seem to know when they are being investigated by agencies of the U.S. Government.

In several investigations of Israeli suspects, the suspects quickly modified  their behavior after U.S. enforcement agencies began wiretapping them.  This  suggests that the suspects may have known that they were being monitored.  [Fox News 12/12-13/01]

In other words, either somebody very high in the U.S. government is warning them when those silly lower level bureaucrats get nosey, or there is a major mole in the U.S. intelligence services.

According to Executive Intelligence Review, “A well-placed Washington source has alerted EIR that there  is growing suspicion among U.S. government law enforcement and intelligence  agencies that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has dispatched special  operations teams into North America. The warning came in the context of a  discussion about the recent deportation of five Israelis who were detained on  Sept. 11 for suspicious behavior… You know, the guys doing the Happy Dance when the Towers fell?

"Portions of the funds garnered from the  illegal operations, according to sources, are funneled to offshore bank accounts of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Some of these dirty funds were  reportedly diverted to Sharon's election campaigns. This Israeli mafia apparatus receives technical support via a number of Israeli communications  firms, that subcontract with major American telephone companies and government  law enforcement agencies”  [EIR 12/13/01]

In other words, the same companies helping the spies, are the companies that run the American phone systems... and are embedded in American Law Enforcement units. What a SWEET operation!

In spite of the U.S. federal agency claims that "there is no Israeli spy network,"  several of the same federal agencies have in the past year taken steps to protect themselves against espionage!  It seems that things were getting mighty sticky because the U.S. Office of the National  Counterintelligence Executive officially warned federal employees in March  2001 about the art students and urged them to report any contact with such art  students!  The warning read, “These individuals have been described as  aggressive.  They attempt to engage employees in conversation rather than giving a sales pitch.” [Insight 3/11/02; AP 3/9/02; Forward 3/15/02]

What seems to be emerging as the obvious solution to this mystery is that there is both high level U.S. government complicity with Israeli espionage in the U.S. AND a major mole in the U.S. intelligence services. (Unfortunately, being in bed together did not produce any appreciable exchange of intelligence that might have led to the prevention of the attacks on the World Trade Center.)

DEA communications employees were put on alert.  According to John Sugg, “a  Dec. 18 e-mail among DEA communications employees makes clear that the agency  underwent self-scrutiny as the ‘result of the Fox network expose on Israeli  counterintelligence activities’.” [Creative Loafing, Atlanta 3/27/02]

Pentagon and DOD ended practice of awarding foreign companies contracts  involving sensitive projects.  The World Tribune [World Tribune 3/12/02]  reported, “Israeli nationals could be banned from participating in U.S. defense  contracts under new regulations that seek to keep foreigners out of sensitive  projects.”  The article revealed that these restrictions were specifically  targeted at “IT” and other “computer-related” contracts. 

Pete Nelson, the  deputy director for personnel security in the Pentagon, stated, “Some foreign  nationals — those in the most sensitive positions — may not be permitted to  remain in those positions.  As we review our security requirements as a nation,  we need to ensure all people with access to sensitive IT [information  technology] systems are cleared and properly vetted for the material to which  they have access.”

On December 13, 2001 the EIR's Washington Bureau Chief Bill Jones asked  Colin Powell, “There were 60 Israeli citizens who have been picked up in the post- Sept. 11 sweep, many of whom, if not all of whom, are connected to Israeli  intelligence. Are you concerned about such intelligence operations on U.S. soil, and have you taken up this issue with your counterpart in Israel?”

Powell  responded:  “I'm aware that some Israeli citizens have been detained, and I've been in touch with the Israeli government as to the fact that they have been  detained, in making sure that they have rights of access to Israeli diplomatic personnel here in the United States. With respect to why they are being  detained, and the other aspects of your question, whether it's because they are  in intelligence services or what things they were doing, I will defer to the Department of Justice and the FBI to answer that; because, frankly, I deal with  the consular parts of that problem, not the intelligence or law-enforcement  parts of that problem.” [Fox News 12/17/01; EIR 12/28/01]

Now wait just a minute! Any American who is just simply vocal against the Bush Reich policies can be branded an "enemy combatent" and have all his rights as a human being and American citizen instantly revoked, but these Israelis who were patently spying during a period of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil, have "rights of access to Israeli diplomatic personnel"????

Something is wrong with this picture.

Justice Department Susan Dryden, spokesperson, referring to the numerous  articles citing the leaked DEA report, claimed, “At this time, we have no  information to support this.”  [Le Monde 3/5/02; AP 3/9/02; Fox News Service  3/5/01] 

Ms. Dryden went even further to say that the story was “an urban myth (!) that has been  circulating for months. The department has no information at this time to  substantiate these widespread reports about Israeli art students involved in  espionage.”  [Washington Post, 3/6/02]

According to one independent journalist who was investigating the ‘art  students’ a CIA officer had told him, “We’ve just closed the book on it. And I  recommend that you do the same.”  [Salon, 5/7/02]

Whoa! Now what's THAT supposed to mean? Is that a threat?! Again I ask why law-abiding American citizens must submit to the loss of all their constitutional freedoms while very suggestive evidence exists that Israel may be complicit in the 9-11 attacks - from which THEY AND THE BUSH GANG ALONE BENEFITTED - is closed to scrutiny?

One official of the present administration stated that the “evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is  classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's  classified information.”  [Fox News 12/12-13/01]

Which brings up the question as to why the Bush Administration is not only blocking an unbiased investigation into the events of September 11, but are also stalling on releasing the reports that HAVE been assembled? What do they REALLY have to hide?

Well, maybe the following provides a clue:

Pro-Israeli director of the Middle East Forum Daniel Pipes wrote an op-ed piece  asserting that the whole espionage story was just a ‘myth.’  In spite of all  the above evidence, he claimed the story was baseless and amounted to little  more than fodder for the ‘conspiracy theorists.’  [New York Post 3/11/02]

Critical media coverage of investigations into Israelis has been virtually non-xistent.  The major media, with the exception of Fox News, completely ignored  the Israeli spy scandal.  But Fox soon canned the story under pressure from pro-Israeli lobbies.

Well, that's not a surprise considering that Jews control the media in the U.S. As Kevin MacDonald has written:

The rise of Jewish power and the disestablishment of the specifically European nature of the U.S. are the real topics of CofC. The war to disestablish the specifically European nature of the U.S. was fought on several fronts. The main thrusts of Jewish activism against European ethnic and cultural hegemony have focused on three critical power centers in the United States: The academic world of information in the social sciences and humanities, the political world where public policy on immigration and other ethnic issues is decided, and the mass media where “ways of seeing” are presented to the public. [...]

By all accounts, ethnic Jews have a powerful influence in the American media—far larger than any other identifiable group. The extent of Jewish ownership and influence on the popular media in the United States is remarkable given the relatively small proportion of the population that is Jewish. [The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements

I guess warnings to "close the book" carry a lot of weight. Salon reported, “Oddly, four days after the Cameron investigation ran, all  traces of his report -- transcripts, Web links, headlines -- disappeared from  the Foxnews.com archives. [Normally, Fox leaves a story up for two to three  weeks before consigning it to the pay archive.]

Asked why the Cameron piece  disappeared, spokesman Robert Zimmerman said it was ‘up there on our Web site  for about two or three weeks and then it was taken down because we had to  replace it with more breaking news. As you know, in a Web site you've got x  amount of bandwidth -- you know, x amount of stuff you can put stuff up on  [sic]. So it was replaced. Normal course of business, my friend.’  … 

When  informed that Cameron's story was gone from the archives, not simply from the  headline pages [when you entered the old URL, a Fox screen appeared with the  message ‘This story no longer exists’], Zimmerman replied, ‘I don't know where  it is.’  [Salon, 5/7/02]

Le Monde, attempted 3 times to acquire the transcripts from Fox.  The requests  were ignored until February 26, when Fox explained that there was some sort of  ‘problem’ preventing them from sending it.  The ‘problem’ was not explained.   [Le Monde 3/5/02; see also  Salon, 5/7/02]

Several pro-Israeli organizations put pressure on Fox to halt its probe and  retract its story.

In response to the Fox News stories, the Israeli embassy stated the following,  “The report on Fox News contains no quoted source, it has in no way  demonstrated anything more than anonymous innuendo, and should be regarded  accordingly. Israel does not spy on the United States of America.”  [Jerusalem  Post, 5/14/02]

In response to the DEA report that was publicized by Intelligence Online, a  spokesperson at the Israeli embassy in Washington claimed, “No one in the US is  taking this story seriously.  I categorically deny the claims and my embassy  has received no complaints from the US. . . .  I am not aware of a single  Israeli who has been charged with espionage.”  [Independent 3/6/02]

Forward, after initially denying the allegations of an Israeli spy ring,  acknowledged its existence in mid March 2002, [Forward, 12/21/01] but claimed,  “far from pointing to Israeli spying against US government and military  facilities, as reported in Europe last week, the incidents in question appear to represent a case of Israelis in the United States spying on a common enemy,  radical Islamic networks suspected of links to Middle East terrorism.”  [Forward, 3/15/02]

This, of course, begs the question as to why 9-11 occurred if the  "Israeli spy-ring" was "on top of things," so to say. It also begs the question as to why individuals who are suggestively implicated in such a spy ring were doing the Happy Dance when the WTC towers fell?

August 23, 2001: According to German newspapers, the Mossad gave the CIA a list  of 19 terrorists living in the US and said that it appeared that they were  planning to carry out an attack in the near future.  It is unknown if these are  the same exact 19 names as the actual hijackers or if the number is a  coincidence. However, at least four names did refer to actual  9/11 hijackers:  Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, Marwan Alshehhi, and Mohamed Atta. [Die Zeit,  10/1/02,   Der Spiegel, 10/1/02,   BBC, 10/2/02,   Haaretz, 10/3/02]

The Mossad  appears to have learned about this through their "art student" spy ring; the same "art student spy ring" that the U.S. government warned their agencies to beware.

So what's the story? Is there an Israeli spy ring that the U.S. is trying to circumvent? Or is there an Israeli spy ring that tries to cooperate with the U.S.? If they are cooperating, that begs the question as to why the purported "warning and list" was not treated as particularly urgent by the  CIA and also were not passed on to the FBI.

Would that constitute a "failure of intelligence?" Or criminal negligence? The next item, however, suggests complicity.

It is not clear if this warning  influenced the adding of Alhazmi and Almihdhar's names to a terrorism watch  list on this same day, and if so, why only those two. [Der Spiegel, 10/1/02] 

These details create additional problems since Israel continues to deny that there were any Mossad agents in the US. [Haaretz, 10/3/02]  and the US has denied knowing about Mohammed Atta before 9/11, despite other media reports  to the contrary and despite the fact that Florida Senator Bob Graham was, on the morning of September 11, 2001, having breakfast with the Pakistani ISI chief who was later directly linked to Mohammed Atta.

None of this matter is cut and dried. On September 10, 2001, the Army School of Advanced Military Studies issued a  report written by elite US army officers, which was made public just prior to  9/11. The report gave the following description for the Mossad: "Wildcard.  Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces and make it look like  a Palestinian/Arab act." [Washington Times, 9/10/01]

Hmmm... I guess that the Bush Gang didn't read that particular item of Intell. They were too busy reading the "cooked intell" that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, I guess.

At this point, things take a strange turn. With all the questions about an Israeli Spy Ring being brought up again and again, a neat solution has been found: They aren't really Israelis! They are Islamic terrorists PRETENDING to be Israelis!

 EIR reported that a number of the Israelis that were detained after the  terrorist attacks “have been linked to suspected ‘Islamic’ terrorist cells in  southern California”  [EIR 1/11/02]

Here is another interesting item along that line from awhile back that ought to give us pause:

On January 12, 2000, 11 Islamic preachers were detained in India prior to  boarding a flight headed for Dhaka, Bangladesh on suspicions of being  terrorists.  Although, the Indian official eventually cleared the clerics to  leave, officials in Bangladesh indicated that they would not grant them visas.  

The Muslims, who all had Israeli passports, were allowed to board a flight to  Israel – under Israeli pressure.  An Indian intelligence analyst, Ashok  Debbarma, explained to The Week, “It is not unlikely for Mossad to recruit 11 Afghans in Iran and grant them Israeli citizenship to penetrate a network such  as Bin Laden's. They would begin by infiltrating them into an Islamic radical  group in an unlikely place like Bangladesh.”  He added that Israel's obvious concern for the men, and the haste with which they were flown back indicated a  possible “aborted operation.”  [The Week, 2/6/00]

There is another spin being put on the whole thing:

In March 2003, the U.S. State Department published a fact sheet, in which it  reported, “In the United States, approximately 80% of ecstasy seized in 2000  came from or through the Netherlands. Israeli [drug] trafficking syndicates are  currently the primary source to distribution groups operating in the United  States, smuggling through express mail services, via couriers aboard commercial  airline flights, or more recently, through air freight shipments.”  [U.S.  Department of State, 3/20/03, also cited in the  Ha’aretz, 4/6/03]

So now, they could be Islamic terrorists disguised as Jews, or they could be a maverick Jewish drug ring. But in NO CASE can they possibly be Israeli spies that are spying against the U.S.!

Now, let's go back a minute to the fact that Senator Bob Graham was having breakfast with the Pakistani ISI chief on the morning of September 11, 2001. Keep in mind that this man, Mahmoud Ahmad, was later linked directly to Mohammed Atta, the purported "head terrorist" of the 9-11 attacks. With that in mind, read the following report in which Pakistan's ex spy chief "blames Mossad" AND "Renegade U.S. Air Force elements" for the 9-11 attacks:

Wednesday, 26 September 2001 15:05 (ET)
By ARNAUD DE BORCHGRAVE, UPI Editor at Large

RAWALPINDI, Pakistan, Sept. 26 (UPI) -- The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States were perpetrated by renegade U.S. Air Force elements working in conjunction with Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service, according to the retired Pakistani general who is closest to the Taliban and Osama bin Laden.

Gen. Hameed Gul, head of Inter Services Intelligence, the equivalent of a CIA-cum-FBI combination, during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, spent two weeks in the war-torn country immediately prior to Sept. 11. He has been acting as "strategic adviser" to Pakistan's extremist religious political parties. Four religious leaders left his house in the army's principal garrison town as this reporter arrived at 9:30 p.m. Tuesday. The interview lasted 90 minutes.

Already countless millions of Muslims believe that the World Trade Center and Pentagon suicide attacks were part of a Mossad plot to force the United States into confrontation with the Muslim world.

[Notice in the next line that what Gul is saying is pronounced to be "disinformation" that those poor, misguided Muslims will actually believe!]

Now Gul has added a new disinformation wrinkle to the plot. And what Gul says or writes is taken at face value by religious leaders and is repeated in thousands of mosques at Friday prayers.

In an exclusive interview with United Press International, the fundamentalist general said it is now clear that there was also a plot by U.S. Air Force officers against the Pentagon.

[Actually, we have been saying that almost from the beginning. See our report on The Pentagon Strike.]

"The twin towers were first attacked at 8:45 a.m.," he said, "and four flights were diverted from their assigned air space, and yet Air Force jets didn't scramble until 10 a.m. That smacks of a small-scale Air Force rebellion, a coup attempt against the Pentagon perhaps? Radars are jammed, transponders fail. No IFF -- friend or foe identification -- challenge ... This was clearly an inside job. (President) Bush was afraid and rushed to the shelter of a nuclear bunker.

"(Bush) clearly feared a nuclear situation. Who could that have been? Will that also be hushed up in the investigation, like the Warren report after the Kennedy assassination?"

Gul said that his friend bin Laden had sworn to him on the Koran that he was not involved.

"From a cave inside a mountain or a peasant's hovel," Gul asked, how could bin Laden mount such a sophisticated operation? "Let's be serious," he said with a smile. "Mossad and its American associates are the obvious culprits," he added by asking, "Who benefits from the crime?"

Asked why Israel would benefit, Gul replied, "Israel knows it has a short shelf-life before it is overwhelmed by demographics (and it) has now handed the (Bush administration) the opportunity it has been waiting for to consolidate America's imperial grip on the Gulf and acquire control of the Caspian basin by extending its military presence in Central Asia."

[...] Bush 43 doesn't realize he is being manipulated by people who understand geopolitics. He is not leading but being led. All he can do is think in terms of the wanted-dead-or-alive culture which is how Hollywood conditions the masses to think and act."

"Bush 43" is actually Washington shorthand for distinguishing President George W. Bush from his father. President George W. Bush is the 43rd president: George Bush Sr. was the 41st.

Gul admitted that he turned against America when the United States walked away from Afghanistan following the Soviet withdrawal in 1989.

"We were all pro-American (during the war) but then America left us in the lurch and everything went to pieces, including Afghanistan."

[...]

Asked to consider the possibility that bin Laden -- or OBL as he is referred to in Pakistani conversations -- was lying to him and is indeed guilty as charged by the United States, Gul said, "If Taliban are given irrefutable evidence of his guilt, I am in favor of a fair trial. In America one is entitled to a jury of peers. But he has no American peers. The Taliban would not object, in the event of a prima face case, to an international Islamic court meeting in The Hague. They would extradite Osama to the Netherlands." [United Press International]

This abbreviated collection of data (believe me, there is a TON of material out there on this subject) does seem to support the idea that MOSSAD may, indeed, have been responsible for the 9-11 attacks on  the World Trade Center and that the Bush Reich was not only complicit in  ordering the U.S. military and intelligence services to "stand down," but that  they were directly involved in the plot as the evidence of the link between Bob  Graham and Mahmoud Ahmad demonstrates. 

And, of course, though each group is playing the other as in Spy vs. Spy, there  are many things that Israel ought to consider in the volatile climate of  burgeoning anti-Semitism around the world. 

Never mind that Bush and Co, and American Intell organizations have been  stirring the pot for years.  Just as people were "angry" and wanted an "answer"  to 9-11, what kind of answer will be given when the heat is turned up on the  Bush Reich?  Just imagine what would happen if suddenly, all the fingers  pointed to Israel and MOSSAD as the masterminds of Global Terrorism?

ORIGINAL
Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: Comments on the Pentagon Strike

Laura Knight-Jadczyk

Flight 77 took off at 8:20 a.m.

The pilot had his last routine communication with the control tower at 8:50 a.m. "At 9:09 a.m., being unable to reach the plane by radar, the Indianapolis air controllers warned of a possible crash," the Washington Post reported. Vice-President Dick Cheney would later explain that the terrorists had "turned off the transponder, which led to a later report that a plane had gone down over Ohio, but it really hadn't." [Meet the Press, NBC, 16 Sept 2001]

On 12 September it was learned that the transponder had been cut off at about 8:55 a.m., rendering the plane invisible to civilian air controllers. During this period of invisibility, the plane was said to have made a U turn back to Washington. This is, of course, an assumption. The information that the plane turned around has no known source.

The problem is: turning off the transponder, under the conditions that prevailed that day, would have been the best way of raising an alert.

The procedures are very strict in the case of a problem with a transponder, both on civilian and military aircraft. The FAA regulations describe exactly how to proceed when a transponder is not functioning properly: the control tower should enter into radio contact at once with the pilot and, if it fails, immediately warn the military who would then send fighters to establish visual contact with the crew. [see FAA regulations: http://faa.gov/ATpubs]

The interruption of a transponder also directly sets off an alert with the military body responsible for air defenses of the United States and Canada, NORAD.

The transponder is the plane's identity card. An aircraft that disposes of this identity card is IMMEDIATELY monitored, AUTOMATICALLY.

"If an object has not been identified in less than two minutes or appears suspect, it is considered to be an eventual threat. Unidentified planes, planes in distress and planes we suspect are being used for illegal activities can then be intercepted by a fighter from NORAD. [NORAD spokesman: http://www.airforce.dnd.ca/athomedocs/athome1e_f.htm]

See also Facing Terror Attack's Aftermath, Boston Globe, where you will read: "Snyder, the NORAD spokesman, said its fighters routinely intercept aircraft."]

Thus, according to the official version, considering the conditions that prevailed on September 11, 2001, the "terrorists" actually gave the alert that SHOULD have led to almost instant interception FORTY minutes before the plane struck the Pentagon.

In certain regions, ari traffic contrllers do have radars, called "primaries," that are able to detect movement in the air. But, the radars they normally use are called "secondaries" and are limited to recording signals emitted by the transponders of airplanes which tell them the registration, altitude, etc. Turning off the transponder permits an aircraft to vanish from these "secondary" radars. Such an aircraft will only appear on "primary" radars. According to the FAA, the air traffic controllers did not have access to primary radars in Ohio.

See: Pentagon Crash Highlights a Radar Gap, where you will read: "The airliner that slammed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11 disappeared from controllers' radar screens for at least 30 minutes -- in part because it was hijacked in an area of limited radar coverage. [...]

The aircraft, traveling from Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles, was hijacked sometime between 8:50 a.m. -- when air traffic controllers made their last routine contact with the pilot -- and 8:56, when hijackers turned off the transponder, which reports the plane's identity, altitude and speed to controllers' radar screens.

The airliner crashed into the Pentagon at 9:41 a.m., about 12 minutes after controllers at Dulles sounded an alert that an unidentified aircraft was headed toward Washington at high speed.

The answers to the mystery of the aircraft's disappearance begin with the fact that the hijacking took place in an area served by only one type of radar, FAA officials confirmed. Although this radar is called a "secondary" system, it is the type used almost exclusively today in air traffic control. It takes an aircraft's identification, destination, speed and altitude from the plane's transponder and displays it on a controller's radar screen.

"Primary" radar is an older system. It bounces a beam off an aircraft and tells a controller only that a plane is aloft -- but does not display its type or altitude. The two systems are usually mounted on the same tower. Primary radar is normally used only as a backup, and is usually turned off by controllers handling aircraft at altitudes above 18,000 feet because it clutters their screens.

All aircraft flying above 18,000 feet are required to have working transponders. If a plane simply disappears from radar screens, most controllers can quickly switch on the primary system, which should display a small plus sign at the plane's location, even if the aircraft's transponder is not working.

But the radar installation near Parkersburg, W. Va., was built with only secondary radar -- called "beacon-only" radar. That left the controller monitoring Flight 77 at the Indianapolis center blind when the hijackers apparently switched off the aircraft's transponder, sources said. "

The only effect, then, of turning off the transponder at that precise point was to make the plane invisible to only CIVILIAN aviation authorities. One wonders how the "terrorists" knew that this act would make them invisible to the civilian air traffic controllers. Again, under the conditions prevailing that day, and as a general routine, turning off the transponder SHOULD have brought the aircraft to the direct attention and scrutiny of the Military Defense Systems of the United States AUTOMATICALLY. It is therefore a near certainty that, at all times, it was visible and monitored by the Military.

According to the statement of General Myers, the military waited three quarters of an hour before ordering fighters to take off. [Senate hearing, 13 Sept. 2001]

Two days later, on 15 September, NORAD issued a contradictory press release. It said that it hadn't been informed of the hijacking of flight 77 until 9:24 a.m. and had then immediately given orders to two F-16s to take off from Langley, 105 miles from the Pentagon, instead of Saint Andrews, only 10 miles from the Pentagon. They were in the air by 9:30, much too late... the object that impacted the Pentagon arrived at 9:37.

This version puts all the blame on the FAA for waiting.

But this is implausible due to the established procedures that were automatic.

The question that needs to be asked, considering all that WAS known at that claimed "late moment" of awareness is: why were fighter jets sent instead of a missile?

The fact is, independently of the interception of flight 77, the crisis situation that existed that day demanded maximum air defense protection over Washington. This activity would have fallen to Saint Andrews Air Force Base, just as General Eberhart, CO of NORAD had already activated the SCATANA plan and had taken control of the New York airspace in order to position fighters there.

For the military, from the moment they were alerted of flight 77s disappearance, which was, indeed, the moment the transponders were turned off, and NOT when the FAA supposedly got around to calling them, it was not a question of speculating that they were dealing with a mechanical failure. The Facts on the Ground were rather precise: shortly after two airliners were flown into the WTC towers, the transponder of another plane was cut off and the pilot failed to respond to radio contact. The job of the military could not have been clearer: shoot down the plane that was claimed to have been headed for Washington.

These facts show clearly that the U.S. Military had NO INTENTION of shooting down whatever was heading for the Pentagon despite the menace it represented.

On 16 September 2001, Dick Cheney tried to justify the military's failure by claiming that the shooting down of a civilian airplane would be a "decision left up to the president." He played on the sympathy of the American people, saying that the president just couldn't take such a decision hastily because "the lives of American citizens were at stake."

However, Cheney's claims are disingenuous. He equated the interception of the aircraft with the decision to shoot it down.

Interception is merely establishing visual contact, giving orders with light signals, and being ready to take action. A shoot down means that the fighters are already positioned to receive the order.

Further, it is incorrect that this decision can only be made by the President. The interception of a suspect civilian aircraft by fighters is automatic and does not require any kind of political decision making. It should have taken place on 11 September when the transponder was cut off. The fighters should have taken off immediately - unless they were ordered to "stand down."

Again, let me reiterate the fact that the flight 77 was invisible ONLY to CIVILIAN aviation authorities. The fact that the transponders were turned off automatically alerts military air defense.

Next problem: There are five extremely sophisticated anti-missile batteries in place to protect the Pentagon from an airborne attack. These anti-missile batteries operate automatically.

Pentagon spokesman, Lieutenant-Colonel Vic Warzinski claimed the military had not been expecting such an attack. This is not credible. Because the transponder had been turned off, the Pentagon knew full well where that aircraft was. Communications between civilian air traffic controllers and the various federal authorities functioned perfectly.

At 9:25 a.m., the control tower at Dulles airport observed an unidentified vehicle speeding towards the restricted airspace that surrounds the capital. [Washington Post, 12 September, 2001] The craft was heading toward the White House. "All of a sudden, the plane turned away. ...This must be a fighter. This must be one of our guys sent in, scrambled to patrol our capital and to protect our president... We lost radar contact with that aircraft. And we waited. ... And then the Washington National controllers came over our speakers in our room and said, "Dulles, hold all of our inbound traffic. The Pentagon's been hit." [Danielle O'Brien, ABC News, 24 October 2001]

The Army possesses several very sophisticated radar monitoring systems. the PAVE PAWS system is used to detect and track objects difficult to pick up such as missiles flying at very low altitudes. PAVE PAWS misses NOTHING occurring in North American airspace. "The radar system is capable of detecting and monitoring a great number of targets that would be consistent with a massive SLBM [Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile] attack. The system is capable of rapidly discriminating between vehicle types, calculating their launch and impact points. [http://www/pavepaws.org/ and http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/track/pave paws.htm]

Thus, contrary to the Pentagon's claims, the military knew very well that an unidentified vehicle was headed straight for the capital. Yet, the military did not react, and the Pentagon's anti-missile batteries did not function.

Why?

Military aircraft and missiles possess transponders which are much more sophisticated than those of civilian planes. These transponders enable the craft to declare itself to the electronic eyes watching American airspace as either friendly or hostile. An anti-missile battery will not, for example, react to the passage of a "friendly missile," so that, in battlefield conditions, it is ensured that only enemy armaments and vehicles are destroyed.

Thus, it seems that whatever hit the Pentagon MUST have had a military transponder signalling that it was "friendly" - i.e. it would take an American Military craft to penetrate the defenses of the Pentagon - or the anti-missile batteries would have been automatically activated.

Strangely, the entire responsibility for air defense is attributed to NORAD, and that is simply not the truth.

The National Military Command Center, located IN the Pentagon centralizes all information concerning plane hijackings and directs military operations. The NMCC was in a state of maximum alert on the morning of 11 September. The highest military authority of NMCC is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. On 11 September, General Henry Shelton fulfilled this role. However, Shelton was en route for Europe, somewhere over the Atlantic. Thus, his job fell to his deputy, General Richard Myers who was hobnobbing with Senator Max Cleland at the time of the attacks.

In short, the answers to what happened on that day devolve to claimed technical failures, coordination problems, temporary incapacity, absence of commanders, transfer of responsibility, and so on.

That, of course, does not answer the question as to why the automatic systems in place did not work. Mike Ruppert has written that there were "military exercises" taking place that day suggesting that the automatic systems were temporarily turned off. If that is the case, then it is either the greatest coincidence in history that the same day was the day some crazy terrorists, planning from a cave in Afghanistan decided to attack America, or there is someone in the U.S. government who told them.

In short, the Greatest Military machine on earth is obliged to declare itself the Most Incompetent. And because of its incompetence, thousands of American lives were lost and no one has been held accountable. At the same time, Draconian laws curtainling American freedoms have been passed to "make American Safe." The fact is, if the systems already in place had been online, there would not have been an attack on the second WTC Tower, much less the Pentagon.

Considering all aspects of the problem suggests that the systems WERE operational... and the object that hit the Pentagon was "read" by the anti-missile batteries as "OURS."

"It must be remembered that the first job of any conspiracy, whether it be in politics, crime or within a business office, is to convince everyone else that no conspiracy exists. The conspirators' success will be determined largely by their ability to do this." [Gary Allen, None Dare Call It Conspiracy]

The truth about 9/11 is obviously of central importance.

We're incessantly reminded by prominent politicians and voices in the mass media that "September 11th changed everything".

9/11 has become the defining event of the new century, used to justify an unprecedented surge in militaristic and repressive policies within the USA and elsewhere.

Yet despite the evident significance of 9/11, there has been an astonishing lack of informed discussion in the mainstream media about what really took place on that fateful day.

Many anomalies and suspicious leads in the official story, curiosities which the mass media often helped put into the public domain in the first place, have not been followed up or given the attention they clearly merit. The obvious question: "why is the US Administration so averse to a transparent public inquiry?" has scarcely been asked.

Indeed, the western mass media's reluctance to question the official version of 9/11 critically - and the key role played by elements of the media in actively propagating this unlikely story - calls for explanation in its own right. Any objective investigation of 9/11 must account for the extraordinary phenomenon of gross media bias and apparent blindness. [Physics 9-11 org]

This series of comments was begun in September of 2002 when many readers of our website deluged us with emails asking what we thought about the evidence that a Boeing 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon. Up to that moment in time, there was no question in our minds that the events of 9-11 happened exactly as described by the media and the Bush Administration. Of course, we had certain ideas as to WHO was behind those events, but the important point is that we did not question the "facts on the ground" of the event.

Certainly, because this was our "belief," we began to search for data with something of a bias. I was quite certain that the "no-Boeing" theory was designed to set up people who were asking "whodunnit" so that when the "proof of the Boeing" hitting the Pentagon was finally unveiled, everyone who suspected an "inside job" would look completely stupid and all such conspiracy theories would be thoroughly squashed thereby. In fact, I expected such a revelation daily and began to wonder what was really going on when it never came. Could it be possible that there was NO proof that a Boeing hit the Pentagon?

I also did not consider it within the realm of possibility that such a "switch" could have been perpetrated upon the American public, much less the media. Surely no criminal element within our own governent would be crazy enough to launch a Drone plane packing a missile and try to pass it off as a Boeing and expect to get away with it! What a lunatic idea!

And so, it was with such ideas in mind that I began to research the issue. I has now been over two and a half years, and still no proof of a Boeing hitting the Pentagon has been dramatically unveiled. What is more, we recently (Jan. 2005) received information that the REASON for the initial claims that there was no Boeing was due to the fact that satellite images of what really DID hit the Pentagon were taken by satellites belonging to other governments. Up to this point in time, these images have been withheld mainly because "mutual blackmail" at the highest levels of power is the norm. But what we have learned is that these images have been circulated among certain foreign intell groups with, shall we say, planned leaks. After learning of these images from a very trustworthy source who, for obvious reasons, cannot be named, I realized that the stakes of the game are a lot higher than anyone imagines.

Certainly, anyone who approaches this subject and suggests anything other than the accepted media/government version is going to be accused of being a "conspiracy theorist." I need to state for the record that I have spent 30 years studying psychology, history, culture, religion, myth and the paranormal. I also have worked for many years with hypnotherapy - which gives me a very good mechanical knowledge of how the mind/brain of the human being operates at very deep levels. This leads me to certain facts about the human mind that I don't think the average person knows. These facts are illustrated by the following story about hypnosis:

A subject was told under hypnosis that when he was awakened he would be unable to see a third man in the room who, it was suggested to him, would have become invisible. All the "proper" suggestions to make this "true" were given, such as "you will NOT see so- and-so" etc... When the subject was awakened, lo and behold! the suggestions did NOT work.

Why? Because they went against his belief system. He did NOT believe that a person could become invisible.

So, another trial was made. The subject was hypnotized again and was told that the third man was leaving the room... that he had been called away on urgent business, and the scene of him getting on his coat and hat was described... the door was opened and shut to provide "sound effects," and then the subject was brought out of the trance.

Guess what happened?

He was UNABLE TO SEE the Third Man.

Why? Because his perceptions were modified according to his beliefs. Certain "censors" in his brain were activated in a manner that was acceptable to his ego survival instincts.

The ways and means that we ensure survival of the ego is established pretty early in life by our parental and societal programming. This conditioning determines what IS or is NOT possible; what we are "allowed" to believe in order to be accepted. We learn this first by learning what pleases our parents and then later we modify our belief based on what pleases our society - our peers - to believe. This is "transference." We transfer our desire/need to please our parents to our society, even our government.

Anyway, to return to our story, the Third Man went about the room picking things up and setting them down and doing all sorts of things to test the subject's awareness of his presence, and the subject became utterly hysterical at this "anomalous" activity! He could see objects moving through the air, doors opening and closing, but he could NOT see the SOURCE because he did not believe that there was another man in the room.

So, what are the implications of this factor of human consciousness? (By the way, this is also the reason why most therapy to stop bad habits does not work - they attempt to operate against a "belief system" that is imprinted in the subconscious that this or that habit is essential to survival.)

One of the first things we might observe is that everyone has a different set of beliefs based upon their social and familial conditioning, and that these beliefs determine how much of the OBJECTIVE reality anyone is able to access.

Realities, objective, subjective, or otherwise, are a touchy subject. Suffice it to say that years of work inside the minds of all kinds of people has taught me that we almost never perceive reality as it truly IS.

In the above story, the objective reality IS WHAT IT IS. In this story, there is clearly a big part of that reality that is inaccessable to the subject due to a perception censor which was activated by the suggestions of the hypnotist. That is to say, the subject has a strong belief, based upon his CHOICE as to who or what to believe. In this case, he has chosen to believe the hypnotist and not what he might be able to observe if he dispensed with the perception censor put in place by the hypnotist who activated his "belief center" - even if that activation was fraudulent.

And so it is with nearly all human beings: we believe the hypnotist - the "official culture" - and we are able, with preternatural cunning, to deny what is often right in front of our faces. In the case of the hypnosis subject, he is entirely at the mercy of the "Invisible Man" because he chooses not to see him.

Let's face it: we are all taught to avoid uncomfortable realities. Human beings - faced with unpleasant truths about themselves or their reality - react like alcoholics who refuse to admit their condition, or the cuckold husband who is the "last to know," or the wife who does not notice that her husband is abusing her daughter.

I am not surprised at the state of denial of the majority of human beings. It is the cultural norm. I am also not surprised at the projection of their discomfort onto those who ask uncomfortable questions by accusing them of being "conspiracy theorists."

Now that the reader has some idea that they are probably going to deny nearly everything that I am going to say, let us move to the "context" that I believe may be important to the events of 9-11. The context is that the term "conspiracy theory" has been tootled for a number of years in such a way that the mere pronouncing of the words acts to turn off the thinking capacities of the average American. It is almost as effective as pronouncing any criticism of Israeli government to be anti-Semitic.

The first thing we want to think about is the fact that the word "conspiracy" evokes such a strong reaction in all of us: nobody wants to be branded as a "conspiracy theorist." It just isn't "acceptable." It's "un-scientific" or it's evidence of mental instability. Right? That's what you are thinking, isn't it?

In fact, I bet that the very reading of the word even produces certain physiological reactions: a slight acceleration of the heartbeat, and perhaps a quick glance around to make sure that no one was watching while you simply read the word silently.

Have you ever asked yourself WHY the word evokes such an instantaneous emotional reaction? Have you ever wondered why it stimulates such a strong "recoil?" After all, it is only a word. It only describes the idea of people in "high places" thinking about things and doing things that manipulate other people to produce benefits for themselves.

Richard M. Dolan studied at Alfred University and Oxford University before completing his graduate work in history at the University of Rochester, where he was a finalist for a Rhodes scholarship. Dolan studied U.S. Cold War strategy, Soviet history and culture, and international diplomacy. He has written about "conspiracy" in the following way:

The very label [conspiracy] serves as an automatic dismissal, as though no one ever acts in secret. Let us bring some perspective and common sense to this issue.

The United States comprises large organizations - corporations, bureaucracies, "interest groups," and the like - which are conspiratorial by nature. That is, they are hierarchical, their important decisions are made in secret by a few key decision-makers, and they are not above lying about their activities. Such is the nature of organizational behavior. "Conspiracy," in this key sense, is a way of life around the globe.

Within the world's military and intelligence apparatuses, this tendency is magnified to the greatest extreme. During the 1940s, [...] the military and its scientists developed the world's most awesome weapons in complete secrecy... [...]

Anyone who has lived in a repressive society knows that official manipulation of the truth occurs daily. But societies have their many and their few. In all times and all places, it is the few who rule, and the few who exert dominant influence over what we may call official culture. - All elites take care to manipulate public information to maintain existing structures of power. It's an old game.

America is nominally a republic and free society, but in reality an empire and oligarchy, vaguely aware of its own oppression, within and without. I have used the term "national security state" to describe its structures of power. It is a convenient way to express the military and intelligence communities, as well as the worlds that feed upon them, such as defense contractors and other underground, nebulous entities. Its fundamental traits are secrecy, wealth, independence, power, and duplicity.

Nearly everything of significance undertaken by America's military and intelligence community in the past half-century has occured in secrecy. The undertaking to build an atomic weapon, better known as the Manhattan Project, remains the great model for all subsequent activities. For more than two years, not a single member of Congress even knew about it although its final cost exceeded two billion dollars.

During and after the Second World War, other important projects, such as the development of biological weapons, the importation of Nazi scientists, terminal mind-control experiments, nationwide interception of mail and cable transmissions of an unwitting populace, infiltration of the media and universities, secret coups, secret wars, and assassinations all took place far removed not only from the American public, but from most members of Congress and a few presidents. Indeed, several of the most powerful intelligence agencies were themselves established in secrecy, unknown by the public or Congress for many years.

Since the 1940s, the US Defense and Intelligence establishment has had more money at its disposal than most nations. In addition to official dollars, much of the money is undocumented. From its beginning, the CIA was engaged in a variety of off-the-record "business" activities that generated large sums of cash. The connections of the CIA with global organized crime (and thus de facto with the international narcotics trade) has been well established and documented for many years. - Much of the original money to run the American intelligence community came from very wealthy and established American families, who have long maintained an interest in funding national security operations important to their interests.

In theory, civilian oversight exists over the US national security establishment. The president is the military commander-in-chief. Congress has official oversight over the CIA. The FBI must answer to the Justice Department. In practice, little of this applies. One reason has to do with secrecy. [...]

A chilling example of such independence occurred during the 1950s, when President Eisenhower effectively lost control of the US nuclear arsenal. The situation deteriorated so much that during his final two years in office, Eisenhower asked repeatedly for an audience with the head of Strategic Air Command to learn what America's nuclear retaliatory plan was. What he finally learned in 1960, his final year in office, horrified him: half of the Northern Hemisphere would be obliterated.

If a revered military hero such as Eisenhower could not control America's nuclear arsenal, nor get a straight answer from the Pentagon, how on earth could Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, or Nixon regarding comparable matters?

Secrecy, wealth and independence add up to power. Through the years, the national security state has gained access to the wrorld's most sophisticated technology sealed off millions of acres of land from public access or scrutiny, acquired unlimited snooping ability within US borders and beyond, conducted overt or clandestine actions against other nations, and prosecuted wars without serious media scrutiny. Domestically, it maintains influence over elected officials and communities hoping for some of the billions of defense dollars. [including scientists, universities, etc.]

Deception is the key element of warfare, and when winning is all that matters, the conventional morality held by ordinary people becomes an impediment. When taken together, the examples of official duplicity form a nearly single totality. They include such choice morsels as the phony war crisis of 1948, the fabricated missile gap claimed by the air force during the 1950s, the carefully managed events leading to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution... [...]

The secrecy stems from a pervasive and fundamental element of life in our world, that those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo.

[S]keptics often ask, "Do you really think the government could hide [anything] for so long?" The question itself reflects ignorance of the reality that secrecy is a way of life in the National Security State. Actually though, the answer is yes, and no.

Yes, in that cover-ups are standard operating procedure, frequently unknown to the public for decades, becoming public knowledge by a mere roll of the dice. But also no, in that ... information has leaked out from the very beginning. It is impossible to shut the lid completely. The key lies in neutralizing and discrediting unwelcomed information, sometimes through official denial, other times through proxies in the media.

[E]vidence [of conspiracy] derived from a grass roots level is unlikely to survive its inevitable conflict with official culture. And acknowledgement about the reality of [conspiracies] will only occur when the official culture deems it worthwhile or necessary to make it. [Don't hold your breath.]

This is a widespread phenomenon affecting many people, generating high levels of interest, taking place in near-complete secrecy, for purposes unknown, by agencies unknown, with access to incredible resources and technology. A sobering thought and cause for reflection. [Richard Dolan]

Now, think about the word "conspiracy" one more time and allow me to emphasize the key point: From a historical point of view, the ONLY reality is that of conspiracy. Secrecy, wealth and independence add up to power. ...Deception is the key element of warfare, (the tool of power elites), and when winning is all that matters, the conventional morality held by ordinary people becomes an impediment. Secrecy stems from a pervasive and fundamental element of life in our world, that those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo.

And how do they do that? By "official culture."

And official culture, understood this way, from the perspective of elite groups wishing to maintain the status quo of their power, means only one thing: COINTELPRO. And here we do not necessarily mean the specific FBI program, but the concept of the program and its application in our society, and the likelihood that this has been the mode of controlling human beings for possibly millennia. Certainly, Machiavelli outlined the principles a very long time ago and little has changed since.

The fact is, it is almost a mechanical system that operates based on the psychological nature of human beings, most of whom LIKE to live in denial or need to live in denial to please their parents, their peers, their religious leaders, and their political leaders. After all, "if ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." This is most especially true when we consider the survival instinct of the ego. If the official culture says that there is no Third Man in the room, and if it works through the inculcated belief systems, there is little possibility that the "subject" will be able to see the source of the phenomena in our world. It will always be an "invisible Third Man."

Consider this also: even if Dolan is writing specifically about America, in a world dominated by the United States, it must be considered that pressures are applied elsewhere from within this "National Security State" to comply with the demands of the US.

The reader might wish to have a look at Kevin MacDonald's The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements where they will learn that "ethnic Jews have a powerful influence in the American media—far larger than any other identifiable group. The extent of Jewish ownership and influence on the popular media in the United States is remarkable given the relatively small proportion of the population that is Jewish."

In other words, Israel is in control of the means of creating the "official culture" of America to suit its own agenda, including making the terms "conspiracy theory" and "anti-Semitic" such horrible epithets that no one would dare to speak anything that might put them at risk of be so branded!

There exists in our world today a powerful and dangerous secret cult.

So wrote Victor Marchetti, a former high-ranking CIA official, in his book The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. This is the first book the U.S. Government ever went to court to censor before publication. In this book, Marchetti tells us that there IS a "Cabal" that rules the world and that its holy men are the clandestine professionals of the Central Intelligence Agency. Paraphrasing, Marchetti:

This cult is patronized and protected by the highest level government officials in the world. It's membership is composed of those in the power centers of government, industry, commerce, finance, and labor. It manipulates individuals in areas of important public influence - including the academic world and the mass media. The Secret Cult is a global fraternity of a political aristocracy whose purpose is to further the political policies of persons or agencies unknown. It acts covertly and illegally.

"The main threat to Democracy comes not from the extreme left but from the extreme right, which is able to buy huge sections of the press and radio, and wages a constant campaign to smear and discredit every progressive and humanitarian measure." - George Seldes

"There exists a shadowy Government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself." Daniel K. Inouye U.S. Senator

"Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." - Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom (1913)

Remember: those who are at the top of the heap will always take whatever steps are necessary to maintain the status quo and the way this is done is via "official culture" which is a product of COINTELPRO.

The most effective weapon of COINTELPRO is Ridicule and Debunking. Notice that Marchetti points out that this is done via manipulation of individuals in areas of important public influence - including the academic world and the mass media.

Bottom line is: if you have bought into the emotionally manipulated consensus of "official culture" that there are no conspiracies, that there is no "Third Man," it is very likely that you are being manipulated by fear of ridicule. You are in denial. You have been hypnotized by the suggestions of the holy men of the Secret Cult. And you have chosen to believe them over your own possible observations and senses.

From an "Expert" on Lies:

The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, because the vast masses of a nation are, in the depths of their hearts, more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad.

The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them more easy victims of a big lie than a small one, because they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell big ones. Such a form of lying would never enter their heads. They would never credit others with the possibility of such great impudence as the complete reversal of facts.

Even explanations would long leave them in doubt and hesitation, and any trifling reason would dispose them to accept a thing as true. Something therefore always remains and sticks from the most imprudent of lies, a fact which all bodies and individuals concerned in the art of lying in this world know only too well, and therefore they stop at nothing to achieve this end.
~ Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf

Now, let me back up a bit. On September 14, 2001 - just a few days after the Terrorist Attack - I read a curious article on a Russian News Site, www.strana.ru, that caught my attention and left me feeling strangely uneasy. It was an interview with a former Russian high official and specialist in Russian secret services which was translated for us by a reader who sent it in, and I am going to reproduce it as I read it with underlinings and other emphases that I have added to show those points that struck me as most interesting:

Acts of terrorism carried out on 11 September in America, and their consequences are commented upon in an interview with Andrey Kosyakov, former assistant to the chairman of the Russian Congress, a specialist in International Security.

Q: What suggests that terrorism in THE USA was planned well in advance?

A: First, the conspirators possessed the professional skill to fly an aircraft. There had to be at least four of them with substitutes on hand in the event one of them failed. There is a high probability that the hijacking of an aircraft will fail, thus there had to be stand-by hijackers and/or pilots in this eventuality.

In the second place, all participants in the operation were ready to sacrifice themselves, and such individuals are not easy to find.

Finally, the departure times of the aircraft from four different points were coordinated minute by minute. This means that the routes and timing were known well in advance, and these particular flights were selected specifically for their routes and schedule.

All of this is sufficiently complicated to necessitate a long period of planning.

Q: And how long, in your opinion, would it take to plan something like this? How large an organization would it require? Could, for example, the Red Army carry out such an operation? Some analysts say that only a National organization could do this.

A: As far as the time of preparation is concerned, it would require months. And such an organization must be very powerful.

But, the participation of a National organization, such as a government of a country, is very doubtful.

I assure you that National resources have not been used here.

No secret service would risk their operatives in this way. They spend a lot of time and money training their agents. However, if President Bush had been the target, then one would suspect a secret service of some organization. But here, the target was different: civilians.

As for the Red Army, it doesn't fit for one simple reason: it consists of mainly orientals and it is too easy to distinguish Japanese from Americans.

Q: So, what do you conclude from all this?

You see, analyzing this situation, I was struck by one significant fact: it is known that there were telephone calls from the plane. One of the calling persons was a professional journalist. And yet, not one of the calling individuals said that they were being hijacked by "moslem terrorists." There was, apparently, nothing unusual about the appearance of the hijackers. There was no attempt to describe them. No one said: "Moslem terrorists have hijacked the plane," which would have logically been the first comment by this journalist IF it was apparent that the hijackers were "foreign." There was obviously nothing unusual about them in terms of appearance, accent, pronunciation, or other similar factors.

Q: But, secret organizations could hide these things, couldn't they?

A: All these calls were private. And even the FBI was not able to suppress the fact that these calls took place. So, the conclusion which comes to mind, is that the external appearance of the hijackers was in no way different from the other passengers. Only in such cases would the communicants indentify the hijackers in a shorthand way. This suggests that the hijackers were European in appearance.

There is also the suspicious fact that the conspirators left a huge "clue" in the leased automobile at the airport with a copy of the Koran and instructions for flying a plane in Arabic.

Now look, not one organization claimed responsibility. This means that the terrorists want to hide their identity.

With every other aspect of total control and professionalism, how could they make such a mistake?

This does not compute with all the rest of the perfection of the operation.

All this says that the criminals want to create a false track.

In this way, the secret services have been induced very cleverly to look for "Moslem terrorists. "

Q: But indeed the practice of self-sacrifice is typical to the Moslem culture?

A: You are completely right. But who told you that those who died were not Moslems?

This way we can narrow the radius of our search.

On the basis of this information which we have, by analysis, we may come to the consclusion that those who did it were Americans or Europeans who were followers of radical Islam.

They were manipulated so that the true criminals will be thus spared for follow-up actions.

It is completely clear that this is a multi-phase operation. [...] ... it seems that the target is precisely America; precisely civilians.

Q: But, we remember that some analysts were claiming that if George Bush was in the White House on September 11, then the aircraft would have been aimed at the White House instead of the Pentagon.

This is highly improbable. In that case the White House or the Pentagon, but not peaceful population would be the first targets.

Indeed after a first successful terrorist act, the chances of success for the rest fall.

You see that the last action did fail in the crash of the aircraft in Pittsburgh. It was most certainly shot down. However hard it is to admit, this was the correct thing to do.

So it is clear that the main targets are civilians.

There is this formula that is part of the mentality of terrorists: the civilian population in the democratic countries are responsible for the actions of their government. The terrorists accept and use this formula. Therefore, the next terrorist acts will follow the same pattern. Obviously, they will occur on Wednesday or Thursday of next week. Why? I don't want to explain the terrorist's logic. But it is based on a certain sense of the "rightness" of the thing.

But I would like to repeat this: the fact that no terrorists are claiming responsibility, tells us that they will kill again and again until the next stage of global conflict is achieved. This is precisely the goal of these actions. Only then will they reveal their identity in order to get followers.

Q: How could the special services OF THE USA fail to detect such a terrorist act?

I will give two examples. Half a year ago Israeli reconnaissance carried out studies through the use of aerial targets for conducting terrorism.

It is certain that the Americans had access to these studies. But it seems to not have entered their minds to apply this information in defensive ways.

And other - in March of 1991 in our office sat Korzhakov, and we told him about the situation leading to the September government coup. We predicted that everything would occur in September. Everything actually occurred, exactly following our scenario, only it happend one month earlier: August. No one paid any attention. This means that when there are predictions of scenarios that seem to be improbable, no one takes them seriously, especially the secret services. That is why Putin says that what is needed is a union of all secret services of all nations.

Q: What is the probability that the American secret services will succeed in finding the leader of this operation, or that they simply will present to society a fake?

A: Very high. There are people, there are apartments where they were located, which means, there are traces, certainly. Following these traces, one may find the leader.

Q: And who this? Ben Laden?

Hardly.

Yes, there was the interception of his conversation with someone, where they reported to him the destruction of two targets.This was seen as indirect confirmation of his participation. But he is not an ideologist. He is too well known. And the one who organized all of this is too smart to be noticed.

Ever.

Now, remember, this interview with an intelligence expert took place just a few days after the 9-11 attacks. Several points in this article started me to thinking. Those points are as follows: the attacks were carried out against civilians, targets that are highly symbolic to the ordinary American. In other words, the American people were the real targets, but not in the way that is usually thought. It was intended to make every single American full of fear and outrage so that whoever came along as a "strong man" pointing a finger at culprits and declaring that he was gonna go after them, would be able to do anything he wanted to do. And that is exactly what George W. Bush did. The Russian intell guy said that it was obvious that the attacks were carried out by a very "powerful organization" that wishes to blame Moslems - to create a false trail - for these attacks. And he also noted that, because the attacks were so carefully planned, it was obvious that the planners would be too smart to be noticed - and certainly much too smart to leave clues lying about such as passports and "how to fly" videos in Arabic. Indeed, the passports and videos were dead giveaways to the fact that they were planted so as to falsely blame the act on Islamic terrorists.

Another thing that struck me rather forcibly was his remark that Israeli reconnaissance carried out studies through the use of aerial targets for conducting terrorism followed by his assertion that "It is certain that the Americans had access to these studies."

So, I began to think about what this intell guy was saying a bit more deeply despite the fact that he confidently assured his interviewer that no "national service" did this.

(Regarding the KGB guy's remark above about the shooting down of the fourth hijacked plane, see: video clip: How the authorities responded: A concise analysis of the events from http://www.itn.co.uk/news/ondemand/video/ )

This Russian intell expert aksed the loaded question: "How could the special services OF THE USA fail to detect such a terrorist act?"

This assessment struck me as one of the more intelligent bits of commentary about the 9-11 attacks to come out AT THE TIME, emerging through the hysterical rants about Osama and those nasty Muslims like a small island of sanity.

What I found to be most interesting was exactly WHO was most vigorously pointing the finger at Radical Islam: a veritable Greek Chorus led by a former cheerleader, our own George Bush and the Warmongers.

When we look at the fact that, from the very beginning, this event has been compared to "Pearl Harbor," we have to wonder if this is a sort of "signature?"

I remember back in 1986, when I came across the documented evidence that the attack on Pearl Harbor was known to the United States well before it happened. I was shocked. Not only did the government do nothing to prevent it, they did not even warn those who were going to be attacked. The loss of American lives was horrendous. And the blame lies on the doorstep of the leaders of America. There is even evidence that they deliberately manipulated the situation, at the highest levels, to ensure that the attack would take place.

Why?

Well, to get the United States into the war, of course. War is big business. Whenever you have a slow economy, a little war-mongering is always the answer. In ancient times, it was the business of the day: go to war, kill the men, capture the women and the wealth of the enemy, and go home until you have spent it all and gotten tired of the women, and then go out and do it over again. Even Herodotus understood this to be the reason for war. And human beings haven't changed at all - at least not those who seek power positions.

Is it possible that the government of our country had an inkling that the events of 9-11 were going to happen?

After examining all the evidence available, indeed, that seems to be true.

And if so, is it possible that they did nothing?

Again, that seems to be true as well. And when they did finally wake up from their war games and school reading classes, the only thing they did do was the exact opposite of trying to get to the bottom of the matter, trying to find the real culprits, and instead, went after the False Flag clues that were left to lead everyone astray and denied anyone the right to question the conclusions that they propagandized so vigorously.

Well, sure, such clues might lead the average citizen astray. They might not be aware of what are called "False Flag operations." They aren't educated in the ways of intelligence and don't know about all the evil manipulations that go on all the time in the world of spy vs. spy.

But surely, the president of the Greatest Nation on Earth is not going to be taken in by such blatant nonsense as a "how to fly" video in Arabic, is he?

Apparently so.

So here we have an administration not acting when and how it ought to act, either before or after the attack.

Is this a coincidence?

We read endless reports of this spreading like wildfire over the web. A dozen or more commentators of great or lesser prestige simply do not believe in the "failure of intelligence" that is the administrations answer to why and how George and Co got caught with their pants down. Many, many people are certain that the government not only knew about the attack, but that they condoned it for their own nefarious purposes; that it is the new Pearl Harbor or even Hitler's Reichstag fire.

So, we have two opposing forces here: the administration supported by the mass media, against a growing percentage of the population that claims that there was no failure of intelligence, that the government deliberately condoned or even participated in this attack, and that it is part of a planned schedule to impose a One World Government on all of us, to abridge our freedoms, and entrap us in a fascist state.

On their side, George Bush and his administration say that we have to accept some new, restrictive laws to make us "safe" (never mind that the INTELL was available, and it was the government that failed to heed the intell and make America safe), make some significant changes in the way the country does business, and most definitely, we need a little war here and there to level things out again (not to mention the economy.) And all of the Joe Sixpak's of the world may be buying it. All the grandmother Sally Stockmarketinvestors are sitting at home, glued to their televisions, hoping that Uncle Sam will take charge here, nuke the Afghanis, give Saddam a major spanking, wipe out the Iraqis, and anybody who ever helped them, and pass all the laws necessary to ensure the safety of this great nation. Never mind if that includes moving to a cashless society and implanting micro-chips under the skin so that everyone will be trackable so as to ensure that they aren't committing terrorist acts on their lunch break.

There's a saying attributed to Franklin Roosevelt: "In politics, nothing happens by accident, if it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." Maybe he really said it, maybe he didn't. Whether he did or not, anyone who studies history deeply can figure out that it comes pretty close to the truth. I also once had a conversation with a fellow who was trained in military intelligence and he told me that one of the first rules of intell is to observe the situation AS IT IS, and extrapolate to who will gain from it. So these two principles were uppermost in my mind as I was considering all the data. Clearly, the attacks on 9-11 are "political events."

The situation at present is a bit complex. But we notice that it has only become complex AFTER the fact. It is only the wild speculations and constant playing of agendas and counter-agendas that has tended to obscure the basic essentials of the matter. There are groups that go on and on about a "flash of light" that was emitted between the two airliners that crashed into the WTC, and this proves there was some sort of missile fired. That's an interesting idea, but it really doesn't even make it to "theory" status because there are other possible explanations for such a flash, including a discharge of electricity between the plane and the building as soon as it is close enough to be "grounded".

There are groups that make a big deal about supposed "pods" under the aircraft that hit the WTC. We can pretty easily dispose of that one by carefully examining photos of the underside of that particular type of aircraft.

Then, there's the group that takes the cake, in my opinion: the "hologram" people. That is about the silliest thing going. That is not to say that I don't think that hologram technology exists, that it might be used in a number of ways, but I don't think that holograms photograph too well since they are produced by light and there are the endlessly repeating videos of the planes crashing into the World Trade Center Towers.

So, let's go back to ground zero of the present situation and look at the event itself, by itself, and ask the first important question: Who benefits?

It's easy to see that the Military-Industrial Complex in America has been the primary beneficiary along with Israel. Actually, the two are almost one creature, so it's hard to think of them as separate entities. It could be suggested that, by focusing the anger of the citizens of the United States against the Moslems, Israel has powerful backing for their expansionist goals, and with much of the MIC in their pockets, they have the money to do what they want to do: the money of the American tax payer.

We also observe the events in Israel during the months prior to the WTC attack: many people were withdrawing their support from Israel and there was a growing feeling of dis-ease among the peoples of many countries, that Israel was simply going too far in its actions against the Palestinians. Everyone was getting tired of the constant harassment of the Palestinians, of the constant attacks against anyone who said a single word against Israel's political ambitions; who - if they did not support every single thing said and done by Israel - were flamed as "antisemitic."

In short, Israel was losing its grip on the collective guilt of the world. Sympathies were turning against them, and toward the Palestinians.

So, after those nasty Islamic fundies attacked America, Isreal had the biggest bully on the global block on their side. With the repeating rants of how evil Muslims are, how fanatical they are, how cruel and unusual they are, the whole rest of the world had better fall in line with Israel's thinking and help them find the "final solution" for Palestine and those other A-rabs.

Gee, shades of Nazi Germany going after the Jews!

Thus we see that the main "benefit" of the WTC attack falls, primarily, to Israel.

There is compelling hard evidence to support this view. Let's take a look:

On September 10, 2001, the Army School of Advanced Military Studies issued a  report written by elite US army officers, which was made public just prior to  9/11. The report gave the following description for the Mossad: "Wildcard.  Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces and make it look like  a Palestinian/Arab act." [Washington Times, 9/10/01]

Hmmm... I guess that the Bush Gang didn't read that particular item of Intell. They were too busy reading the "cooked intell" that said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Alone, the quote form the Army School wouldn't mean much, but as things developed after Sept. 11, 2001, more pieces were added to the puzzle. It wasn't until June 2 of 2003 that the picture began to make sense. On that day, I was scanning the news reports and came across a rather mundane item that really got me to thinking. Read my article: MOSSAD and Moving Companies for details. This collection of data (believe me, there is a TON of material out there on this subject) does seem to support the idea that MOSSAD may, indeed, have been deeply involved in the 9-11 attacks on  the World Trade Center and that the Bush Reich was not only complicit in  ordering the U.S. military and intelligence services to "stand down," but that  they were directly involved in the plot as the evidence of the link between Bob  Graham and Mahmoud Ahmad demonstrates. 

Now, let's get down to brass tacks here.

The September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center were followed live on television by hundreds of millions of people around the world. Everyone was shocked by the horror of the attack. TV networks broadcast the videos of the attacks over and over again with very little reporting since no one really knew what to say; it was just too shocking and unexpected. All the while the attack was being shown repeatedly, there was no explanation of the events because no one knew any details.

During the next few days, bits and pieces information were released to the press by government officials, reports were issued and retracted, and most news focus was concentrated on the frenzy of rescue efforts. Over the next few months, more information was released in bits and pieces, but again, few people were paying any attention to the data because, by then, the shock had turned into terror.

The meta-facts are that several thousand people died in America on September 11, 2001, and the United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq as a result, killing hundreds of thousands more human beings, including killing or permanently maiming many thousands of its own citizens.

The events of 9-11, however, are still a confusing morass of contradiction that has only been exacerbated by the so-called official 9-11 Report. Nevertheless, the public of the United States have been, for the most part, accepting of the "official culture" version of the attacks. The claim that "National Security" requires the authorities to conceal much of the data about this crime is accepted almost without question. It is actually quite amazing how LITTLE the average American really knows about the events of that day even if you restrict your definition of "events" to what was reported by the media.

The most troubling fact of all is that the Official Version gleaned from the news reports and information released by government officials does not stand up to even the most cursory scrutiny.

What bothers me most of all is, considering the fact that the attacks on 9-11 were about the most audacious crime in American History, there was no proper forensic investigation. There was no Sherlock Holmes on hand to use his magnifying glass and his great knowledge of different kinds of cigarette ash; there was no Hercule Poirot called in to exercise his little gray cells; there was no Columbo bumbling about with his seemingly innocuous questions that annoy the heck out of the perpetrators. (This was also the case with the assassination of JFK. The crime scene was so thoroughly violated before a proper investigation took place that there was no possibility of finding the facts.)

You would think that, in the alleged greatest and most powerful nation on Earth that the investigation would have been the most thorough and scientific ever conducted.

But that isn't the case.

Although the terror attacks of September 11 were clearly criminal acts of mass murder, no effort was made to preserve the integrity of the crime scenes and the essential evidence was disposed of like garbage. Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani hired two large British construction management firms to oversee what many experts consider to be massive criminal destruction of evidence. The editor-in-chief of Fire Engineering magazine, William A. Manning, issued an urgent call to action to America's firefighters at the end of 2001, calling for a forensic investigation and demanding that the steel from the site be preserved to allow investigators to determine what caused the collapse. Have a look here for some comments about the destruction of evidence and evidence of destruction.

Just for the exercise, let's assume that the conspiracy theorists are correct and the government is lying and covering up the truth of the attacks on 9-11 either in whole or in part. Without any real evidence, without any real impartial investigation, what do we have to go on?

Admittedly, not much other than to observe the behaviors of all the parties before, during and after the event. But even though we have very little in the way of forensic evidence, we can still assert:

When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains – however improbable – must be the truth! - Arthur Conan Doyle

Contrary to those who claim that there were no real passenger jets at all, that it was all a hologram, it seems rather clear that actual commercial jets hit the twin towers of the World Trade Center exactly as described by the many witnesses and as confirmed by government officials. It was on film, and we simply cannot refute that in my opinion. It happened, and everyone saw it.

But that does not mean that a commercial Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

Why do I say that?

Because the fact that large commercial jets were SEEN to hit the World Trade Center, over and over again on TV could very easily have "conditioned" the public to believe that the same type of craft hit the Pentagon when they were told that this was the case by government officials, backed up by "witnesses" who also happened to be government officials.

Brain studies show that what is suggested during a period of pain or shock becomes MEMORY. The brain sort of "traps" the ideas being assimilated at times of pain and shock into permanent "synaptic patterns of thought/memory."

The conditions surrounding the events of 9-11 were perfect for creating specific impressions and memories - manipulation of the minds of the masses by shocking events and media spin.

So, since we have video images of commercial jetliners hitting the World Trade Center towers film, it is certain that this is what happened. The issue of the collapse of the buildings is different and most certainly does suggest prior planning to ensure that the buildings would not survive the impact, and that the collapse would be dramatic and shocking.

We now turn to the strike against the Pentagon. This one is a bit more problematical.

Reuters news agency was first on the scene of the Pentagon attack. Based on the information they gathered there from eyewitnesses, they announced that the Pentagon had suffered damage from a helicopter explosion. Associated Press confirmed this with Democratic Party consultant, Paul Begala.

2:41:05 PM "The Pentagon is being evacuated in expectation of a terrorist attack. It is believed a fire has broken out in the building." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)

2:47:43 PM "There are reports that a helicopter has crashed into the Pentagon. An eyewitness said that they saw the helicopter circle the building and after it disappeared behind it, an explosion occured." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)

2:52:26 PM "Paul Begala, a Democratic consultant, said he witnessed a explosion near the Pentagon shortly after two planes crashed into World Trade Centre. ‘‘It was a huge fireball, a huge, orange fireball,’’ Begala said. He said another witness told him a helicopter exploded." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)

Shortly afterward, the Department of Defense said that a plane was involved. New "eyewitnesses" came forward that contradicted the first ones that now supported the "official version."

Fred Hay, assistant to Senator Bob Ney, was the first to claim that he saw a Boeing aircraft fall as he was driving down the highway next to the Pentagon. Senator Mark Kirk claimed that he was leaving the Pentagon parking lot after breakfast with Donald Rumsfeld, and he declared that a large plane had crashed into the Pentagon.

It was several hours before the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, declared that the "suicide plane" was the Boeing 757, AA flight 77 which had taken off from Dulles airport in Washington D.C. bound for L.A., and which had been lost to air traffic controllers at 8:55 a.m.

The air traffic controllers said that, at 8:55 a.m., the Boeing flight 77 descended to 29,000 feet and did not respond to their instructions. It's transponder then went silent. They assumed electrical failure. The pilot was not responding to them, but apparently was able to intermittantly turn on his radion which allowed them to hear a voice with a strong Arab accent threatening him. The plane then made a turn "back toward Washington" and after that, all trace was lost.

The air traffic controllers notified FAA headquarters that a hijacking was suspected. The FAA staff said that, in the midst of the panic of that day, they just thought this message was another notification concerning the second plane that hit the WTC. It was only a half hour later that they realized it was, in fact, a third plane. That is to say, at about 9:24 they knew they had a third problem.

General Richard Myers, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says that prior to the crash into the Pentagon, military officials had been notified that another hijacked plane had been heading from the New York area to Washington. He says he assumed that hijacked plane was the one that hit the Pentagon, though he could not be sure." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)

On September 13, General Myers was unable to give a report to the Senate on defensive measures taken to intercept this Boeing. Based on his testimony, the Senate Armed Services Committee determined that no attempt at interception had taken place.

NORAD immediately jumped up and said "Not so!" They issued a press release the next day stating that it only received the warning of the third hijacking at 9:24 and had most definitely immediately ordered two F-16's from Langley AFB in Virginia to intercept Flight 77. BUT, they claimed that the Air Force did not know its location and went in the wrong direction! Apparently, a military transport taking off from Saint Andrews Presidential bas happened to spot the Boeing by chance, but by then, it was too late.

A Boeing 757-200 measures 155 feet long and has a wingspan of 125 feet. Fully loaded, it weighs 115 tons and cruises at 560 miles per hour.

So, this last claim above is simply not plausible. We are expected to believe that the U.S. military radar system could not locate a Boeing within a range of only a few dozen miles? The military radar of the most powerful nation on earth? And further, that said Boeing - a flying whale - could outmaneuver and elude two fighter jets???!!

It is known that the security arrangements that protect Washington were revised after a plane managed to land on the White House lawn in 1994. It is also known that those security arrangements, while mostly secret, include five batteries of anti-aircraft missiles installed on top of the Pentagon and fighters stationed at Saint Andrews. Yet, we are expected to believe that "The Pentagon simply was not aware" that a hijacked Boeing was headed its way? That "no one expected anyting like that here?"

Essentially, the headquarters of the most powerful nation on earth had been helpless to defend itself.

Strangely enough, the reports of odd happenings at the Pentagon kept coming in until late in the day:

4:05:16 PM "A second aircraft has crashed into the Pentagon building. It is not known whether this plane was that which was hijacked from Boston airport a short time ago, the fourth such plane to be used in this major attack on the US. Earlier, a small plane had slammed into the building and set it ablaze." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)

4:17:03 PM "Part of the Pentagon building outside Washington has collapsed. It had been hit by two planes apparently hijacked by terrorists in Boston earlier today." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)

6:40:29 PM Fighter jets are patrolling the skies above Washington after a jet hijacked by terrorists struck the Pentagon. An aircraft has crashed on a helicopter landing pad near the Pentagon, and the White House. The Pentagon has taken a direct hit from an aircraft. The nerve centre of the US military burst into flames and a portion of one side of the five-sided structure collapsed when the plane struck. Secondary explosions were reported in the aftermath of the attack and great billows of smoke drifted skyward towards the Potomac River. Authorities immediately began deploying troops, including a regiment of light infantry. General Richard Myers, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, says that prior to the crash into the Pentagon, military officials had been notified that another hijacked plane had been heading from the New York area to Washington. He says he assumed that hijacked plane was the one that hit the Pentagon, though he could not be sure." -TCM Breaking News (9/11/01)

Members of the press were kept away from the scene for the ostensible reason that they might "hinder rescue operations." However, the Associated Press obtained photos taken by a private individual from a nearby building. It is due to those photos that the biggest questions about the strike on the Pentagon are raised.

After all of this confusion, it was finally announced that, according to officials, the explosion at the Pentagon was caused when American Airlines Flight 77, a 100 ton Boeing 757 commercial airliner, crashed at ground level into the only section of the building that was being renovated to be more "blast resistant" and which housed the fewest amount of employees in it. Flight 77 was allegedly hijacked by five Arab Islamic terrorists on an apparent suicide mission killing all 64 people on board. Officials claim the the flight recorders from Flight 77 and the remains of all but one of the 64 passengers on board where found at the crash scene.

First of all, we should consider the "mindset" of terrorists who would want to inflict the most damage possible. Certainly, if a Fundamentalist Islamic terrorist organization managed to get hold of a plane, and then get it into range of the Pentagon, what a great coup that would be! Imagine! Being able to completely destroy the nerve center of the hated "Satan" which is, by the way, how these fundamentalists view the U.S.

Okay, so these alleged terrorists managed to destroy the "commercial symbol" of the United States, or so we are told. And now we see that they also had other objects in their sights - the symbol of the United Military Supremacy. We are told that they had flying skills to beat the band and yet, somehow they missed their chance. They hit that part of the Pentagon that was least occupied?

What?

Yup.

Just consider this: In order to cause the greatest damage to the Pentagon, the plane should have dived right into the Pentagon's roof. The building is a pretty big target; it covers a surface area of 29 acres, and this would have been an easy "hit". Instead, what actually happens makes no sense at all from the perspective of terrorists - we are assuming real "freedom hating" terrorists here - who now have their chance to do some real damage: they chose to strike a single facade, the height of which was only 80 feet instead of getting a bull's eye on that 29 acre target? Huh? What is up with that? Terrorists that can fly a 757 like a barrel racer rides a horse, and they opted for minimal damage?

Sorry, doesn't compute.

The alleged Boeing, purported to be in the hands of Islamic Fundamentalists with burning hatred in their heart of the United States and "its freedoms," with unerring accuracy, steered said flying whale into a flight path as though they were going to land on the Pentagon lawn. While remaining horizontal, this amazing Boeing came down almost vertically, and struck the Pentagon at the height of the ground floor. What is more, it managed to do this without even ruffling the grass of the Pentagon's immaculate lawn. And then, despite its weight and forward momentum, the plane only destroyed a small section of the first ring of the building.

What is more, these deadly terrorists with race car driving skills that sacrificed their lives to hit the Pentagon in such a way that only a small section was damaged, and it happened to be a section that was undergoing renovation and many of the offices of that section were unoccupied! What I do find interesting is that the Navy's brand new Command Center was destroyed.

Early press reports claimed 800 deaths at the Pentagon. Donald Rumsfeld did not correct this grossly exaggerated figure the following day when it was certainly known.

"Up to 800 people may have died Tuesday when a hijacked commercial airliner was crashed into the Pentagon, officials said. The more than 20,000 civilians and military men and women who work in the Pentagon streamed into the surrounding parking lots, driven by blue and white strobe alarm lights and wailing sirens." -CNN (9/12/01)

PENTAGON CASUALTIES OF THE TERRORIST ATTACK "125 people were killed on the ground at the Pentagon. * An additional 59 perished aboard American Airlines Flight #77. We do not count the five terrorists. Approximately 63 people were wounded/injured in the attack." -DoD

The shock of the impact was felt throughout the entire building. 125 people in the Pentagon lost their lives, to which should be added the 64 people aboard the Boeing which can carry 269 passengers. In other words, it was almost empty.

I could go on, but there are many other websites that cover the details of that day in very competent ways not to mention the dozens of websites that only add to the confusion. At the present moment, I am of the opinion that a Boeing 757 most definitely did not hit the Pentagon, that the object that struck the Pentagon WAS different from the commercial jetliners that were clearly seen to fly into the World Trade Center Towers.

Welcome to Killtown! Physics 9-11 Applying Science 9-11 Visibility Project 9-11 Research 9/11 Review
9-11— What Really Happened Center for Global Research The Complete 9/11 Timeline Pentagon 9/11/2001: the Fraud! questions, questions . . .

Now, let's move on to the "How did they do it?" question.

I once spoke at length with an individual who served in the Persian Gulf conflict. His job was to "program" missiles - VERY smart ones. Even though it was his job, he was completely astonished at their capabilities. He said: "They can be programmed to go down the street just above the ground, turn right or left at a cross street, and hit the designated building at the exact floor, even the exact window, that you tell them to hit!" He then said that he was exaggerating, but not much, and he was describing it this way just to emphasize for me the capability of modern guidance systems.

Now, that's amazing.

But let me make this perfectly clear: I don't think that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon.

The point of mentioning the smart missiles in use during Gulf War I is to bring up the subject of the guidance system. We notice in the above reports that the circumstances of the strike even led some witnesses to describe what hit the Pentagon as a helicopter!

But there were so many reports of a plane that I think we should assume that it was a plane, even if it was a plane that could "fly like a helicopter."

Once I realized that the descripton of the smart bomb maneuvers exactly fits what happened at the Pentagon, the question that I asked myself was: Could such a guidance system be used in a plane? Even commercial jetliners?

"Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes. The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed."

According to the news reports, the action of the plane that hit the Pentagon was quite in keeping with the "smart missile guidance system." Now have a look at he "Universal Pilot Replacement Program" and take note of just what this handy gadget can do! It even shows diagrams of maneuvers of exactly the kind we are talking about! (Do go and read the technical paper to assure yourself of the possibility that such a guidance system was, indeed, available and does, indeed, describe exactly the behavior of this anomalous 757.)

The very first descriptions - before the mind control machine had time to go into action - repeated that something smaller than a 757 was seen to strike the Pentagon.

This certainly creates some confusion. What can we make of it? Can the early witnesses be trusted more than the ones who came forward later, after having watched the shocking impact of commercial jetliners on the World Trade Center, over and over and over again on television and after hearing the repeated assurances that a Boeing hit the Pentagon as well? We must certainly consider that it is altogether possible that such repeated exposure to the WTC event by the media could create certain synaptic maps of the event that were then overlaid on the Pentagon event by simple suggestion. One of our researchers looked into this problem and wrote:

Some witnesses said they saw a commuter plane, and others like Army Captain Lincoln Liebner, (who may have had an agenda) said he saw a large American Airlines passenger jet. Now such confusion at any accident scene is understandable. What is more, with the craft going 460 mph, added to the shock of it all, it was probably hard to tell what they really saw.

One of the things that didn't make sense to me were the many reports that the object hit the ground, when we know from the photos, it didn't. Something that was supposed to be as big as a 757 was certainly flying low enough to clip light poles and didn't scrape the ground? Something is wrong with that picture.

Some even claimed they saw people on the plane - faces in windows.

The many confused descriptions - confused even while declaring it to be a commercial jet - leads me to believe that as long as they could see it with their eyes, it registered as being a passenger plane of some sort. And, even though the propaganda machine tells us that it was supposed to be a huge plane, it was obvious from the descriptive terms used by the witnesses - and by the evidence on the ground - that this was not the case - even if the "impression" was. What I did notice was those who did NOT SEE the plane, had a most peculiar "impression" related to the sound.

"At that moment I heard a very loud, quick whooshing sound that began behind me and stopped suddenly in front of me and to my left. In fractions of a second I heard the impact and an explosion. The next thing I saw was the fireball."

"I was right underneath the plane," said Kirk Milburn, a construction supervisor for Atlantis Co., who was on the Arlington National Cemetery exit of Interstate 395 when he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon.

"I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying."

Here he said he saw the plane heading for the Pentagon. And because he saw it he also said "I heard a plane. I saw it. I saw debris flying."

What he said next, however, not in keeping with a 757: "I guess it was hitting light poles," said Milburn. "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion."

Notice that the witness says: "I guess it was hitting the light poles." One suspects that he couldn't see it if he was guessing. What is most interesting is that he said: "It was like a WHOOOSH whoosh, then there was fire and smoke, then I heard a second explosion."

Two witnesses have described a sound of a "whoosh!" The second one, when he couldn't see it, said it was like a "WHOOSH whoosh," just like the other man who couldn't see it. But then he has also told us that he saw a plane and heard a plane. But what he described was most definitely NOT a 757 flying low over his head.

A 757, under NO circumstances makes a sound of "whoosh!" And if the "whoosh" sound was being made by the hitting of light poles, it is a certainty that if a 757 was doing it, you would not hear the "whoosh" of hitting light poles over the roar of the jet engines. If there's a 757 right overhead that's hitting light poles, and it's going 460 mph, I doubt it would be "whooshing"!

If a 757 was low enough to hit light poles, it should have blown the witnesses' eardrums out along with everything else in the engine's way.

Another problem with this part of the story is the following comments from a resident of the DC area:

I live in the DC area, and the street lights are not very tall. In fact DC is a very "treed" city. Many of the trees are taller than the lamp posts. [...] If the wings of a 757 were hitting the lamp posts, the engines would be driven into the ground, provided that the plane was in a straight and level position.

The exhaust of those huge engines - that would necessarily be scraping the ground if they are hitting light poles - is like a supersonic cannon! The vortex and power of the exhaust would have produced an experience that is unmistakable - impressive beyond words - and hard to forget.

You might want to take a look at the engine of this plane...there's 2 of them and they hang lower than the plane itself. Go HERE to learn about the jet engine specs, exhaust velocity contours, and so forth.

Nevertheless, the most they can say is that it went "whoosh." Other witnesses described a "whistling" that it "whined" like a missile.

"Some eyewitnesses believe the plane actually hit the ground at the base of the Pentagon first, and then skidded into the building. Investigators say that's a possibility, which if true, crash experts say may well have saved some lives."

Now, here's some pictures taken inside the Pentagon and of the workers.

The authorities explained that the aircraft was pulverized when it impacted a highly reinforced building. We were next told that the aircraft melted (with the exception of one landing light - how convenient - and its black boxes). In short, we are being told that 100 tons of metal melted because a fire exceeded 2500 °C, leading to the literal evaporation of the aircraft. And yet, there were supposed to be indentifiable body parts all over the place?

And why are they claiming the obvious limited damage to the Pentagon was a result of the plane hitting the ground and being slowed down while, at the same time claiming that it was the force of impact that vaporized the aircraft? It just doesn't add up. [LAM]

All of this is interesting, but it only adds to the confusion. We can't make too much of the various witness accounts. But let's look at still another report:

Steve Patterson, 43, said he was watching television reports of the World Trade Center being hit when he saw a silver commuter jet fly past the window of his 14th-floor apartment in Pentagon City. [...]

He said the plane, which approached the Pentagon below treetop level, seemed to be flying normally for a plane coming in for a landing other than going very fast for being so low. Then, he said, he saw the Pentagon "envelope" the plane and bright orange flames shoot out the back of the building. "It looked like a normal landing, as if someone knew exactly what they were doing," said Patterson, a graphics artist who works at home. "This looked intentional."

In the above report, we not only have a witness who says the plane looked like a "silver commuter jet," he also said that the plane SOUNDED like the "high-pitched squeal" of a fighter jet.

A series of photographs taken by an official federal photographer at the Pentagon crash site show what appears to be an easily identifiable piece of a small-diameter turbofan engine. If the government wants to prove that a Boeing 757-200 crashed into the Pentagon, why is no one willing or able to identify which part from which engine this is? The photographs show a part of a turbofan jet engine and were taken by Jocelyn Augustino, a photographer for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), at the Pentagon crash site on September 13, 2001. The round piece appears to be less than 3 feet in diameter and is propped up against what appears to be part of the engine housing and thick pieces of insulating material.

A Boeing 757 has two large engines, which are about 9 feet in diameter and 12 feet in length. A Pratt & Whitney PW2043 engine, used on some 757 aircraft, has a fan tip diameter of 78.5 inches. Nothing this large is to be seen in the FEMA photographs. The photo ID numbers are 4414 and 4415 and can be seen on-line.

For those who say a smaller plane or unmanned drone, such as a Global Hawk, was involved in the Pentagon attack, identifying the piece in the photo could prove what kind of aircraft hit the building.

The Global Hawk is a singe-engine drone that uses a Rolls Royce Allison engine hand-built in Indianapolis, Indiana. The AE3007H engine has a diameter of 43.5 inches. The unmanned Global Hawk, using a satellite guidance system, is capable of landing within 12 inches of its programmed destination.

Because the Global Hawk is a surveillance drone, the engine is contained in a heavily insulated housing to be extremely quiet. This corresponds with eyewitness reports. American Free Press asked eyewitness Steve Riskus, who said he was within 100 feet of the aircraft, what he heard. He said he “did not recall hearing anything.” If a 757 or jet fighter flew at high speed 100 feet from an eyewitness the sound would be deafening.

The important thing is, if you have ever seen a 757 up close, the main words you will use - even if it passes you at 460 mph - are HUMONGOUS, or HUGE, or GIGANTIC - words along that line. You will also - even at a distance - be overwhelmed by the noise of the jet engines. But over and over again, even those who later NAMED the object that hit the pentagon as a "commercial airliner," used descriptive terms that are quite different from those that would have been used if a real 757 had been the impacting object. This could easily be a consequence of the "memory making" process I have described above. The fact is, until the spin machine had done its work, except for a few government officials, most of the witness' descriptive terms are more in keeping with descriptions of something other than a Boeing 757.

Many heard a jet. Others heard a missile. (All military men.) Those near Flight 77 as it came over the cemetery, saw it and heard it pass silently (no engine); whereas those near the killer jet which came by the freeway and knocked down the lamp posts heard its loud scream as it put on speed to reach the wall as the airliner flew over it. Witnesses who saw only one plane fall into two distinct groups, each seeing a different plane, on a different path, at different altitude, with different sound, at different speeds. A third set of witnesses saw two planes approach the Pentagon and one of these veer away. [

Nevertheless, we are certain that it was a plane - it had wings - it knocked over poles on the incoming trajectory that it maneuvered "like a smart missile." And we know that there is a "guidance system" that has the capability of doing exactly what this object was described to have done.

As it happens, a correspondent had an interesting encounter on a train that goes along with the story about the military transport plane that so "luckily" spotted the "Boeing." In his own words:

I met a gentleman that was of Jamaican descent who said he was an artist by trade. He was heading back home to Washington. I have no reason to doubt the man's story as he seemed very sincere and told it "as a matter of fact".

He said that when he heard on the radio of his car about the WTC event that the tension around the capital was rising, he was on his cell phone talking to other people while he drove. He was in viewing distance of the Pentagon at the time of the attack and he saw TWO planes in the air, one of them being a "small commuter type jet" but he didn't ID the other plane. He said it was this smaller plane that hit the Pentagon, so it could have been laced with explosives and remote controlled in by that other plane (reports were of a C-130 in the area as I recall).

The claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon is extremely suspect for another reason: there is NO PROOF that the plane that disappeared from rader over Southern Ohio actually "turned around" and headed back for Washington. See the Washington Post article that discusses the thrity minutes of complete Radar Invisibility. This report says, in part:

The aircraft, traveling from Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles, was hijacked sometime between 8:50 a.m. -- when air traffic controllers made their last routine contact with the pilot -- and 8:56, when hijackers turned off the transponder, which reports the plane's identity, altitude and speed to controllers' radar screens. The airliner crashed into the Pentagon at 9:41 a.m., about 12 minutes after controllers at Dulles sounded an alert that an unidentified aircraft was headed toward Washington at high speed. [...]

With no signal on their radar screens, controllers did not realize that Flight 77 had reversed direction.

At 9:09 a.m., unable to reach the plane by radio, the Indianapolis controller reported a possible crash, sources said.

The first time that anyone became aware an aircraft was headed at high speed toward Washington was when the hijacked flight began descending and entered airspace controlled by the Dulles International Airport TRACON facility, an aviation source said.

The first Dulles controller noticed the fast-moving plane at 9:25 a.m. Moments later, controllers sounded an alert that an aircraft appeared to be headed directly toward the White House. It later turned and hit the Pentagon.

The report from the Washington Post also contradicts other reports which said that the radios transmitted sounds of voices with Arabic accents making threatening sounds:

Unlike at least two of the other aircraft, whose pilots apparently held radios open so controllers could hear the hijackers, there was only silence from Flight 77.

There are just too many problems of the Pentagon strike that indicate that it was not a Boeing 757 that plowed into the building. And this leads us to the most interesting questions.

If it was not a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon, why is the Administration rabidly declaring that it was and attacking anyone who questions that story with the slur of "conspiracy theory" rather than providing the evidence that it was for the public to examine themselves?

Why would George Bush and his gang be so resistant to an impartial investigation? (The official investigation cannot be considered impartial.)

Why was all the evidence of the crime scene immediately destroyed even though the government claims that "their experts" were taking care of everything?

Why can't we see the various films of the event that certainly exist from numerous security cameras in the area?

Why is the public denied full access to all the information about the crime?

After all, if the perpetrator has been identified, there should be nothing about a crime scene that would need to be withheld in order to catch the criminal, right? And if there is so much certainty about the perpetrators, why not let the public know all the details? If it was true, it could only help the Administration's case, right? So why all the stonewalling, all the backpedaling and secrecy? If actions are undertaken in good faith with the honest purpose of discovering the truth, there is no need for carefully guarded secrecy. In such circumstances, only the guilty seek the darkness to hide their crimes.

The whole thing has been so "managed," so quickly"figured out" and cleaned up and put away, that it stinks to high heaven of a "sales job."

Can it be that the public has been "sold" an answer - the answer that the Bush Administration wants them to believe and has arranged, with the complicity of the mass media?

The administration doesn't seem to have any problem at all believing that some crazed fundies hijacked four planes in the Most Powerful Nation on Earth, flew them around for extended periods of time, flew two of them into the World Trade Center Towers even though an intelligence expert plainly said in the early days after the attack that the clues leading to this conclusion were standard for False Flag Operations.

But, let's assume that's what happened. Let's also give the Administration the benefit of the doubt about their hurried naming of the perpetrators and their too quick destruction of the crime scene. Let's assume that their experts did handle everything well and they just have some psychological need for secrecy, or that there IS some compelling reason to stonewall a proper investigation.

We are still faced with the sticking point here: hypothesizing that somebody went to the trouble to arrange for a couple big jets to hit the World Trade Center, and we were shown the films of these jets hitting said buildings over and over again, why was the attack on the Pentagon so "different" in scope and evidence, most particularly the repeated showing of the attack on television?

Why can't we see the surveillance videos of the same type of commercial jet hitting the pentagon???

We are stuck with a marvelous conundrum. If no 757 hit the Pentagon, why is the government claiming it did?

Let's assume that it WAS a smaller, or different type of plane that hit the Pentagon. No matter who was behind the events, if they did not use a 757 to strike the pentagon, WHY? If they were able to commandeer large aircraft, why not use one for the Pentagon?

Now here I am going to go in a couple of different speculative directions, so bear with me. The little grey cells are smokin'!

We notice that there is one major difference between the strikes on the WTC and the Pentagon: the extent of the destruction.

That is what IS.

And so, let's ask the question: could there be a reason for this?

The first thing we notice when we compare the two events - that is, the attack on the Towers and the attack on the Pentagon - is that the World Trade Center Towers were totally destroyed and there was enormous loss of life, while the Pentagon only had a small hole, and the collapse of a section that was not even fully occupied because it was still under construction. Or so we are told. We have already noted this supreme failure on the part of the suicidal Islamic Fundies who could plan such an extraordinary operation and yet do such limited damage to the Pentagon.

So, doing limited damage to the Pentagon canNOT have been the objective of Fundamental Islamic Terrorists who were ostensibly striking at the heart of the "Great Satan" with burning hatred of the United States and its freedoms.

What if the limited damage was the intended difference between the very public and well publicized strikes against the World Trade Cener? Total destruction as opposed to minimal destruction and damage? Or "targeted" destruction.

This leads us to why a different type of plane might be used in the strike on the Pentagon: the only answer that presents itself as obvious is that of the necessity for precision so as to inflict an exact amount of damage, no more, no less..

So let us theorize that precision was the major concern in the strike on the Pentagon and that is why a different attack device was utilized.

Which brings us back to the idea of a plane that had onboard smart missile guidance system - a system that can guide its carrier to literally turn corners and hit the target with such precision that "it is amazing."

Theorizing that precision was a major concern - precision of the type that can hit an exact window on a designated floor and do an exact and designated amount of damage - we arrive at the idea that such precision and limitation was essential for some reason.

What could that reason be?

Why would the conspirators want to totally destroy one target - where civilians were the main victims - and only partly destroy another?

What immediately comes to mind is this one of the oldest tricks in the criminal play book: self-inflicted injury as an alibi.

But there is a second possible reason as well. Readers may remember the Tylenol murders where cyanide was put in a random selection of bottles, placed back on the shelves in the stores, so that random persons would die to cover up the fact that a specific murder was the objective of this seemingly "random" act of terror.

So, what if there was someone - or something - in the Pentagon that someone wanted to preserve OR destroy?

We notice that the Navy lost its new command center.

We wonder, of course, if the Navy ONI was one agency that had not been compromised by the NEOcon invasion of Washington? Could that be one of the reasons that the Naval Command Center was destroyed? Consider the following:

Al Martin's book "The Conspirators" is a secret history of the late 20th century and an uncensored version of what really goes on in the back rooms of realpolitik brokers and go-fers. - In his book, Al writes that contrary to popular belief, ONI is the most powerful US intelligence agency. "The ONI already had a deep existing covert illegal structure. They had a mechanism before the CIA even existed. They had contacts in foreign intelligence services and in foreign governments that the CIA never could have hoped to obtain."

"The only people the CIA wouldn't step on to accomplish their aims was ONI. They would easily subvert an FBI or DEA investigation, but never ONI, because they were frightened of them." - "ONI is where the real deep control is. It's where the real deep secrets are kept. That was what ONI always did the best. Keeping secrets. Accumulating secrets. Warehousing secrets for the purposes of control."

"When I asked him 'what secrets?' he replied, "One thing I can tell you is the ONI was instrumental in dethroning former Mexican President Louis Portillo. Portillo got very friendly with George Bush and the CIA, and ONI had never alligned with the Bush faction. I know what people think, but that's not true. From what I can tell, it has never been aligned, but has always been hostile to that Eastern Country Club Bush Cabal and their friends in the CIA. The Bill Casey faction is the George Bush-Allen Dulles Faction."

Not a very nice idea, is it? That the United States has been taken over by a coup d'etat, that the secrets of the ways and means of keeping "American Freedoms" may have been destroyed in the WTC, and in a few selected rooms of the Pentagon.

So, this hypothesis has actually split into two directions: that of alibi, or intentional murder.

If we consider the Alibi conjecture, we include the idea that precision was necessary to insure the safety of CERTAIN occupants of the building. If you inflict an injury on yourself to allay suspicion, you don't want to make a mistake and blow your head off!

In short, considering the above questions, it is possible that a number of the conspirators were IN THE PENTAGON AT THE TIME IT WAS HIT, or that certain TARGETS were in the builiding, and this was the reason for a different "mode of attack" - a precision strike. And it is possible that both objectives could be served with a precision strike.

We notice that Newsweek coyly mentions that "On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."

If what we have theorized is true, it's not likely that they canceled their travel plans because they might get on the wrong jet - after all, according to them, they didn't know about a possible terrorist attack - but rather to assure that they would be in place for their alibi - or their destruction. I would be very interested to know who those guys were.

Without data we can't answer these questions and with either of these two lines of conjecture, we really can go no further.

The fact is that the buildings that represent not only our status in the world, but also our ability to maintain that status - i.e. our military organization - were hit by alleged terrorists. The emotional reaction of the masses of citizens was that the U.S. not only had a right to strike back with all its power, but also that it MUST. That is also "what IS." The masses of pedestrian thinkers do not look at the possibility of a self inflicted wound being an alibi.

Criminals have been pulling this wool over the eyes of juries for a very long time.

There is another problem with the fact that the government will not release the security videos that obviously would show WHAT HIT the Pentagon.

Because there is no reason that the conspirators should NOT release the videos EVEN IF A DIFFERENT CRAFT WAS USED TO STRIKE THE PENTAGON because, after all, a terrorist attack is a terrorist attack no matter what kind of plane they use, right?

If, according to the cover story of the current administration, Osama bin Laden had the resources to set up the hijacking of commercial jets to hit the World Trade Center, there is no reason he could not also have had the resources to get his hands on a fancy guided drone plane, or even a smaller jet, or anything similar for that matter. And it would have been just as easy to lay it at Osama's door. That is to say, if Osama can be blamed for hitting the WTC with a couple of commercial jets, there is no reason he can't be blamed for hitting the Pentagon with something else.

In other words, no matter what it was - a Boeing 757 or a kite with a nuke attached to its tail - there is no reason the Powers That Be could not spin it to their advantage.

So why won't they release the security camera tapes????

If it was Flight 77, why can't we SEE it?

If it was something else, why can't we SEE it?

Heck, the American people are pretty accepting of explanations. There's no reason they wouldn't accept that Osama and gang could get ahold of something else and fly it into the Pentagon. After all, Osama was said to have a massive underground hideout with missiles and a small army and about everything else. There's no reason why he couldn't also have been accused of getting his hands on a Global Hawk!

So again, and again, and again: why can't the American People SEE WHAT HIT THE PENTAGON?

It clearly is not because of concern for the families of the victims and their grief. After all, the videos of the planes flying into the WTC were shown over and over and over and over again until the entire world was whipped into a frenzy of grief and rage.

Surely, assuming our theory of direct complicity of Bush and Co. to be correct, if the conspirators were setting this thing up as long as we think they were, they would have prepared the craft that hit the Pentagon very carefully and there would be nothing about it that would arouse suspicion or reveal their identiy, right? Then they could just haul out the videos and show them around the world and blame Osama, right?

Indeed, this small item is a problem. It suggests that if the surveillance videos of what hit the Pentagon were shown, it would reveal the truth. And whatever truth that is, the Powers That Be will fight to the last gasp to conceal it.

The only answer that makes any sense is that the Pentagon was hit by a craft that an expert could easily identify as bein inaccessible to anyone at all except the military personnel of a very powerful state: The United States or, perhaps, even Israel.

Remember what I wrote at the beginning, that we recently received information that satellite photos of what really hit the Pentagon DO exist in the hands of other governments?

Well, the story is that whatever hit the Pentagon was launched from a ship offshore, and it wasn't a missile. Go again and look at the nice images of the "Universal Pilot Replacement Program" to see the clever launching ramps they have for these handy planes. Have a good look at the demonstrated maneuverability and compare it to the descriptions of the flight path of that amazing mythical Flight 77.

In fact, it is altogether likely that the Universal Pilot Replacement Program was used on all the hijacked planes. It was, after all, manufactured by Boeing - one of the biggies of the Military Industrial Complex - and could easily have been installed during "routine maintenance." It would also have been quite easy to install some poison gas to be released via the onboard ventilation system that would kill everyone on the plane at the point that the UPR took over. The issue of why Flight 93 had to be shot down is easily explained by a possible glitch in the release of the gas. If it didn't work as it was supposed to, or someone noticed and managed to get an oxygen mask on in time, it would certainly explain why the plane had to be shot down.

Now, we come to the final issue: what happened to the REAL Flight 77? What happened to the passengers? In order to approach this problem with sufficient data and mental coolness, the reader might wish to have a look at What Really Happened to Flight 93?

The conclusion of this interesting analysis is shocking, but compellingly logical:

So there is clearly a case to be made that the plane was [shot down by a U.S. military jet], and yet this theory leaves some evidence unexplained as well – including the phone calls from the soon-to-be counter-hijackers.

There is also the question of why this particular flight would have been targeted to the exclusion of the other three hijacked flights. It wasn't, after all, near any potential targets and was not posing an immediate threat to anyone but its passengers. Since that threat certainly wasn't alleviated by scattering the body parts of those same passengers over a Pennsylvania field, it makes little sense that flight 93 would be shot down while the others were allowed to fly unimpeded into the very symbols of U.S. economic and military power.

Some have argued that the U.S. government would have quickly taken credit if it had in fact ordered the downing of flight 93. Taking credit for shooting down what was essentially a guided missile, albeit a manned one, would offer Washington officials a chance to at least partially redeem themselves for failing to respond to the other three hijacked flights.

It appears then that there are arguments that could be made against either theory.

But what if the two theories are not mutually exclusive? What if we were to take a look at what happened to flight 93 from a slightly different perspective? What if we were to take the point of view that the events of September 11 were essentially an inside job - with U.S. military and intelligence services either directly complicit or, at the very least, turning a blind but knowing eye?

Then the shooting down of flight 93 raises another rather obvious question: why would the U.S. national security apparatus shoot down any of the four flights? Assuming that some General somewhere didn't get the hare-brained notion that it was actually his duty to defend the country against these attacks, why would a plane be shot down that was for all intents and purposes on a covert mission for the very people who would have ordered the downing of the aircraft?

If this were the case, then there would be only one reason for shooting the flight down: to destroy any and all evidence in the event that the mission became compromised for any reason.

And how, you may wonder, might the mission be compromised? One possible scenario could be if, say, the passengers were able to disarm the hijackers and take control of the plane? That would conceivably leave dozens of eyewitnesses to what really happened on those planes that fateful day. The contents of 'black boxes' can be suppressed quite easily; a parade of eyewitnesses, particularly eyewitnesses rightly viewed as American heroes, is another matter entirely.

As disturbing as it may be to contemplate, the answer to the question of what really happened to flight 93 could be that it was shot down precisely because the passengers were able to overpower the hijackers, or at least were making an attempt to do so. It could be that the very heroism for which they have been cynically praised by the Bush regime may have earned them a summary execution.

A "summary execution."

The problem with the above is that there was a news report that Flight 93 was landed at Cleveland and evacuated:

Reported by 9News Staff
Web produced by:Liz Foreman
9/11/01 11:43:57 AM

A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White.

White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated. United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did not say how many people were aboard the flight. United said it was also "deeply concerned" about another flight, Flight 175, a Boeing 767, which was bound from Boston to Los Angeles.

On behalf of the airline CEO James Goodwin said: "The thoughts of everyone at United are with the passengers and crew of these flights. Our prayers are also with everyone on the ground who may have been involved. "United is working with all the relevant authorities, including the FBI, to obtain further information on these flights," he said.

When you go to the link where the story was archived, you find this:

Plane Lands In Cleveland; Bomb Feared Aboard

Reported by: 9News Staff
Web produced by: Liz Foreman 9/11/01 11:43:57 AM

This story has been removed from WCPO.com. It was a preliminary AP story, and was factually incorrect.

Now, just suppose that it wasn't Flight 93 that landed in Cleveland but that it was actually Flight 77? This is perhaps not so crazy a solution since there is an unverified witness report that

...something is odd with the serial numbers of Flight93 and Flight 175. The serial numbers of the ORIGINAL planes are SAME serial numbers of the planes that ARE STILL FLYING. 591UA 612UA

Although N-number can be transferred, the manufacturer's serial number CANNOT be transferred. According to some spot-witnesses, Boeing 757-222 SERIAL NUMBER 28142 is flying around Chicago under the alias 594UA. According to the FAA, N594UA Boeing 757-222 flies now with a DIFFERENT serial number, namely 28145.

If they can change numbers around in that way, there's no reason to think that Flight 77, could not be similarly maneuvered about in any way chosen. The fact is, all the "9-11" airports were serviced by one Israeli owned company, ICTS. ICTS sells services to every airport from which the hijacked planes operated, including security, sometimes through wholly owned subsidiaries like Huntleigh USA Corporation.

It has been suggested that the incredible feat of hijacking four aircraft without a single arrest at the gate would require the resources of a nation-state. [...] One company had automatic inside access to all of the airports from which hijacked planes departed on 9-11... An Israeli company. One that Mossad agents could easily find employment with without the management knowing who they were or what their purpose really was.

But one thing is clear. By virtue of the Odigo warning, someone knew enough about the planned attacks to warn Odigo before the planes had even departed the airport gates, yet they did not call the Israeli security company at the airports which could have stopped the flights from leaving. Think about that one for a while.

So what happened to the passengers of Flight 77? When Flight 77 disappeared from radar, did a Drone plane suddenly appear on the radar to head straight for the Pentagon and make its precision strike? Is that the reason for all the strange anomalies of the flight path of Flight 77 and the odd stories about Flight 93? Where did the body parts come from that were so quickly identified as those of the passengers of Flight 77 that allegedly hit the Pentagon? Body parts that survived from a massive aircraft that was claimed to have vaporized almost instantly?

In a strange way, the question about what happened to the passengers of Flight 77 leads us to the core of the mystery. If it wasn't Flight 77 on the surveillance videos, why must the "Powers That Be" INSIST that it was even if they could just as easily have revealed that Osama had, in addition to hijacking two commercial jets, flown a guided drone into the Pentagon, or anything else? They could possibly even explain a U.S. military plane being flown into the Pentagon by claiming that Osama owned one and painted it up to look like a U.S. craft.

The "proof" that it was Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon rests entirely on the testimony of government officials who most certainly might have an agenda, even if it is just to keep their jobs in the face of the massive numbers of individuals who have had their lives and careers destroyed by speaking out against the Bush Administration. In fact, the MAIN proof that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon was the famous "phone call" from Barbara Olson to her husband that could NOT have happened!

The official version of events included numerous reports of cellphone calls made from hijacked planes on 9/11. These reports lent credibility to the official 'Arab hijacker' story within hours of the attacks, in the most dramatic manner. Yet cell phone calls from fast-moving aircraft are not commonplace. The frequency and durations of the calls allegedly made on 9/11 stretch credulity. Is this the Achilles Heel of the Bush / CNN account of 9/11? [Physics 9-11 org]

Keep in mind that Barbara Olson was married to the US Solicitor General Theodore Olson, a close aide and friend of President George W Bush, she was a prominent member of Washington's conservative elite; this group, which also included the Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas and the independent counsel Kenneth Starr, prompted Hillary Clinton to complain of a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Check the Center for Cooperative Research for a detailed timeline including Ted Olson's conflicting reports about the alleged phone call from his wife.

So, where is Babs and Flight 77?

For all we know Babs was in on the plot from the beginning and was even prepared with a suitable gas mask to protect her from the poison gas that killed everyone else onboard. If so, it is not unlikely that she is "making the bunker homey for the "housewarming" when Bush and the Gang all arrive to ride out the apocalypse they have initiated. Or, she could have had a little plastic surgery and is waiting for Ted (who has recently quit his job) on that nice Carribean Island they always wanted to retire to. They "meet and marry" and everyone is glad to see that Ted has found love again!

As for the body parts identified by DNA analysis from the wreckage at the Pentagon, let's not fool ourselves. Any group that has the will and power to commit the destruction that occurred on 9-11 would have no problem fetching some real samples from the gassed bodies onboard Flight 77 after it was landed at Wright Patterson airport in Southern Ohio.

ADDENDUM:

In the two and a half years since this series of comments was first started, the movement of people who doubt the official story of 9/11 has grown. There are now many websites devoted to the question. But how many Americans are willing to look at the facts in the face and confront the truth: the "attack" of 9/11 was an inside job. The reader may wish to have a look at our articles: Mossad and Moving Companies: Masterminds of Global Terrorism? as well as The Fifth Column and Mahmoud Ahmad and The Secret Cult.

As Mike Ruppert delineates in his upcoming book "Crossing the Rubicon" there were at least five "Training Exercises" in progress on the morning of 9/11 2001. Each and every one, and any others we may not yet know of, was under the control of our vice president Dick Cheney.

1 ) MILITARY EXERCISE NORTHERN VIGILANCE: Transferred most of the combat ready interceptors and possibly many AWACS from the north east into northen Canada and Alaska. This explains,in part, why there were only eight ( 8 ) combat interceptors in the NE on 9/11.

2 ) NON-MILITARY BIOWARFARE EXERCISE TRIPOD II: FEMA arrived in NYC on 10 Sept 2001 to set up the command post for FEMA, NEW YORK CITY AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on Manhattan's PIER 29. This shows our masters are loving, they made a strong effort to minimize the required deaths. This was probably forced on them by the CFR, nice guys who must occasionally kill innocent people.

3 ) WARGAME EXERCISE, VIGILANT GUARDIAN: This exercise simulated hi-jacked planes in the northeast sector. The 9/11 commission made only mention of this single exercise and lied about its purpose. The commisssion said its purpose was to intercept Russian bombers.

4 ) WARGAME EXERCISE, VIGILANT WARRIOR: This exercise simulated hi-jacked planes in the northeast sector.

5 ) WARGAME EXERCISE NORTHERN GUARDIAN: This exercise simulated hi-jacked planes in the northeast sector.

At the time of the real hi-jacking there were as many as 22 hi-jacked aircraft on NORAD's radar screen. Some of these drills were "Live Fly" exercises were actual aircraft, likely flown by remote control were simulating hi-jacked aircraft. Some of the drills electronically added the hi-jacked aircraft into the system. All this as the real hi-jackings began. NORAD could not tell the difference between the seventeen bogus blips and the five actual hi-jacked aircraft blips.

Cheney could. It is clear we know almost nothing about how 9/11 was executed. We should know it was an exceeding highly technological operation involving dozens of major projects each employing large resources.

Half a million people have just marched in New York against George Bush. They are angry he has brought on war, deficit, tax cuts for the rich, and the most striking loss of rights ever seen in the USA. But how much coverage did this march get in the media? How many of those 500,000 people know how bad the situation really is? How many are willing to consider that Israeli Intelligence with the help of a group of people in the Bush government, may very well have organised and staged the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in order to justify a "war on terror" -- that is, the Arabs? This war began in Afghanistan and has continued into Iraq. It looks now as though the administration is ready to take on Iran and eventually Syria, the countries named in a 1996 report prepared for Israeli PM Netanhayu by members of the neo-con cabal. Eretz Israel, it is called. The land God gave the Jews. And they want it all.

ORIGINAL
Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 and Neither Did a Boeing 757

Joe Quinn

After the release of the QFG Pentagon Strike Flash Animation on August 23rd, 2004, a veritable onslaught of new articles were published that sought to dismiss the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory. One such article, that is frequently referenced by certain '9/11 researchers' was authored by a member of the forum at the "Above Top Secret" (ATS) website. Interestingly, the article was written just a few weeks after the release of the Pentagon Strike Flash animation, which by then, was winging its way around the world and into the inboxes of millions of ordinary citizens. Perhaps you were one of them...

The claim that promoters of the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory were doing immense damage to the truth/accountability movement was raised in Mike Ruppert's book Crossing the Rubicon. In a stunning piece of warped logic, Ruppert claimed that, while he is quite convinced that it was not Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, he chose not to talk about or deal with the subject as part of his overall case for conspiracy because of the "implications". According to Ruppert, the "implications" are that anyone that suggests that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, is then forced to answer the question as to what actually happened to Flight 77. If that's the case, then we better just wrap up the whole 9/11 Truth Movement and go home and have a beer.

Ruppert balks at the idea of offering an answer to this question to his readers because, he claims, most people would be unable to accept it, and, he suggests, 9/11 researchers serve only to alienate the public support that they wish to attract by stretching the boundaries of the collective belief system. What Ruppert doesn't explain is why any member of the public would happily accept that U.S. government officials participated in the slaughter of the passengers on Flights 11 and 175 and the occupants of the WTC towers (as he details in his book) yet would be unable to accept the idea that the same government officials played a part in disposing of the passengers of Flight 77 in a much less imaginative way. Let's be honest here, in the context of 9/11 being the work of a faction of the US government and military, the answer to the question as to what happened to Flight 77 if it didn't hit the Pentagon is quite obvious - Flight 77 and its occupants were flown to a specific destination and “disposed of” by the conspirators. That's pretty simple; cut and dried; no need for much stretching there! But, for some reason, Ruppert (and others affected by this paramoralism) seems to think that killing thousands of citizens by crashing airplanes is easier to accept than cold bloodedly murdering them "in person," as it were.

Since Ruppert's declaration about the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory, many other "9/11 researchers", such as Mark Rabinowitz and Jim Hoffman, have seized upon Ruppert's idea and even expanded upon it by suggesting that the "no planers" are actually government agents trying to discredit the REAL 9/11 researchers with the 'kooky' "no plane" theory.

In order to really understand the insidiousness of this patronising claim that the public could not accept the implications of the idea that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon, let's look at the "evidence" as presented by the ATS member that it really was Flight 77 that impacted the Pentagon that bright September morn.

First, however, I would like to make a few observations about 9/11 research in general.

Anyone who takes on the formidable task of digging into the events of 9/11 is immediately at a disadvantage because the US government has already declared the case closed. The government knows how it happened and who did it and have informed the entire world. As a result, there is no possibility of access to the raw data, to the crime scene or analyses of same. Here is where we meet the major obstacle: since the US government is the prime suspect, we cannot simply take as truth everything - or anything - that they say in relation to the case.

Investigation of the 9/11 attacks should be approached like any murder investigation. When confronted with a murder case (like 9/11) and a suspect that has a history of deceit and murder (like the US government and its agencies) and who had an opportunity and a motive to commit the murder, do you take as fact any claims by the suspect that he did not commit the murder? Do you seek to fit the facts around his claim that he did not commit the murder? When you confront evidence that suggests that the suspect is lying about his account of where he was and what he was doing, or you find inconsistencies and logistically impossible scenarios in his account, do you ignore these and focus only on the fact that he said he did not commit the murder and try to find and present evidence that backs up his claim to innocence?

The fact is that researchers coming to the 9/11 investigation after the fact, and after the case has been officially closed, are not only confronted with the task of trying to find out what actually happened - they also face the already well established public belief, by which they themselves are also influenced, that the official story is the truth. The best approach for any 9/11 researcher with honest intentions is to, if possible, wipe from their minds the official version of events and take the attitude of someone who has just returned from a 5 year trip to the outer reaches of the solar system, during which time they had no communication with planet earth. Start with a beginner's mind, turn off the sound of all the conflicting voices and their claims, and just LOOK at the evidence without prejudice.

Now, if the person with a truly open mind is given all of the publicly available evidence and has been additionally furnished with knowledge of the effects of airplane crashes and that of missile impacts, what would such a person conclude about the most likely cause of the Pentagon damage? Of course, not all of the evidence was made available to the public, but there is still sufficient visual evidence from "ground zero" (both in terms of place and TIME), to form a pretty good "best guess". For a definitive conclusion to be reached, the "private" evidence, like the video tapes of the event that the FBI confiscated, would have to be released, and we don't expect that to happen any time soon. Of course, the fact that the definitive evidence of the videos has not been released is in itself a key piece of evidence that suggests that the official story of what hit the Pentagon is not the real story.

The purpose of this small introduction is to prepare the reader for the fact that, in his attempted rebuttal of the no 757 at the Pentagon theory, the ATS article author, CatHerder, appears to have succumbed to the influence of the mainstream media shills that have incessantly parroted the official government story about what happened on 9/11 for the three years prior to the writing of the article. As such, he has failed to don the mantle of objective observer of the available evidence that is so crucial to finding the truth, and instead exerts a lot of effort to make the available evidence fit the government claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on the morning of September 11th 2001. Either that, or he/she is part of the "official government cover-up." After you read everything below, you can make a call on that one yourself.

Here is the ATS article as it appears on the ATS site with my comments interspersed in blue text.

We apologize that we cannot carry this analysis on our website since we are under threat of lawsuit from COINTELPRO agents abovetopsecret.com and their neocon attorney, Wayne Jaeschke. The analysis is served on a foreign website and it will load slowly, but it is worth a couple minutes wait. Click the following link to read what the Powers That Be do NOT want you to see and read. Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 and Neither Did a Boeing 757
Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: 9-11: The New Pearl Harbor: Who Benefits?

Laura Knight-Jadczyk
September 14, 2001

September 14, 2001:

Having experienced the flame war of Jews charging us with "antisemitism" because we do not subscribe to their conviction that their god is the one and only god, and that they are the one and only chosen people, chosen by this god, and their subsequent posting of our home address on their newsgroups with the suggestion that somebody "find and take care of" us, we know whereof we speak. Several members of our research group spent days reading through the posts on some of the Jewish lists, reporting that the contempt of the members of these lists - most of them orthodox Jews - for all human beings who were not Jews, was beyond anything they had ever encountered. It certainly made it difficult for us here to work at promoting peace and the specialness of all human beings and the marvelous diversity of ethnicity and the ways in which we are all enriched by same, including Jews AND Palestinians.

Thus we see that the "benefit" of the WTC attack falls, primarily, to Israel.

However, another compelling observation is the fact that the United States power clique has a lot to gain as well. As noted, war is good business. Not only that, all of the claims that the government seeks to institute overt controls, as in the "Mark of the Beast," can be seen to be a partial motivation here.

But is it that simple?

Go to ORIGINAL
Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: Flying Black Boomerangs and Clapham Wood

Laura Knight-Jadczyk

I recently had an exchange with Mike Lindemann on the subject of the sighting of low, slow, flying black boomerangs which seemingly had such disastrous effects on my health and which was followed, 11 months later, by the Initiation of the Cassiopaean Transmissions.

Mr. Lindemann opined that what I had seen was "one of ours," but did not provide any definite citation for this knowledge. I pointed out to him that the boomerangs were first sighted in this area on the night, and at the time of the hypnosis session with an "abductee" whose husband had worked for various government agencies, and who, herself, had a top level security clearance for most of her professional life.

On that occasion, the object was apparently sighted over my house at the time of the session.

[The second sighting of this type of object, involving myself, was the event recounted in the St Petersburg Times article by Thomas French, The Exorcist in Love, where the children and I were watching a meteor shower from my backyard swimming pool.]

I pointed out to Mr Lindemann that the kind of surveillance that was implied by the knowledge that I was going to do that hypnosis session, particularly when nothing about aliens or abductions was ever mentioned, would be predicated upon mind reading.

And further, that the second sighting, which seemed designed especially to get my attention and induce fear, implied further surveillance that, if our government possesses and uses it, WE ARE ALL SCREWED! Which is, of course, a distinct possibility!

Continue with ORIGINAL
Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: High Strangeness

Laura Knight-Jadczyk

Almost thirty years ago, I received my first formal training in hypnosis. Over the years, I not only sought out additional training, I employed this skill on behalf of many troubled individuals. Until 1994, I had never encountered what is popularly known as an "abductee" - that is, an individual claiming to have been abducted by alleged aliens. I have to admit that when I did, it presented certain problems both in terms of having a well-established technique to deal with it, as well as my own categories of what is or is not possible.

I often tell people in a sort of joking way: of all the people who never wanted to know anything about aliens and UFOs, I deserve a place at the head of the line. Very few people really understand how deeply serious this remark is. When I opened the door to consider the possibility - quite remote as I thought - of the possibility of "other worldly" visitors, life as I knew it ended. That was eleven years ago. But then, a completely new life was born from the ashes. And so, here I am producing a book about UFOs and aliens. The road from there to here has been difficult, to understate the matter, and complicated by all the High Strangeness that seems to surround the subject.

Continue with ORIGINAL
Comment on this Editorial


Editorial: The Exorcist in Love

St. Petersburg Times
Story by Thomas French
Photographa by Cherie Diez

Laura Knight has spent much of her life pursuing aliens and dark entities. She ended up catching hold of something far more elusive.

Read Article on St. Pete Times Website
Comment on this Editorial


Fire in the Sky


Record meteorite hits Norway - Impact blast comparable to Hiroshima

Aftenposten.no
09 Jun 2006

At around 2:05 a.m. on Wednesday, residents of the northern part of Troms and the western areas of Finnmark could clearly see a ball of fire taking several seconds to travel across the sky.

A few minutes later an impact could be heard and geophysics and seismology research foundation NORSAR registered a powerful sound and seismic disturbances at 02:13.25 a.m. at their station in Karasjok.

Farmer Peter Bruvold was out on his farm in Lyngseidet with a camera because his mare Virika was about to foal for the first time.

"I saw a brilliant flash of light in the sky, and this became a light with a tail of smoke," Bruvold told Aftenposten.no. He photographed the object and then continued to tend to his animals when he heard an enormous crash.

"I heard the bang seven minutes later. It sounded like when you set off a solid charge of dynamite a kilometer (0.62 miles) away," Bruvold said.

Astronomers were excited by the news.
"There were ground tremors, a house shook and a curtain was blown into the house," Norway's best known astronomer Knut Jųrgen Rųed Ųdegaard told Aftenposten.no.

Rųed Ųdegaard said the meteorite was visible to an area of several hundred kilometers despite the brightness of the midnight sunlit summer sky. The meteorite hit a mountainside in Reisadalen in North Troms.

"This is simply exceptional. I cannot imagine that we have had such a powerful meteorite impact in Norway in modern times. If the meteorite was as large as it seems to have been, we can compare it to the Hiroshima bomb. Of course the meteorite is not radioactive, but in explosive force we may be able to compare it to the (atomic) bomb," Rųed Ųdegaard said.

The astronomer believes the meteorite was a giant rock and probably the largest known to have struck Norway.

"The record was the Alta meteorite that landed in 1904. That one was 90 kilos (198 lbs) but we think the meteorite that landed Wednesday was considerably larger," Rųed Ųdegaard said, and urged members of the public who saw the object or may have found remnants to contact the Institute of Astrophysics.

Comment: Gosh, what a surprise! For more information on comets, meteors, and NEOs, check out:

- The Signs Meteor Supplement

- Independence Day by Laura Knight-Jadczyk

- Cometary Showers, Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse? by Laura Knight-Jadczyk

The Norway strike is especially interesting not only because of its sheer magnitude, but because it seems to have been a busy week for meteorites and fireballs...


Comment on this Article


Flashback: Fire in the sky: A bright fireball that blazed over the Northland on Friday night

BY STEVE KUCHERA
Duluth NEWS TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
7 June 06

The mysterious light seen over the Northland on Friday night was an especially bright meteor seen in at least two states and Canada.

"Anyone who saw it should count themselves as lucky -- they are probably not going to see another one like that in their lifetime," Scott Young said.
Young is an astronomer and manager of the planetarium and science gallery at the Manitoba Museum in Winnipeg. The museum is collecting reports of sightings of Friday's fireball, which traveled from south to north over the Northland about 11:35 p.m. Friday.

"We have a couple hundred e-mails, and my receptionist is taking phone calls as quick as they come in," Young said. "I'm sure thousands of people saw it, because it went right over our cottage country area."

Using information from witnesses and the mathematical process of triangulation, the museum hopes to determine the fireball's exact path.

"That intersects the ground at some point, and that's where you go look for pieces," Young said.

If the museum is able to triangulate the fireball's path, it will publish the results so residents can look for its remains. Young believes it likely that parts of the fireball survived their fiery plunge.

"There was a sonic boom heard over the Lake of the Woods area, and that generally means that it has penetrated very low into the atmosphere," he said. "If it does that, then generally pieces can survive."

According to NASA, as many as 4 billion meteors enter the Earth's atmosphere every day, many at speeds about 45 miles per second. Friction with the air causes them to glow. Most meteors are just specks of dust that burn up in a brilliant streak of light.

Fireballs are different. They can weigh pounds -- large enough to illuminate a long path through the sky. Some fireballs, called bolides, explode with a loud, thunderous sound.

Friday's fireball broke into several pieces, witnesses said.

"It broke up into two pieces -- one big ball and one little ball," said Tim Leseman of Eveleth.

Many people who saw Friday's fireball compared it to fireworks traveling horizontally rather than vertically. From any spot, it was visible for as long as 15 seconds.

"Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to have been enough time for anyone to take a picture," Young said.

The fireball was seen from places as far afield as Brandon, Manitoba (more than 100 miles west of Winnipeg), northwestern Lake of the Woods (where it appeared to pass directly overhead), Orr, Eveleth, Duluth, the Lake Mille Lacs area and Danbury, Wis.

"Everyone generally thinks it was just over the trees or just over the hills, but when a meteor like this is actually visible, it's usually 20 to 40 kilometers (12 to 25 miles) above the Earth," Young said. "It's way, way up there."

A meteor's chemical makeup and temperature determine what color its glow will be. Many witnesses described Friday's fireball as being green or bluish-green in color (common for a stony meteor), turning to red near the end of its flight.

Chris Magney of Duluth saw the fireball as he walked in the University of Minnesota Duluth area.

"I just looked up, and right there in front of me I saw what looked like a firework," he said. "It was giving off some kind of trail. It wasn't an evenly spaced trail. It was kind of sparking off parts. It looked to be kind of bluish-green."

The fireball was larger than past meteors he's seen.

"This was probably one-eighth or one-tenth the size of the moon -- much larger than any background star," he said. "Just because of the light intensity it must have been pretty hot, whatever it was. It was moving as fast as the shooting stars I've seen."

He watched as it appeared to follow an arc, vanishing over the northwestern horizon.

Leseman was letting his dog out when he happened to look up to the west as the fireball blazed past. It was in sight for perhaps 10 seconds.

"It was the size of the moon and it was moving slowly from south to north," he said. "It was very bright with a long tail, and it looked like it was rolling as if it was burning up.... I got a huge chill watching it."

STEVE KUCHERA can be reached at (218) 279-5503, toll free at (800) 456-8282, or by e-mail at skuchera@duluthnews.com.



Comment on this Article


Flashback: Witnesses to 'green fire' wanted

By STAFF
Tue, June 6, 2006

Manitoba Museum wants to hear from people who spotted "eerie green fire" in the sky late Friday.

Resident astronomer Scott Young said the spectacle occurred about 11:30 p.m. when a small asteroid or chunk of comet burned up in the Earth's atmosphere, shattering into several pieces.

A sonic boom could be heard in the Whiteshell area about five minutes later, meaning the object was "nice and low," Young said.
He said it was visible from Winnipeg as far east as Lake of the Woods, and some pieces may have made it to the ground.

Vaporizing materials in the object, which burned up at 4,000 C to 5,000 C, produced the green colour, Young said.

Descriptions have him believing it was a large bolide, which is a bigger cousin of a meteor or shooting star.

"This happens every day somewhere in the world," Young said.

He wants to gather as many eyewitness accounts as he can to determine a flight path and find any fragments that may have made it to ground level.

People can send an e-mail to skyinfo@manitobamuseum.ca or call 956-2830 to submit their sighting.

You must include the time and date, your location when you saw the object, direction you were facing, the direction it was travelling (right to left, for example), and a description of the object and any sound it made.



Comment on this Article


Flashback: Fireball: Object in sky nets 100 calls

By ADAM CLAYTON
Winnipeg Sun

The Manitoba Museum has been flooded with phone calls from people who spotted a strange object in the sky.

Resident astronomer Scott Young said the museum has received at least 100 calls about an eerie green light that appeared in the sky on Friday night. Young believes the object was either a small asteroid or a chunk of comet that shattered into several pieces after burning up in the Earth's atmosphere.

"The receptionist is doing nothing but answering calls and taking numbers right now and I think I'm up to 180 e-mails," he said. "Lots of people saw it."
Eyewitnesses from Dryden to Brandon and as far south as Duluth, Minn., have reported seeing the object.

EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS SOUGHT

Ufology Research of Manitoba, a Winnipeg-based independent centre that collects data on Canadian UFO reports, is assisting the museum in gathering eyewitness accounts to determine the object's flight path. Spokesman Chris Rutkowski said he's received more than a dozen calls so far.

"They all report seeing a brilliant blue or green light moving through the sky with a long tail," he said. "There may have been somebody who captured it on a cellphone camera."

Young said the end point of the object's flight path is somewhere in northwestern Ontario. It's not known whether any pieces reached the ground.

"The first step is to figure out the trajectory and where pieces might come down," he said. "If it's a reasonable place to go looking, then we'll look for pieces," he said.

People can send an e-mail to skyinfo@manitobamuseum.ca or call 956-2830.



Comment on this Article


Flashback: BACK TO THE BUNKER: Bush Reich Going Into Hiding on June 19, Practice Run for WHAT?

By William M. Arkin
Washington Post
June 4, 2006; Page B01

On Monday, June 19, about 4,000 government workers representing more than 50 federal agencies from the State Department to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission will say goodbye to their families and set off for dozens of classified emergency facilities stretching from the Maryland and Virginia suburbs to the foothills of the Alleghenies. They will take to the bunkers in an "evacuation" that my sources describe as the largest "continuity of government" exercise ever conducted, a drill intended to prepare the U.S. government for an event even more catastrophic than the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The exercise is the latest manifestation of an obsession with government survival that has been a hallmark of the Bush administration since 9/11, a focus of enormous and often absurd time, money and effort that has come to echo the worst follies of the Cold War. The vast secret operation has updated the duck-and-cover scenarios of the 1950s with state-of-the-art technology -- alerts and updates delivered by pager and PDA, wireless priority service, video teleconferencing, remote backups -- to ensure that "essential" government functions continue undisrupted should a terrorist's nuclear bomb go off in downtown Washington.

But for all the BlackBerry culture, the outcome is still old-fashioned black and white: We've spent hundreds of millions of dollars on alternate facilities, data warehouses and communications, yet no one can really foretell what would happen to the leadership and functioning of the federal government in a catastrophe.

After 9/11, The Washington Post reported that President Bush had set up a shadow government of about 100 senior civilian managers to live and work outside Washington on a rotating basis to ensure the continuity of national security. Since then, a program once focused on presidential succession and civilian control of U.S. nuclear weapons has been expanded to encompass the entire government. From the Department of Education to the Small Business Administration to the National Archives, every department and agency is now required to plan for continuity outside Washington.

Yet according to scores of documents I've obtained and interviews with half a dozen sources, there's no greater confidence today that essential services would be maintained in a disaster. And no one really knows how an evacuation would even be physically possible.

Moreover, since 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, the definition of what constitutes an "essential" government function has been expanded so ridiculously beyond core national security functions -- do we really need patent and trademark processing in the middle of a nuclear holocaust? -- that the term has become meaningless. The intent of the government effort may be laudable, even necessary, but a hyper-centralized approach based on the Cold War model of evacuations and bunkering makes it practically worthless.

That the continuity program is so poorly conceived, and poorly run, should come as no surprise. That's because the same Federal Emergency Management Agency that failed New Orleans after Katrina, an agency that a Senate investigating committee has pronounced "in shambles and beyond repair," is in charge of this enormous effort to plan for the U.S. government's survival.

Continuity programs began in the early 1950s, when the threat of nuclear war moved the administration of President Harry S. Truman to begin planning for emergency government functions and civil defense. Evacuation bunkers were built, and an incredibly complex and secretive shadow government program was created.

At its height, the grand era of continuity boasted the fully operational Mount Weather, a civilian bunker built along the crest of Virginia's Blue Ridge, to which most agency heads would evacuate; the Greenbrier hotel complex and bunker in West Virginia, where Congress would shelter; and Raven Rock, or Site R, a national security bunker bored into granite along the Pennsylvania-Maryland border near Camp David, where the Joint Chiefs of Staff would command a protracted nuclear war. Special communications networks were built, and evacuation and succession procedures were practiced continually.

When the Soviet Union crumbled, the program became a Cold War curiosity: Then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney ordered Raven Rock into caretaker status in 1991. The Greenbrier bunker was shuttered and a 30-year-old special access program was declassified three years later.

Then came the terrorist attacks of the mid-1990s and the looming Y2K rollover, and suddenly continuity wasn't only for nuclear war anymore. On Oct. 21, 1998, President Bill Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 67, "Enduring Constitutional Government and Continuity of Government Operations." No longer would only the very few elite leaders responsible for national security be covered. Instead, every single government department and agency was directed to see to it that they could resume critical functions within 12 hours of a warning, and keep their operations running at emergency facilities for up to 30 days. FEMA was put in charge of this broad new program.

On 9/11, the program was put to the test -- and failed. Not on the national security side: Vice President Cheney and others in the national security leadership were smoothly whisked away from the capital following procedures overseen by the Pentagon and the White House Military Office. But like the mass of Washingtonians, officials from other agencies found themselves virtually on their own, unsure of where to go or what to do, or whom to contact for the answers.

In the aftermath, the federal government was told to reinvigorate its continuity efforts. Bush approved lines of succession for civil agencies. Cabinet departments and agencies were assigned specific emergency responsibilities. FEMA issued new preparedness guidelines and oversaw training. A National Capital Region continuity working group established in 1999, comprising six White House groups, 15 departments and 61 agencies, met to coordinate.

But all the frenetic activity did not produce a government prepared for the worst. A year after 9/11, and almost three years after the deadline set in Clinton's 1998 directive, the Government Accounting Office evaluated 38 agencies and found that not one had addressed all the issues it had been ordered to. A 2004 GAO audit of 34 government continuity-of-operations plans found total confusion on the question of essential functions. One unnamed organization listed 399 such functions. A department included providing "speeches and articles for the Secretary and Deputy Secretary" among its essential duties, while neglecting many of its central programs.

The confusion and absurdity have continued, according to documents I've collected over the past few years. In June 2004, FEMA told federal agencies that essential services in a catastrophe would include not only such obvious ones as electric power generation and disaster relief but also patent and trademark processing, student aid and passport processing. A month earlier, FEMA had told states and local communities that library services should be counted as essential along with fire protection and law enforcement.

None of this can be heartening to Americans who want to believe that in a crisis, their government can distinguish between what is truly essential and what isn't -- and provide it.

Just two years ago, an exercise called Forward Challenge '04 pointed up the danger of making everyone and everything essential: Barely an hour after agencies were due to arrive at their relocation sites, the Office of Management and Budget asked the reconstituted government to identify emergency funding requirements.

As one after-action report for the exercise later put it in a classic case of understatement: "It was not clear . . . whether this would be a realistic request at that stage of an emergency."

This year's exercise, Forward Challenge '06, will be the third major interagency continuity exercise since 9/11. Larger than Forward Challenge '04 and the Pinnacle exercise held last year, it requires 31 departments and agencies (including FEMA) to relocate. Fifty to 60 are expected to take part.

According to government sources, the exercise will test the newly created continuity of government alert conditions -- called COGCONs -- that emulate the DEFCONs of the national security community. Forward Challenge will begin with a series of alerts via BlackBerry and pager to key officials. It will test COGCON 1, the highest level of preparedness, in which each department and agency is required to have at least one person in its chain of command and sufficient staffing at alternate operating facilities to perform essential functions.

Though key White House officials and military leadership would be relocated via the Pentagon's Joint Emergency Evacuation Program (JEEP), the civilians are on their own to make it to their designated evacuation points.

But fear not: Each organization's COOP, or continuity of operations plan, details the best routes to the emergency locations. The plans even spell out what evacuees should take with them (recommended items: a combination lock, a flashlight, two towels and a small box of washing powder).

Can such an exercise, announced well in advance, hope to re-create any of the tensions and fears of a real crisis? How do you simulate the experience of driving through blazing, radiated, panic-stricken streets to emergency bunker sites miles away?

As the Energy Department stated in its review of Forward Challenge '04, "a method needs to be devised to realistically test the ability of . . . federal offices to relocate to their COOP sites using a scenario that simulates . . . the monumental challenges that would be involved in evacuating the city."

With its new plans and procedures, Washington may think it has thought of everything to save itself. Forward Challenge will no doubt be deemed a success, and officials will pronounce the continuity-of-government project sound. There will be lessons to be learned that will justify more millions of dollars and more work in the infinite effort to guarantee order out of chaos.

But the main defect -- a bunker mentality that considers too many people and too many jobs "essential" -- will remain unchallenged.

warkin@igc.org

William M. Arkin writes the Early Warning blog for washingtonpost.com and is the author of "Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs and Operations in the 9/11 World" (Steerforth Press).

Comment: Well, maybe they know something they aren't telling? Since the Norway blast hasn't received much press, perhaps there is a reason? Imagine how easy it would be to convince an uninformed populace struck by a meteorite that what really hit them was a nuke from, say, evil terrorists connected with Iran...

Comment on this Article


Big Money


Russia Shifts Part of Its Forex Reserves from Dollars to Euros

09.06.2006
MosNews


On Thursday, June 8, Russia became the latest in the list of countries that shifted a part of its Central Bank reserves from the dollar. Sergei Ignatyev, chairman of the Central Bank, said that only 50 percent of its reserves are now held in dollars, with 40 percent in euros and the rest in pounds sterling. Earlier it was believed that just 25-30 percent of Russia's reserves were held in euros, with virtually all the rest held in dollars.

Russia's gold and foreign currency reserves have grown rapidly over the last few years in tandem with high oil and gas prices. As MosNews has reported earlier, Russia currently has the world's fourth-largest reserves, after China, Japan and Taiwan, and it looks to overcome Taiwan by the end of the year, with reserves growing by $5-6 billion monthly.
The Russian Central Bank's move ties in with increasing signs that Middle Eastern oil exporters are also looking to diversify their reserves out of the dollar. "This is a bearish development for the dollar," Chris Turner, head of currency research at ING Financial Markets, told the British Financial Times. "It reminds us that global surpluses are accumulating to the oil exporters,and Russia is telling us that an increasingly lower proportion of these reserves will be held in dollars. This suggests there is a trend shift away from the dollar."

Clyde Wardle, senior Emerging Market Currency strategist at HSBC, told the paper: "We have heard talk that Middle Eastern countries are doing a similar thing and even some Asian countries have indicated their desire to do so."

Moscow's move was unsurprising. Russia's $71.5billion Stabilization fund, which accumulates windfall oil revenues, is due to be converted from rubles to 45 percent dollars, 45 percent euros and 10 percent sterling. The day-to-day movements of the ruble are monitored against a basket of 0.6 dollars and 0.4 euros. About 39 percent of Russia's goods imports came from the eurozone in 2005, against just 4 percent from the US.

The statement plays into a perception that central banks, which together hold $4.25 trillion of reserves, are increasingly channeling fresh reserves away from the dollar to reduce potential losses if the dollar was to fall sharply.



Comment on this Article


House Panel Approves $50B More for Wars

Associated Press
June 07, 2006

WASHINGTON - President George W. Bush would get $50 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for the first few months of next year, under a House of Representatives bill approved by a subcommittee Wednesday.

On a voice vote, the House defense appropriations subcommittee passed a $427 billion measure for the Pentagon budget year that begins Oct. 1, including operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Senate has not yet completed its version of the annual bill.
House lawmakers sliced about $4 billion from the president's spending request for the Pentagon because of what they said were other priorities within the budget and a soaring federal deficit.

"We did the best we could with the money we had to work with," said Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, the top Democrat on the subcommittee. He provided some details of the bill after the panel approved it in a session that was closed to the public.

Overall, Murtha said, the subcommittee went to great lengths to support the National Guard. The bill, he said, provides $500 million for the Guard to replace equipment tattered in war zones. And it states that the Pentagon plan to drop the number of Guard combat brigades from 34 to 28 is unacceptable, he said.

House lawmakers consider the $50 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan the first installment of what they expect will be continued war costs through 2007, although no one would predict how much more money would be needed.

If approved, the House bill would push total war-related dollars since 2001 toward a staggering half-trillion dollars.

The Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan agency that writes reports for lawmakers, says that since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, lawmakers already have provided $368 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and other costs associated with the war on terrorism.

Additionally, a bill making its way through Congress now to pay for the rest of this year's war costs includes another $65.7 billion for the Pentagon, much of which will be used to pay for military operations, maintenance and personnel costs in the two war zones.

Lawmakers say the Pentagon is spending about $8 billion a month in Iraq and $1 billion a month in Afghanistan.



Comment on this Article


The Case of the Missing $21 Billion - Who's Following the Iraq Money?

By DAVE LINDORFF
June 7, 2006

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

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

My bet for the place that needs the most following is the more than $9 billion that has gone missing without a trace in Iraq--as well as $12 billion in cash that the Pentagon flew into Iraq straight from Federal Reserve vaults via military transports, and for which there has been little or no accounting.
When word of the missing money first surfaced in 2004, Congress passed legislation creating an office of Special Inspector General, assuming that this new agency would root out the problem and figure why all that taxpayer money had disappeared, and why only minimal reconstruction was going on in destroyed Iraq, instead of a massive rebuilding program as intended.

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

Now we know why.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This would all be pretty funny except for two things.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Comment on this Article


Army has to turn over Halliburton docs

UPI
7 June 06

WASHINGTON - A U.S. district court judge has ordered the Army to release 14 documents, including six emails, dealing with the Halliburton oil contract in Iraq.

U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo M. Urbina also ordered the Army to give to the court an additional six documents for the court to review to make a further determination.

At issue is a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Judicial Watch, an anti-corruption public interest group. Judicial Watch believes the award of a multi-billion contract to Halliburton subsidiary KBR for the restoration of Iraq's oil fields may have been unduly influenced by Vice President Dick Cheney, who headed Halliburton for five years prior to joining President George. W. Bush's campaign.
The documents amount to 100 pages, according to Judicial Watch.

Three years ago Judicial Watch obtained and released an e-mail between the Army Corps of Engineers and another party that referenced the fact that the deal -- awarded in secret, without any competition, two weeks before the invasion of Iraq -- had been coordinated with the vice president's office.

The Army fought Judicial Watch's FOIA lawsuit, but failed to provide enough information to the court for it to make its decision. Therefore, the judge had to review the documents in person to determine whether they were exempt from FOIA requirements. Urbina was not happy.

"The court undertook an onerous in camera review of the defendant's documents in large part because of the defendant's failure to provide an accurate Vaughn index" listing the contents and relevance of each document.



Comment on this Article


IMF seeks more ambitious deficit goal

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER
AP Economics Writer
Wed Jun 7, 2006

WASHINGTON - The International Monetary Fund on Wednesday urged the Bush administration to set a more ambitious goal of eliminating the federal budget deficit over the next five years and said tax increases may be needed to accomplish that objective.

The IMF proposal was included in the agency's annual review of the U.S. economy. It is a suggestion the agency has made before and one the administration has rejected, preferring to stick with President Bush's pledge that he will cut the deficit in half by the year he leaves office in 2009.

The IMF review, however, said this goal was not sufficiently ambitious, given the challenges the United States faces in dealing with the health care and pension costs that the government will face with the looming retirement of 78 million baby boomers.
Instead of just aiming to cut the deficit in half, the IMF said the administration should be seeking to bring the budget into balance, excluding the income received by
Social Security.

That would be a significantly harder job since the government is using around $200 billion in surplus Social Security revenues being collected annually to fund other government programs and lower the overall budget deficit.

"With revenues continuing to be buoyant, we would again propose a target of balancing the budget excluding the Social Security surplus over the next five years," the IMF wrote.

The administration's goal is to reduce the deficit to about $260 billion in 2009, which would be half of the $519 billion deficit the administration originally estimated for 2004. The actual deficit for 2004 came in at $413 billion, still a record in dollar terms.

Recently, Treasury Secretary John Snow said the administration will be able to meet its goal of cutting the deficit in half earlier than 2009 based on a flood of government tax receipts from an improving economy.

The Congressional Budget Office is forecasting that the deficit for the current year could be as low as $300 billion.

The IMF also said the administration should consider tax increases to meet a more ambitious goal of eliminating the deficit by 2011. It suggested considering a national sales tax, a value added tax like ones in place in Europe or increased taxes on energy products.

Brookly McLaughlin, a Treasury Department spokeswoman, said the administration did not plan on following the IMF recommendations on deficit goals or taxes.

"Our deficit reduction target is ambitious and we are exceeding the pace we set to meet the president's target of cutting the deficit in half by 2009," she said.



Comment on this Article


Apologise or we'll cut your funding, US envoy tells UN

From James Bone in New York and Richard Beeston
The Times

AMERICA'S bitter dispute with the United Nations escalated last night when John Bolton, the US envoy to the UN, threatened to withhold funding to the organisation unless it apologised for the remarks of a senior British official.

Speaking at the Centre for Policy Studies in London, Mr Bolton assailed Mark Malloch Brown, the British Deputy UN Secretary-General, for the disparaging remarks he made about the American public this week. "Mark Malloch Brown has a sentence in his speech where he says the role of the UN is a mystery in Middle America," he said.
"Maybe it is fashionable in some circles to look down on Middle America, to say they don't get the complexities of the world and they don't have the benefit of continental education and they are deficient in so many ways," Mr Bolton added. "It is illegitimate for an international civil servant to criticise what he thinks are the inadequacies of citizens of a member government."

The tough-talking US envoy reiterated that the dispute could harm important reforms to the international body. He also hinted that the US Congress, which controls American government spending, might reconsider US funding to the UN, which accounts for 22 per cent of the organisation's annual budget. "Congress has the power of the purse and they feel quite strongly on a bipartisan basis that America has a right to know how their tax dollars are being spent, even people from Middle America," he said, with a note of sarcasm. "I don't think we have seen the end of it." Before Mr Bolton arrived in London, Kofi Annan, the UN chief, tried to play down the controversy. "I think the message that was intended is that the US needs the UN, and the UN needs the US, and we need to support each other," Mr Annan said. "I think the speech by my deputy should be read in the right spirit and let's put it behind us and move on."

The public spat between Mr Malloch Brown and Mr Bolton represents more than just a clash of outsized personalities. It reflects the long-running battle of ideas over the role of international institutions. Mr Bolton, a Republican right-winger, has been a leading conservative critic of the UN since serving as the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organisations in the Administration of the first President Bush.

Mr Malloch Brown, a former journalist who founded The Economist Development Report and went on to work at a political consultancy before joining the UN system, is a member of a powerful network of internationalists. Their clash threatens to undermine congressional support for the world body as it confronts a looming budget crisis, caused by Washington's insistence that management reforms be put in place.

The row was sparked by a speech by Mr Malloch Brown on Tuesday. Addressing prominent Democrats in New York, he criticised Washington for allowing "too much unchecked UN-bashing and stereotyping". He singled out the conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh and the Fox News cable channel, owned by News Corp, the parent company of The Times.

"The prevailing practice of seeking to use the UN almost by stealth as a diplomatic tool while failing to stand up for it against its domestic critics is simply not sustainable," Mr Malloch Brown said. "You will lose the UN one way or another," he added.

America has a long tradition of isolationism, dating back to even before the US refused to join the League of Nations. The UN has been portrayed by far-right groups as a godless, communist and corrupt "nest of spies" ready to invade America.

Relations began to improve during the presidency of the elder George Bush, a former American Ambassador to the UN. The current crisis stems from the split over the war in Iraq, when the 15-nation UN Security Council refused to give explicit approval for the military action, and Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, dubbed the invasion "illegal". The invasion yielded evidence that UN officials or their families had benefited from the Oil-for-Food programme, which was designed to feed Iraqis during UN sanctions.

Mr Annan, under fire from Republicans, began a UN reform drive and sought advice from his American friends, predominantly Democrats. After a secret meeting at the home of the Clinton Administration's UN Ambassador, Richard Holbrooke, Mr Annan named Mr Malloch Brown as his chief of staff in January last year.

The appointment raised eyebrows when it was reported that Mr Malloch Brown was renting a house on George Soros's estate for $2,500 a month less than the previous occupant. Even before Mr Bolton was named US Ambassador, he seemed destined to clash with Mr Malloch Brown. Mr Soros, Mr Malloch Brown's landlord and old friend, helped to fund the Stop Bolton campaign, aimed at stopping him from getting the post.

Mr Malloch Brown has been criticised by dissident UN staff for aligning the world body too closely with Democrats in US domestic politics. They accuse him of allowing a UN staffer, Justin Leites, to play a leading role in the 2004 presidential campaign of John Kerry, violating staff rules. It is a charge that he denies. "I don't consider myself aligned with any American political establishment," he said. "I am British. I have worked in the UN and in international jobs all of my life."

Ed Luck, a Columbia University professor and author of Mixed Messages: American Politics and International Organization: 1919-1999, said it was rare for a top UN official to criticise the US so explicitly, but not unprecedented.

BOLTON'S WIT

ON NEGOTIATING
"I don't do carrots."

ON THE UN
"It's a target-rich environment."

ON REVAMPING THE UN
"Reform is not a one-night stand."

ON UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
"We want a butterfly. We're not going to put lipstick on a caterpillar and declare it a success."

ON THE NEXT UN SECRETARY-GENERAL
"A proletarian."

ON THE WORLD ORGANISATION
"There is no such thing as the United Nations."

ON THE UN BUREAUCRACY
"If the UN Secretariat building in New York lost ten storeys, it wouldn't make a bit of difference."



Comment on this Article


No Tolls on The Internet

By Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney
The Washington Post
June 8, 2006; Page A23

Congress is about to cast a historic vote on the future of the Internet. It will decide whether the Internet remains a free and open technology fostering innovation, economic growth and democratic communication, or instead becomes the property of cable and phone companies that can put toll booths at every on-ramp and exit on the information superhighway.
At the center of the debate is the most important public policy you've probably never heard of: "network neutrality." Net neutrality means simply that all like Internet content must be treated alike and move at the same speed over the network. The owners of the Internet's wires cannot discriminate. This is the simple but brilliant "end-to-end" design of the Internet that has made it such a powerful force for economic and social good: All of the intelligence and control is held by producers and users, not the networks that connect them.

The protections that guaranteed network neutrality have been law since the birth of the Internet -- right up until last year, when the Federal Communications Commission eliminated the rules that kept cable and phone companies from discriminating against content providers. This triggered a wave of announcements from phone company chief executives that they plan to do exactly that.

Now Congress faces a legislative decision. Will we reinstate net neutrality and keep the Internet free? Or will we let it die at the hands of network owners itching to become content gatekeepers? The implications of permanently losing network neutrality could not be more serious. The current legislation, backed by companies such as AT&T, Verizon and Comcast, would allow the firms to create different tiers of online service. They would be able to sell access to the express lane to deep-pocketed corporations and relegate everyone else to the digital equivalent of a winding dirt road. Worse still, these gatekeepers would determine who gets premium treatment and who doesn't.

Their idea is to stand between the content provider and the consumer, demanding a toll to guarantee quality delivery. It's what Timothy Wu, an Internet policy expert at Columbia University, calls "the Tony Soprano business model": By extorting protection money from every Web site -- from the smallest blogger to Google -- network owners would earn huge profits. Meanwhile, they could slow or even block the Web sites and services of their competitors or those who refuse to pay up. They'd like Congress to "trust them" to behave.

Without net neutrality, the Internet would start to look like cable TV. A handful of massive companies would control access and distribution of content, deciding what you get to see and how much it costs. Major industries such as health care, finance, retailing and gambling would face huge tariffs for fast, secure Internet use -- all subject to discriminatory and exclusive dealmaking with telephone and cable giants.

We would lose the opportunity to vastly expand access and distribution of independent news and community information through broadband television. More than 60 percent of Web content is created by regular people, not corporations. How will this innovation and production thrive if creators must seek permission from a cartel of network owners?

The smell of windfall profits is in the air in Washington. The phone companies are pulling out all the stops to legislate themselves monopoly power. They're spending tens of millions of dollars on inside-the-Beltway print, radio and TV ads; high-priced lobbyists; coin-operated think tanks; and sham "Astroturf" groups -- fake grass-roots operations with such Orwellian names as Hands Off the Internet and NetCompetition.org.

They're opposed by a real grass-roots coalition of more than 700 groups, 5,000 bloggers and 750,000 individual Americans who have rallied in support of net neutrality at http://www.savetheinternet.com/ . The coalition is left and right, commercial and noncommercial, public and private. Supporters include the Christian Coalition of America, MoveOn.org, National Religious Broadcasters, the Service Employees International Union, the American Library Association, AARP and nearly every consumer group. It includes the founders of the Internet, the brand names of Silicon Valley, and a bloc of retailers, innovators and entrepreneurs. Coalitions of such breadth, depth and purpose are rare in contemporary politics.

Most of the great innovators in the history of the Internet started out in their garages with great ideas and little capital. This is no accident. Network neutrality protections minimized control by the network owners, maximized competition and invited outsiders in to innovate. Net neutrality guaranteed a free and competitive market for Internet content. The benefits are extraordinary and undeniable.

Congress is deciding on the fate of the Internet. The question before it is simple: Should the Internet be handed over to the handful of cable and telephone companies that control online access for 98 percent of the broadband market? Only a Congress besieged by high-priced telecom lobbyists and stuffed with campaign contributions could possibly even consider such an absurd act.

People are waking up to what's at stake, and their voices are growing louder by the day. As millions of citizens learn the facts, the message to Congress is clear: Save the Internet.

Lawrence Lessig is a law professor at Stanford University and founder of the Center for Internet and Society. Robert W. McChesney is a communications professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and co-founder of the media reform group Free Press.



Comment on this Article


For Your Health


US officials test for bird flu in arctic Alaska

By Daisuke Wakabayashi
Reuters
Thu Jun 8, 2006

BARROW, Alaska (Reuters) - In a coastal marsh near the frozen Arctic Ocean, a black-and-white feathered spectacled eider leaves a gift for Corey Rossi, a wildlife biologist for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Crouching down to take a closer look, Rossi inspects the dropping left by the large sea duck and then carefully dabs at the greenish mound with a swab before breaking off the tip into a plastic vial.

"He laid a fresh one there. We really want the freshest stuff," said Rossi, Alaska district supervisor for the USDA's wildlife services.

The swab of eider dropping is one of 50,000 such field samples from wild birds that federal and local agencies aim to collect in America this year and test for the deadly H5N1 strain of bird flu. Officials also want another 75,000 to 100,000 samples directly from the anus of live or dead birds.
Since 2003, the virus has killed 128 people in nine countries including Indonesia, Vietnam and China, according to the World Health Organization, but the highly pathogenic strain of bird flu has not been found in North America.

The small Alaskan community of Barrow -- the northern-most city in the U.S. and a crossroads for migratory birds from Asia -- is the front line for the government's efforts for early detection of bird-flu's North American arrival.

The work has a sense of urgency because experts fear H5N1 could evolve into a form that easily infects people and that people can easily pass to others - perhaps sparking a pandemic.

The role of wild birds in carrying H5N1 avian influenza is unclear, but wild swans are believed to have infected feather-pluckers in Azerbaijan earlier this year. The more immediate threat is that the wild birds will infect poultry.

IDEAL SPOT

In Barrow, as the frozen tundra starts to thaw in the summer, migratory birds stop to drink and rest in the area's wetlands.

It is an ideal spot to find rare birds like the spectacled eider, which is on the threatened species list and one of 33 bird species the government has identified for priority testing due to its flights between Asia and North America.

Barrow is also considered a hub for bird-flu testing, because it is home to the world's largest Inupiat Eskimo community. Subsistence hunting of waterfowl still plays a crucial role in the local diet, and officials can test harvested birds for the virus.

Even in a birder's paradise like Barrow, collecting samples poses a challenge to biologists who admit that success is often the result of luck and lots of patience.

"You could walk around the tundra 20 years and not get that close to a spectacled eider," said Rossi, noting that this type of duck tends to congregate miles away on the ice atop the frozen ocean. "Some days, you spend a lot of energy and you come up with an empty sack."

Wildlife biologists spent two days at a landfill trying to lure a group of glaucous gulls with whale blubber to a spot where they could launch a 50-foot by 60-foot (15-meter by 18-meter) net to quickly capture, test and release the birds.

The gulls only approached the bait after the officials left in the evening. In a separate attempt to catch shorebirds, a group of biologists set up a thin "mist" net in a coastal marsh only to be foiled when the net billowed in a stiff breeze, and the birds easily avoided the trap.

The Bush administration's $29 million call to arms to combat bird flu will involve biologists from several government agencies.

Rick Lanctot, a biologist at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, plans to send teams of biologists into remote areas of Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve via helicopter to sample a larger area and increase the odds of detecting the virus.

"I'm a shorebird biologist, so swabbing butts is not my highest priority, but it's national emergency kind of thing," said Lanctot, who normally monitors shorebirds' nesting patterns and survival rates.



Comment on this Article


Big Pharma's Deadly Experiments

By Kelly Hearn
AlterNet
June 9, 2006

A newly surfaced report alleges that in 1996, drug monolith Pfizer gave an unproven drug to Nigerian children and infants suffering from meningitis -- without the authorization of the Nigerian government.

Completed five years ago and coming to light in a May 7 Washington Post investigation, the confidential report, written by a panel of Nigerian health experts, concluded that administering the drug Trovan to 100 patients suffering a deadly strain of meningitis was "an illegal trial of an unregistered drug." The drug was ultimately shown to be ineffective. A lawsuit against Pfizer claims some of the children in the trial died and others suffered brain damage.
The report surfaces as more and more clinical research relocates to the Global South in order to escape burdensome regulation schemes in the United States and Western Europe. AlterNet has obtained an early look at a book to be published later this year -- The Body Hunters: How the Drug Industry Tests Its Products On the World's Poorest Patients (New Press), by investigative journalist Sonia Shah -- that raises the curtain on a trend that's harming patients and health care systems while eroding the developing world's trust in conventional medicine.

Researchers needing patients and freer working conditions have for years found a honey pot in the world's slums and shantytowns. The fact that poor, desperate patients are willing to try anything, means companies like GlaxoSmithKline, Merck and Wyeth currently conduct 30 percent to 50 percent of their experiments outside Western Europe and the United States, and plan to boost foreign trials by 67 percent this year, according to USA Today. Their urgency is understandable; Shah's book notes that to get a single drug to market, drug companies are forced "to convince more than 4,000 patients to undergo 141 medical procedures each in more than 65 separate trials."

Clinical investigators and the companies backing them argue that overseas trials get drugs to a lucky few and lead to faster cures for us all. But Shah, the author of Crude: The Story of Oil, deftly takes that Big Pharma myth to task, tracing how drug trial exports ruin third-world health care systems, steer attention away from public health needs like clean water and sanitation, and ignore the health safety of subjects.

From the history of placebo controls to a modern map of how loophole-prone laws in the 1980s paved Big Pharma's easy way, Shah shows that "the main business of clinical research is not enhancing or saving lives but acquiring stuff: data" -- making it an industry instead of a social service, as it would have the world believe. As an industry, she argues, they should be denied the regulatory winks and nods reserved for a public health entity.

Hearn: What struck you as the worst case of excess or neglect you found while researching this book?

Shah: It was probably the trial I covered in Zambia [involving a drug to combat cryptosporidium, a diarrhea-causing infection]. It was stark, children dying, little kids dying. But from what I can tell if these kids had received antiretroviral therapy they could have survived. But they were put into a trial for a drug that never benefited them or their families or siblings because the drug was so completely targeted for other populations, almost a luxury drug for fighting an infection that in Western children means a day of diarrhea. It is so mild in kids who are healthy that lots of people don't even notice it.

So for such a minor condition they tested the drug on people who were so, so sick. And in the end, 12 kids died.

Kelly Hearn: You write that by the late 1990s, pharmaceutical companies had grown frustrated with the pace of academic hospitals and research centers, and changed the contracting focus to "contract research organizations," private companies that promise to get drug trials done quickly. What role do these companies play in the scheme of drug trials, and to what degree are they responsible for the growth in overseas trials?

Sonia Shah: There are two things, a push and a pull, that force trials overseas. The push is a patient recruitment bottleneck. Most trials don't meet recruitment deadlines, whether it's because Americans aren't interested or their profiles are wrong. Often the right kind of patients don't exist in enough quantity in the U.S., or if they do they drop out of trials.

The big pull is the contract research organizations (CROs). If anyone is a body hunter, it's the CRO industry, an industry that has largely escaped public notice, perhaps because of the weird, vague sounding moniker, CRO. Public Citizen called them, more accurately, "human experiment corporations." They are, though, just a business, and are not any more venal than other actors involved.

Hearn: Like you, many journalists and health experts I have interviewed almost invariably say the FDA should require new drugs to outperform existing ones rather than simply work better than a placebo. Given your sense of the FDA's ruling culture, the growing public frustration with drug companies, Washington's current political climate, and so on, is there real hope of this happening in the next few years?

Shah: I think not. But the history of regulation goes in fits and starts based on scandals, horrible mistakes like thalidomide, and then regulations change rapidly. And we can't predict disasters, something that will come into the limelight and expose a controversy, something that can change headlines. The FDA is vulnerable to headlines, to politics.

Hearn: What are the most dangerous structural impacts overseas trials can have on developing countries' health systems?

Shah: The main thing is misallocation of resources. You're talking about such a scarcity in terms of clinics, nurses, doctors, facilities, medicine, tools and time. You have places where all this is in short supply and in that setting they have this fruit dangled in front of them -- we'll pay you so many hundreds per patient, we'll give you new technology, new MRI machines, etc.

But what this means is that doctors and nurses there are performing experiments for treatments for things like diabetes, arthritis, erectile dysfunction. These things are important in the West but these people have malaria, cholera, and other infections. In that sense, the industry sponsored trials are distorting health care.

Part of a larger trend, as is happening in places like India that have and want more foreign trials, is the rise of privatized, two-tiered health care where high-tech facilities and highly specialized physicians are available for the wealthy, but the poor just have basic service that they have to pay for. In India and in South Africa, they are building hospitals not for people who live there but for foreigners. Doing trial business is part of the trend toward creating two-tiered systems in these countries, a private one for the rich and nothing for the poor.

Hearn: You talk about the phrase "due to ethical concerns" appearing frequently in biomedical conversations. You note that it is almost "exclusively reserved for biomedical transgressions." Can you explain?

Shah: It's just that you never hear it outside these circles it seems. If you're talking about something unethical, you don't say, "It's not possible due to ethical concerns." You don't say, "It's not possible to gas people due to ethical concerns." You say, "Such and such happened, and it was wrong, immoral and illegal."

Hearn: Rep. Tom Lantos of California said after the Washington Post's coverage of the Nigerian report that he will offer a bill making U.S. researchers give federal regulators details of tests planned in developing countries. What do you think of that idea, and what are some of the necessary regulatory changes for reining in the transgressions you address in the book?

Shah: I think it's a baby step in right direction. But most important, there needs to be restraints and breaks in the exportation of drug trials. It's not possible to put in enough oversight to protect these subjects, at the present time. Restraint is necessary. I was giving a talk at the FDA, and the regulators wanted to know what they can do to make it better. What about a new rule that says there should be an ethics committee review in this country and the country taking the trial? That's already true for NIH trials.

That would be good, but we know from NIH trials that lots of things fall through cracks, and that just requiring the ethics review is not sufficient. Another thing you could do is require verification of informed consent and really make sure people understand what's happening, that they fill out forms or take quizzes to show they understand.

Hearn: You put hope into the rise of the nonprofit drug companies. What are some of the key ways they can help?

Shah: I don't think it's wrong to do trials in developing countries. It's about what kind of drugs that are being developed. Are the drugs a public health priority? Those who take on the burden of experimentation should enjoy the fruits of research rather than watching the benefits go only to a tiny percentage of white, overweight bald men.

Hearn: Having now written about two of the world's most powerful interests, Big Oil and Big Pharma, what common themes emerge?

Shah: What's interesting to me is they produce commodities that are public goods. Society needs energy and medicine, but we let private companies do it for us. And their goals are to enrich shareholders. We need these things, but we decide the responsibility for providing it should go to for-profit entities. This develops all kinds of distortions.

Kelly Hearn is a former UPI staff writer who divides his time between the United States and South America. A correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor, his work has appeared in The Nation, The American Prospect and other publications. He is a regular contributor to AlterNet.



Comment on this Article


Informed consent waived in public crisis

By ANDREW BRIDGES
Associated Press
Wed Jun 7, 2006

WASHINGTON - In a public health emergency, suspected victims would no longer have to give permission before experimental tests could be run to determine why they're sick, under a federal rule published Wednesday. Privacy experts called the exception unnecessary, ripe for abuse and an override of state informed-consent laws.

Health care workers will be free to run experimental tests on blood and other samples taken from people who have fallen sick as a result of a bioterrorist attack, bird flu outbreak, detonation of a dirty bomb or any other life-threatening public health emergency, according to the rule issued by the Food and Drug Administration.

In all other cases, the use of an experimental test still requires the informed consent of a patient, as well as the review and approval of an outside panel.
"To be candid, I hope it is a hypothetical problem. I hope we spent a lot of time creating a rule we never have to invoke," said Dr. Steve Gutman, director of the FDA's in-vitro diagnostics office.

Determining what constitutes a life-threatening public health emergency would be left up to the laboratories doing the testing. That creates the potential for conflicts of interest and other abuses, critics said.

"I don't like a rule like this because its most likely use is likely to be a form of abuse. The emergency exception it creates will be stretched to encompass non-emergency situations," said Jim Harper, director of information policy studies at the Cato Institute.

The FDA said it published the rule to ensure the ability to identify quickly whatever chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear agent is involved in a terrorist attack or natural outbreak of disease. Doing so could save the lives of those being tested as well as of others exposed, the FDA said.

"Baloney," said Dr. Deborah Peel, chairwoman of the Patient Privacy Rights Foundation, a watchdog group. "This sounds like they're taking for themselves the right to test individuals every time they declare a public health emergency. There is no way getting consent would delay testing."

The FDA said that obtaining informed consent in those cases would be impracticable or unfeasible.

The rule lays out a scenario where a laboratory discovers what appears to be an unusual bug in a sample taken from a patient before a public health emergency was even suspected. With the apparent bug in the lab but the patient gone, going back for permission to use a confirmatory but experimental test - often the only type of test available - would introduce "unacceptable delays," the FDA said.

"They're basically overriding state informed-consent laws," said Sue Blevins, president of the Institute for Health Freedom. Blevins said her group advocates for informed consent but that in emergencies it could be sought after the fact.

"If they don't have the time to get it, at least inform them retroactively what's been done, so people can keep track of what information has been collected from them," Blevins said.

The rule took effect Wednesday but remains subject to public comment until Aug. 7. The FDA said it published the rule without first seeking comments because it would hinder the response to an outbreak of bird flu or other public health emergency.

"Nobody said two airplanes would fly into the World Trade Center, did they? We wouldn't have written the rule unless we thought it was a possibility," Gutman said.

The FDA said the lack of such an exemption impeded the public health response to the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, or SARS, epidemic of 2003.



Comment on this Article


FDA approves cervical cancer vaccine

By ANDREW BRIDGES
Associated Press
June 8, 2006

WASHINGTON - Women for the first time have a vaccine to protect themselves against cervical cancer. The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday licensed the vaccine, Gardasil, for use in girls and women ages 9 to 26.

The vaccine works by preventing infection by four of the dozens of strains of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, the most prevalent sexually transmitted disease.

By age 50, some 80 percent of women have been infected.
Gardasil protects against the two types of HPV responsible for about 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. The vaccine also blocks infection by two other strains responsible for 90 percent of genital wart cases. The vaccine will be available by the end of the month, with a three-shot series costing $360.

Its manufacturer, Merck & Co. Inc., seeks similar approval elsewhere around the world. Each year, cervical cancer kills an estimated 240,000 women worldwide, including 3,700 in the United States.

"FDA approval of the HPV vaccine, the first vaccine targeted specifically to preventing cancer, is one of the most important advances in women's health in recent years," said Dr. Carolyn Runowicz, president of the American Cancer Society. The vaccine developed for hepatitis B has been shown to protect against liver cancer.

Clinical trials showed Gardasil prevented 100 percent of cervical cancer related to the two HPV strains in women who had not been previously infected, Merck said. It also prevented 99 percent of the cases of genital warts caused by the two other strains.

"Fortunately, we can now include the worst types of HPV and most cervical cancer in the list of diseases that no one need suffer or die from ever again," said Alex Azar, deputy Health and Human Services secretary.

Research presented earlier suggests an added bonus to Gardasil: It also protects against vaginal and vulvar cancers linked to the four types of HPV.

Gardasil works best when given to girls before they begin having sex and run the risk of HPV infection. The vaccine does not protect those already infected.

The FDA said that Gardasil appeared very safe. It remains unclear if its effect is long-lasting or if women will need booster shots later in life. Merck will monitor its long-term effectiveness. The company also continues to study whether the vaccine is safe and effective in males.

Merck intends to market Gardasil as a cancer, rather than an STD, vaccine. Its cost, along with conservative opposition to making the vaccine mandatory for school attendance, may curb its widespread use.

The national Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices will decide June 29 whether to endorse routine vaccination with Gardasil. That endorsement is critical if a vaccine is to become a standard of care.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (news, bio, voting record), D-N.J., urged the panel to put "science and women's health ahead of ideological opposition" in considering a recommendation.

It then will be up to individual states to decide whether to add the vaccine to the list of others required before students may attend public schools.

Conservative groups like Focus on the Family support availability of the vaccine but oppose making it mandatory, saying the decision to vaccinate should rest with a child's parents or guardians. It promotes abstinence as the best way to prevent infection by HPV and other STDs.

Inda Blatch-Geib, an Akron, Ohio mother of four, said she'd consider vaccinating her daughters, ages 9 and 16. Blatch-Geib, 41, doesn't think it would signal a parental OK for her girls to have sex.

"Giving the vaccine goes with a conversation. We are pretty open with our children, so it wouldn't be an issue. It would lead to conversations," Blatch-Geib said.

The vaccine does not eliminate the need for regular Pap tests, which can detect precancerous lesions and early cancer. Merck has said Gardasil could cut the number of abnormal Pap results due to HPV infection.

Analysts believe Gardasil sales could top $1 billion a year for Merck. The Whitehouse Station, N.J. company is battling thousands of lawsuits over its withdrawn painkiller
Vioxx. Eventually, it could face competition from GlaxoSmithKline PLC, which is also developing its own HPV vaccine.

The cost of Gardasil and the difficulty of getting young girls in to see a doctor three times in six months to receive the vaccine could pose problems, said Cynthia Dailard, senior public policy analyst at the Guttmacher Institute, which focuses on sexual and reproductive health. Ensuring its availability to poor and minority girls and women - and others less likely to receive regular Pap exams - also will be difficult. Merck plans to provide Gardasil for free to the poor and uninsured.

"This is an incredibly exciting breakthrough, but at the same time, it presents some major challenges, some the likes of which we have never confronted before," Dailard said.



Comment on this Article


Scientists breed allergy-free kitty

AFP
Wed Jun 7, 2006

LOS ANGELES - US scientists claimed to have bred the world's first hypoallergenic kitten, opening the doors and arms of millions of pet lovers for whom cuddling a cat has, until now, been a curse.

At 4,000 dollars a head, the allergy-free felines don't come cheap.
But the biotechnology firm behind the project believes sensitive owners will happily fork out extra for the chance to have a cat that doesn't leave them wheezing and sneezing.

In a statement, the San Diego-based company, Allerca, said it had produced the cats using a technique known as genetic divergence.

After identifying the genes of kittens with proteins that provide less of a reaction in humans, they selectively bred litters over several generations to end up with an allergy-friendly "super cat."

The company said its customers are expected to take delivery of their hypoallergenic kittens in early 2007.

"For the first time, people who have been unable to own a cat because of their allergies can now enjoy a pet of their own without the associated risks and costs of allergy treatments," Allerca CEO Megan Young.

According to the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, approximately 30 million Americans suffer from some form of cat allergy.

Young said the company expected to be breeding 10,000 of the cats every year by 2009.

The American Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) gave a cautious welcome to the Allerca announcement, saying it might help reduce the number of cats abandoned to shelters by allergic owners.

"But it will also be important to monitor the long term health of these cats to ensure that silencing the gene does not result in unforeseen effects on them," the ASPCA said in a statement.



Comment on this Article


Hispanic kids more prone to suicide

By MIKE STOBBE
Associated Press
June 8, 2006

ATLANTA - Hispanic high school students use drugs and attempt suicide at far higher rates than their white and black classmates, says a new federal survey that has the experts somewhat perplexed.

More than 11 percent of all Latino students - and 15 percent of Latino girls - said they had attempted suicide, according to the report issued Thursday by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The white and black rates were about 7.5 percent.

Latinos also reported much higher rates of using cocaine, heroin, ecstasy and methamphetamines; their use of condoms was at lower rates than the other population groups.

"We really don't understand this phenomenon as well as we should," said Dr. Glenn Flores of the Medical College of Wisconsin, who spoke at a CDC news conference.
The CDC survey of nearly 14,000 U.S. high school students has been conducted every other year, since 1991. Results reported Thursday were from last year's survey.

Questionnaires go to students in grades 9-12 in public and private high schools in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Researchers got parental permission for each student who participated.

Adolescents cannot always be counted on to tell the truth about their sexual exploits, drug use, or other risky behaviors. But officials took many steps to ensure accurate responses, said Howell Wechsler, the director of the CDC's Division of Adolescent and School Health.

Participation was confidential, kids were spaced apart when answering the questions, teachers did not hover, and the questionnaire was designed so everyone would finish at about the same time - no matter how risky or safe their behavior, Wechsler said.

"We have every confidence if there's any lying going on, it's extremely negligible," he said.

The report contained some good news. Only 10 percent of high school students said they never or rarely wore a seat belt while riding in a car, down from 18 percent in 2003.

But the percentage of students who said they had smoked in the last month rose slightly - 23 percent, up from about 22 percent in 2003. Also, there was no decline in the percentage of students who said they'd had sexual intercourse, which held steady at 47 percent, or in the percentage of sexually active students who said they'd used a condom, which was 63 percent.

However, it's the first time in 14 years that condom use among sexually active high school students has not risen, noted Martha Kempner, spokeswoman for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, a New York-based nonprofit group.

"It calls into question the federal government's investment in abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, many of which openly discourage condom use," she said.

Black students reported the most sexual activity, the most TV-watching and the highest use of video or computer games. White kids were the most frequent smokers and heavy drinkers, and were worst about eating enough fruits and vegetables.

But Hispanic students had other problems.

About 36 percent of Hispanics reported prolonged feelings of sadness or hopelessness, slightly higher than previous years.

In contrast, about 28.5 percent of black students reported such feelings in the 2005 survey, about the same as two previous surveys. And about 26 percent of white students reported such feelings, down slightly from 2003 and 2001.

In the category of drug use, 1 in 8 Latino students said they had done cocaine, 1 in 10 had done ecstasy, 1 in 11 methamphetamines and 1 in 28 heroin.

Hispanics reported much higher rates of drug use in previous surveys, and that hasn't changed. The enduring disparity is concerning, said Flores, director of the Medical College of Wisconsin's Center for the Advancement of Underserved Children.

He noted that substance abuse is higher in Hispanic kids who are more at home with American culture.

"It's unclear why that is, but we need to understand that better because then we can learn how we can protect all of our youth," he said.



Comment on this Article


Zionism in Action


Israelis kill 7 on Gaza beach

Friday, June 9, 2006
CNN

An Israeli navy gunboat fired shells into northern Gaza on Friday, killing at least seven Palestinians on a beach, Palestinian medical sources said.

The Israel Defense Forces halted firing pending an investigation into the strike at Beit Lahya.

The IDF apologized and said it "regretted the strike on innocents," the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported.

Haaretz said the IDF's chief of staff, Gen. Dan Harel, had ordered a halt in the shelling. The Israeli paper quoted Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas as condemning the killings as a "bloody massacre."


Separately, three Palestinian militants died earlier Friday in an Israeli airstrike, also in the Beit Lahya area, and two Palestinians were killed in another Israeli strike in the Jabalya refugee camp in Gaza.

Video footage from the beach showed ambulance workers carrying away injured people on stretchers. A young girl was screaming for her mother in the footage.

Palestinian security sources said about 20 others were injured when Israeli shells hit the beach.

The IDF said it was shelling rocket-launching areas in Gaza from the sea. A representative said the areas were believed to be uninhabited.

Comment: For the people of Gaza, the beaches that line their tiny piece of land offer the chance of a little relaxation and respite from the daily threat of death in the form of the thousands of Israeli shells that are fired at them each month. Now, even this has been denied them and Israeli has extended the Gaza killing fields to Gaza's beach front.

Today's attack was indeed a "bloody massacre", but Israel was not content until it had rubbed salt into the bloodied corpses by claiming that they thought there was no one on the obviously packed beach. Meanwhile, the mainstream media sits back and says nothing and American taxpayers continue to allow their government to funnel billions of dollars each year to enable Israel to continue the massacre of innocent Palestinian lives.

With this massacre of Palestinians by Israel on a Gaza beach, Hamas has said today that it will renew its attacks on Israel...how very, very convenient for Israel and its need to perpetuate a state of conflict with a Palestinian enemy in order to pursure its bloodthirsty agenda.

Comment on this Article



Palestine to Say 'Yes' to Israel

Foreign News Desk
zaman.com
June 08, 2006

According to a public opinion poll, 77 percent of the nation approved the plan anticipating a two-state solution and the recognition of Israel, while debates over a "common policy" continue between al-Fatah and the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) in Palestine.

Israeli Khaaretz newspaper yesterday published the results of the public opinion poll conducted by Birzeit University in Ramallah.

The results revealed that Palestinians want to establish a state with Jerusalem as the capital within in Palestine, occupied by Israel since 1967.

The survey revealed 77 percent of the people approved the dossier "prepared by Palestinians held in Israeli prisons," which Israeli leader Mahmoud Abbas tried to introduce to a referendum.

The results also revealed that HAMAS, having won a victory in the Palestinian general elections, has lost a large number of votes, while public support, which was 50 percent in May, dramatically fell to 37 percent in July.


Meanwhile, Abbas said he will announce the referendum date soon.


Comment: Hamas refuses to recognise Israel, even though the majority of Palestinians want them to do this and rightly see such a recognition as a way to ease their suffering.

Hamas declared 'al Zarqawi' a matyr and mourned his death. Osama bin Laden's right hand man, 'Ayman al-Zawahiri' in his most recent video, declared that Palestinians should not support Abbas' referendum that would lead to a recognition of Israel.

Al-Qaeda condemns referendum


Aljazeera has aired a video in which al-Qaeda's number two leader urges Palestinians to reject the referendum proposed by their president and praises Abu Musab al-Zarqawi without mentioning his recent death in Iraq.

Bin Laden, al Zarqawi and al-Zawahiri are all puppets in a US/Israel psychological operation and they and Hamas support each other.

So our question is:

Who are the real players behind Hamas and why is their agenda so similar to that of the phony Islamic terrorists?

The answer is simple and already an established fact: Hamas has Israeli roots.


Comment on this Article


Israeli forces continue daily attacks on Gaza Strip killing three Palestinians

PNN Editor
Kristen Ess
8 June 2006

Palestinian medical sources reported that Israeli forces killed three more Palestinians last night, east of Gaza City. They were "too close to the fence." Israeli soldiers opened fire from their occupation posts along the border, killing the three Palestinians and injuring another four.

From Gaza City's major Al Shifa Hospital, Director of Emergency and Ambulance services, Dr. Juma' Al Saqa, reported that firstly two dead Palestinians arrived and four injured. He confirmed that all shots fired into their bodies were from Israeli soldier bullets, which are well known to the Gaza Strip population as they are frequently pulled not only from men, but also out of the bodies of children, mothers and grandparents. This is the continued devastating condition of life in the Gaza Strip where Israeli forces still control the borders, the sky, the sea, and the infrastructure, including electric and water sources.

The only name among those killed available at first was Khader Qassem, as reported by Al Shifa Hospital. He was a member of the Palestinian National Security Forces.
Later in the night the third person killed was found in bits and pieces, his body scattered throughout the eastern Gaza Strip area. Israeli forces hit him hardest with artillery shelling. That information came directly from Palestinian sources in the northeastern Strip.

The Israeli Radio reported that Israeli soldiers opened fire with machine guns on four Palestinian youths approached them at the border fence separating the Gaza Strip and eastern Israeli territory. The Israeli Radio reported that Israeli soldiers killed one Palestinian and injured the others. However, there are three bodies in Al Shifa's morgue and generally the Israelis are not shy about admitting how many Palestinian they have killed in a day, unless it is a child, a woman, or an elderly person and they give an indirect apology in order to stave off the international outrage that never seems to come.

Palestinian security and medical sources said that the Israeli army contacted them to arrange coordination to send a Palestinian ambulance to the area where there were several people lying on the ground. This time Israeli forces allowed the Palestinian ambulances to gain access, but it was far too late for several.



Comment on this Article


President Abbas Describes Israel's Massacres in Gaza "Annihilation War"

June 9, 2006
WAFA

Ramallah - President Mahmoud Abbas condemned the Israeli killing operations in Gaza Strip, describing them as "annihilation war" against the Palestinian people.

"Undoubtedly what happened in Gaza today are bloody pogroms against safe civilians," said President Abbas in a statement to WAFA "Israeli is committing the biggest crimes of termination against the Palestinian people."

Israel killed on Friday at least seeven citizens, including children and women, as they were by the shore of al-Sudaniyeh, north of Gaza Strip, and other three citizens in a car. Last night, Israel also killed four citizens in the southern Gaza Strip city of Rafah.

President Abbas called on the international community, the UN Security Council and the Quartet to put an end to Israel's haughtiness and crimes against the Palestinian people.




Comment on this Article


It's Palestine That Needs a Right to Exist

Thursday 08 June 2006
Jurnalo

In today's Financial Times, Henry Siegman explores the facts behind Middle-Eastern rhetoric and asks the reader to judge political action and not be blinded by words and speeches, however promising or evil they might appear.

Siegman, the director of the U.S./Middle East Project at the Council on Foreign Relations, focuses on the current Western request that Hamas accept 'Israel's right to exist', which they have refused to do. In light of Palestinian President Abbas' planned referendum to receive that acceptance directly from the Palestinian people, Siegman, citing former Mossad head Efraim Halevy, comments: "Why should Israel care whether Hamas grants it the right to exist [...] Israel exists and Hamas's recognition or non-recognition neither adds to nor detracts from that irrefutable fact."

The real issue, Siegman puts forward, is how Israel perceives Palestinian statehood, concluding that "it is clear that - its many declarations to the contrary not withstanding - Israel does not recognise a Palestinian right to statehood", adding that the partial withdrawals of some settlements merely served "narrow Israeli interests".

Having arrived at this conclusion, the former executive director of the American Jewish Congress states that the most pressing question is not whether Abbas' approach will succeed; but rather whether European Governments will "continue their support of Washington's incurable pandering to Israel's rightwing policies or [...] muster the political will to re-engage with the Palestinian Authority".




Comment on this Article


Israeli generals mull massive operation in West Bank

China Daily
06/06/2006

Israeli army generals have been calling for massive raids and operations in the West Bank in a bid to destroy militants infrastructure there before Israel's further pullout from the region, Israel's Jerusalem Post reported on Tuesday.

The call, made by senior members of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) General Staff, came ahead of a further Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank, which is outlined in Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's convergence plan.

At the moment, the IDF has cut off northern West Bank from the rest of the region to prevent Islamic Jihad militants from entering Israel, said the post.
Concerning the pending military operation in the West Bank, some Israeli generals expressed different opinions on the need for such an operation.

Major General Amos Gilad, head of the Defense Ministry's Political-Military Bureau, was cited by the Post as saying that the main question yet to be decided was whether Israel would retain a military presence in evacuated areas of the West Bank.

"If the army stays there, then there is no need for such an operation, but if the IDF pulls out together with the settlers, then there might be a need for such an operation to destroy terror infrastructure prior to the withdrawal," another high-ranking defense official said.

Olmert has been touring around the world to seek support for his convergence plan since his U.S. visit in May.

Olmert vowed to set Israel's final borders by 2010 by pulling out isolated settlements in the West Bank but keeping bigger ones with or without peace talks with the Palestinian side.

Comment: The term "terrorist infrastructure" is used by Israeli politicians to define anything from a factory making qassam rockets to Palestinian policemen. Israel is a pariah state, recognised by the peoples of the world for its brutal treatment of Palestinian civilians and rightly condemned for it.

Comment on this Article


Israeli strike kills top Hamas enforcer

By IBRAHIM BARZAK
Associated Press
June 8, 2006

GAZA CITY, GAZA Strip - An Israeli airstrike Thursday killed the top Hamas enforcer in the Gaza Strip, Palestinian hospital officials and group members said.

Israel has accused militant faction leader Jamal Abu Samhadana of spearheading rocket attacks on Israel and of the fatal 2003 bombing of a U.S. convoy in the Gaza Strip that killed three American security guards.

Two other people were killed and seven were wounded in a strike on a Popular Resistance Committees training camp.

The 43-year-old militant had been No. 2 on Israel's wanted list and had tried to avoid detection by moving stealthily, switching cars and hideouts.
In an interview last week with The Associated Press, Abu Samhadana railed against the U.S. government, saying he's happy whenever American soldiers are killed and vowed not to take Hamas' 3,000-strong militia off the streets.

The U.S. and Israeli-led boycott of the Hamas-run
Palestinian Authority is "cheap extortion" that only serves "to make our people more attached to the government," he said in the interview, held at a clandestine location chosen by his group.

Abu Samhadana graduated from a military school in then-communist East Germany in 1988. He was loyal to
Yasser Arafat for many years, but was later expelled from Arafat's group Fatah.

He formed the Popular Resistance Committees, a violent group consisting of militants from various factions, after the latest Palestinian uprising broke out in 2000.

His appointment as director general of the Hamas-led Interior Ministry infuriated both Israel and Hamas' Fatah rivals, led by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

After Hamas' victory in Jan. 25 legislative elections, the group deployed its 3,000-strong militia, whose rifle-toting black-clad members guard streets throughout Gaza.

Abu Samhadana has said the force will remain in place despite criticism by Hamas' detractors that it's a major source of friction and instability.



Comment on this Article


US judge rules alleged Hamas operative not tortured by Israel

by Mira Oberman
AFP
Thu Jun 8, 2006

CHICAGO - A US judge ruled that a man accused of supporting Hamas terrorist operations was not tortured by Israeli security forces following his 1993 arrest.

The ruling allows US prosecutors to use incriminating statements made during 55 days of interrogation in order to prosecute Muhammad Salah, a naturalized US citizen, on charges of providing material support to terrorists.

The decision sets a "dangerous example" of allowing coerced confessions obtained by foreign governments into US courts, warned the National Lawyers Guild, a New York-based progressive bar association.
"When our government turns prisoners over to others for torture, as has happened in several cases, or seeks to exploit torture committed by one of our surrogates, as happened in the Salah case, the government demonstrates contempt for our own constitution," guild president Michael Avery said in a statement.

In a 138-page ruling on a motion to suppress the statements, Judge Amy St. Eve determined that Salah's allegations of sleep deprivation and other forms of physical and psychological torture were not credible.

She noted that Salah had not complained of ill-treatment during consular visits and did not show any bruising in news photographs taken shortly after he alleges that he was beaten about the head with a rifle.

She also noted that the tone and transcript of one interrogation which had been taped showed that Salah had a friendly and easy relationship with one of his interrogators who remembered that Salah took two spoons of sugar in his coffee.

"Salah's affidavit is questionable given its inconsistencies with Salah's prior statements and the other evidence presented at the suppression hearing," she wrote.

St. Eve also ruled that two Israeli security forces interrogators were "forthright and truthful" when testifying that Salah was subjected to special treatment because he was an United States citizen and was not tortured.

It was the first time members of Israel's General Security Service, or Shin Bet, had testified in a US court. The six days of testimony were made in closed court and transcripts edited for classified information were later made available. An Israeli police officer also testified.

The interrogators were questioned about their interactions with Salah and the general interrogation tactics used with terrorism suspects.

They admitted that some detainees were forced to sit on a low child's chair and had coverings placed over their heads, but said special orders had been given to treat Salah "differently."

They also described the use of collaborators in prisons to extract information from terrorist suspects in a "bird drill", but those details were withheld from the public record.

Salah's lawyer said the decision to grant credibility to testimony from Shin Bet interrogators showed a lack of understanding of the situation in Israel.

"The problem is she doesn't evaluate them in the context of the environment they operate in where they systematically lie and coerce people," Michael Deutsch told AFP.

"She treated it like it was a bank robbery case in the US where the FBI were the interrogators and they were operating under a whole different set of rules."

A spokesman for the US Attorney's office declined to comment on the ruling.

Salah spent nearly five years in an Israeli prison in the mid-1990s after admitting he committed a number of crimes on behalf of Hamas, which swept to power in January elections this year but remains designated by the United States as a terrorist organization.

He was charged by US prosecutors in August 2004 of involvement in a 15-year racketeering conspiracy in which he provided material support to terrorists along with Abdelhaleem Ashqar of Virginia and Hamas leader Mousa Marzook, who is considered a fugitive living in
Syria.

A jury trial for Salah is scheduled for October in Chicago.



Comment on this Article


Hawkish Israeli Lobby Wants War with Iran

Baltimore Indymedia
25/04/2006

The Israeli Lobby, with others, helped to instigate the Iraqi War. A scholarly report, the "Harvard Study," which was recently released, also documents the "unmatched power" of the Lobby over the national interest. Now, the Bush-Cheney Gang is targeting Iran for a pre-empted strike. Is the hawkish, hard right, pro-Israeli Lobby pushing for a war with Iran, too? Kevin Zeese, an independent candidate for U.S. Senate In MD, thinks that it is.

Washington, D.C. - Kevin Zeese was the first speaker at a public forum held on Monday evening, April 24, 2006, at the West End Neighborhood Library, near the community of Georgetown. The topic for the event was, "Is the Israel Lobby Promoting War on Iran?" He said the question of whether the hawkish, hard-right, pro-Israeli Lobby in America wants to see war with Iran "gets answered in an ad which was in the New York Times, the Financial Times, and other newspapers. It's a full page ad by the American Jewish Committee, put out on April 4th. The center of the bull's eye is Iran and the headline is: 'Can Anyone Within Range of Iran's Missiles Feel Safe?' I think that's a pretty inflammatory ad. It's signed by more than a hundred people...I think it's a pretty strong indication of where the Lobby stands. That isn't the only proof we have that the hawkish Israeli Lobby wants to go to war."
Zeese is the director of DemocracyRising.U.S., an organization working to end the Iraqi War and the Occupation. He was also an ex-press secretary for Ralph Nader in 2004. Presently, Zeese is an independent candidate for the U.S. Senate in Maryland, who is looking to bring together, in a voting block, the combined electoral efforts of the Green, Populist and Libertarian Parties. (1)

The DC Anti-War Network (DAWN) presented the evening program. (2) David Kirshbaum and Carol Moore of DAWN acted as co-moderators for the event and did a splendid job. Other speakers were Simin Royanian and Alex Patico. Alex is a U.S. coordinator of the multi-country "Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran." Ms. Royanian is an economist and the cofounder of the "Women for Peace and Justice in Iran."

Ms. Royanian, in her remarks, pointed to U.S. "militarism and imperialism" as being the root of the problem of injustice around the world and in the Middle East as well, and as posing the main threat to Iran today. She did acknowledge that the Israeli Lobby is "brainwashing" the American people. She also emphasized that Iran is not making "any nuclear weapons." Mr. Patico saw the U.S. government itself as the main issue with respect to Iran. He said it has "exacerbated the situation." Patico asked: "Why did it (the U.S.) put the nuclear option on the table?"

According to DAWN's press release, the focus of the event was the new "Harvard Study on the negative influence of the Israel Lobby and what activists can do about it." (3) The report was authored by Professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt. (4) It generated hostile reactions from Israeli sympathizers, like Alan Dershowitz, David Gergen and the Washington Post. (5) Essentially, the document revealed what most objective observers of the Middle East already knew: The Israeli Lobby, which includes the Neocons, has exercised "unmatched power" over U.S.'s policies to the extent that its role is harmful and not in the national interest. In fact, pundit Charley Reese, was even more blunt. He called Israel, "The dead roach in America's salad." He also accused the Lobby of "beating the drums for war with Iran." (6) Recently, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh revealed, that the Bush([search])-Cheney Gang was planning a nuclear strike against Iran. (7)

Continuing with Zeese's comments, he said: "Another important, hard line group is the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). They have been advocating 'regime change' in a number of Arab counties: Iraq([search]), Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and with the Palestinian Authority for years. JINSA's board of advisors has included many Bush administration leaders: Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Richard Perle, James Woolsey and Douglas Feith...They (JINSA) put a report out on April 12th, called, 'Iran, Iran, Iran and Iran.' Iran, the document said is the 'whole list of national security priorities.' Yes, they want to see 'regime change' in Iran. They want to see an attack on Iran."

It's interesting to note that one of the members of the U.S. Congress, who supports a U.S. air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities is the Israeli Firster, Joseph Lieberman (D-CT). He told the Jerusalem Post, he would, if necessary, advocate such a measure to "deter the development of their nuclear program." (8) What, of course, Lieberman didn't say is that his favorite country, Israel, is suspected of having over 400 nuclear weapons! (9)

Meanwhile, as gas prices soar above $3 a gallon, the resentment in the U.S. towards the Israeli Lobby's role in inflaming that problem, too, can also be expected to grow exponentially. Some fondly recall that before the creation of Israel, the U.S. didn't have any Arab enemies in the oil-producing Middle East and that buying gas for the car wasn't an issue. Other matters, like: Israel's launching of the notorious "Lavon Affair," in 1954; its bulldozing to death, in 2003, of peace activist Rachel Corrie; its deliberate attack in 1967, on the U.S. Liberty; its unleashing of the spy/traitor, Jonathan Pollard; the over $140 billion in dollars in foreign aid that it has extracted from our treasury, since 1948; and the Larry Franklin/Pentagon Spy case, with its ties to American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC)-will continue to simmer in the bosom of many Americans. (10)

There is, too, another factor which causes friction. It is the arrogance of some of the Israel's apologists! Their condescending attitudes and their use of smear tactics towards those who dare to speak out for the good of our Republic is deeply resented by their targets and, too, by the wider community. It reminds some of how the British imperialists regularly abused our gallant patriots before the Revolution. As brave Americans die daily in the Neocon-inspired Iraqi War, and others ingest the toxic depleted uranium dust, those feelings against a militant Israel, and its haughty and schoolyard bully of a Lobby, will only persist. (11)

Finally, in his over fifteen-minute-talk, Zeese underscored the importance of the Harvard Study and how it can open up a discussion on matters that have long been a "taboo topic among elected U.S. politicians." He had high praise for its two authors. Zeese spotlighted for the audience some of the significant items, and findings, contained in the report, including one of their conclusions that Iran is Israel's next target for "regime change." He emphasized that the "lopsided U.S. policy in favor of Israel" needs to be changed. He pointed out that aid to Israel over the last 58 years has far outstripped aid to other nations. He gave as example the fact that, "Aid to Israel is greater than all of U.S. aid to sub-Saharan Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America combined."

Zeese said that our "democracy is threatened by the stifling of debate." He said now is the time to confront that "special relationship. It is evident that the current approach has not benefitted Israel, the Palestinians, the Middle East on the United States." He finished up by urging people who are opposed to any war against Iran "to get organized."



Comment on this Article


Flashback: Beyond Niger: Are All Terrorism Files Forgeries?

By Cyte
November 29, 2005

Operation "Mass Forgery"

Ever wondered why "Islamic terrorism" cases fall apart?

Israel's declared policy is to "work closely with Jordan to destabilize" the Middle East. Jordan is an old ally of Israel.

The bombs in the hotel ceiling may have been part of this continued clandestine collaboration. But there is more.
In the late 1970's, Jordanian intelligence helped Israel execute the most deceptive psychological operation of all times.

The operation was headquartered in the town of Zarqa near Amman, Jordan. "Zarqawi" means "the man from Zarqa," and this Israeli-Jordanian cooperation created many mythical Zarqawis.

Over beer in downtown Amman, Mossad agents discussed the details with their Jordanian counterparts.

Leaflets were printed under the slogans "save your Muslim sisters from rape by infidels in Afghanistan" and "come train for jihad."

Psychedelic Islamic choir chants were created, probably with professional help from Zionist musicians. The chants put listeners in some kind of a trance and moved them to sign up for training in Jordan.

For those young Arabs to think they could train in Jordan to fight the Russians in Afghanistan is like Northern Irish Catholic boys believing that they could train with British cops in the London subway.

Israel's old ally, Jordan, is a small police state and an enemy of Muslim causes. The king of Jordan ordered his troops to shoot at Arabs in 1947 to protect invading Israelis. Religious activists are tortured to death.

But the leaflets told of Russians raping Muslim women while they are crying for help. It made Muslim men feel an extreme sense of duty and guilt. And the chants placed the young listeners on an imaginary mission in the middle of a war and it made them feel invincible.

The poetry challenged mountains to come crumbling down and used similar fantastic exaggerations typical of Arabic poetry. Verses of the Koran were intermingled to give authority to the fantasy.

These unique songs had very powerful psychological effects, especially on a young listener. Arabs had never heard anything like them.

Men with beards from Jordanian intelligence played the roles of imams and martial arts trainers. Mossad agents who spoke Arabic gave lectures on the Islamic virtues of suicide bombings (there are none).

Hundreds of Arabs from different countries flocked to the "training camps" in Zarqa.

The young men were trained in martial arts, they ate hummus together, they listened to lectures and psychedelic chants for three months, and then, it was round-up time.

The purpose of the operation was only to create an illusion of global Islamic suicide terrorism, not real terrorists.

The operation was wrapped up because the illusion was already created, with real people and real records of "jihad training." Jordanian intelligence kept records that would convince foreign prosecutors.

One of the remnants of this mass forgery operation is Zarqawi, the man from Zarqa.

Many trainees perished under torture in Jordanian prisons or were shipped to other Arab countries or to Afghanistan. Few escaped and rejoined normal life.

Chants from the Past

To this day, the 25 year old, powerful psychedelic chants remain unmatched in Arabic music. Those caught listening to them are arrested for subversion.

So how did these chants end up on the Baghdad sniper's video? The middle song on this tape is a recruitment song from 25 years ago. It is the one that calls on mountains to come crumbling down.

I watched the high-quality video. It does not look like something prepared by a man on the run. A man who lists statistics bragging about killing hundreds of American troops, including several snipers.

One of the targets is performing a Christian prayer, just before being shot dead.

No, this is not a documentary of the work of one Iraqi resistance sniper named Juba.

I believe that a team of non-Arab snipers are involved (Israeli contractors? Mercenaries?). I believe that this video is a psy-op meant to inflame Americans, an attempt to fuel the dying war between Christians and Muslims, a war that was started for the sake of Israel.

P.S. Many Arabs have friends and relatives whose kids were lured to Jordan by this recruitment ploy. Just ask an Arab friend who is old enough to know. This is not fiction.



Comment on this Article


Flashback: Ex-officer alleges cover-up in probe of USS Liberty attack

By James W. Crawley
February 17, 2004
Union-Tribune

Ward Boston is an unassuming octogenarian who resides in a gated community on Coronado's Silver Strand.

A retired Navy captain, he hardly attracts attention in a town full of active-duty and retired sailors.

Yet Boston is in the maelstrom of a nearly 37-year-old controversy surrounding Israel's deadly attack on the Navy's spy ship Liberty during the Six-Day War with Egypt, Syria and Jordan. The June 1967 attack killed 34 Americans and wounded 171.

Last October, Boston broke decades of silence and declared that the Navy admiral who investigated the incident had been ordered by President Lyndon Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara to conclude it was a case of mistaken identity, despite evidence to the contrary.

As the chief counsel for the Navy's court of inquiry, Boston had an insider's view.

"I didn't speak up earlier because I was told not to," Boston said in an interview.

His revelation, repeated last month before a State Department conference about the Six-Day War, has rekindled a smoldering debate over how it happened and whether the United States and Israel covered up the truth.

Anti-Israel factions portray Boston's words - true to his legal background, memorialized in two affidavits but rarely spoken to an audience larger than one person - as proof of Israel's guilt.
Israel's supporters, including a federal bankruptcy judge who researched the attack and wrote a book on it, say Boston is lying. Some pin an anti-Semitic badge on his lapel.

On Web pages and through e-mail, an electronic brawl is raging over Boston's disclosures among his admirers and detractors.

But, for the men who survived the attack, Boston's comments endorse views smelted in cordite, blood and smoke.

"We feel we've been vindicated," said James Ennes, the Liberty's officer of the deck the day of the attack, which left him severely wounded.

"We've been saying for 37 years that the court of inquiry was a fraud, that it was corrupted, that it ignored evidence and made findings not supported by the evidence," said Ennes, whose book about the incident claims it was a deliberate Israeli attack.

Boston's cover-up allegation is "enormously significant," said author James Bamford, who has written several books about the super-secret National Security Agency, which analyzed radio intercepts from Liberty and other U.S. surveillance ships.

"It's equivalent to former Supreme Court (Chief) Justice Earl Warren coming out and saying 'the Warren Commission report on (the) Kennedy (assassination) - everything we said was not what we believed, but we were pressured to say it,' " Bamford said.

"It puts an enormous shadow over everything that was in the (Navy) report," he said.

Even with Boston's affidavits and some newly released documents presented at the State Department conference, no consensus was reached on whether the attack was deliberate, accidental or the result of negligence.

The Liberty was a Navy spy ship, plain and simple.

Like its ill-fated sister vessel Pueblo, which was captured by North Korea six months later, the Liberty was festooned with antennas and its cargo holds were converted into top-secret locked compartments lined with receivers where petty officers eavesdropped on other nations' militaries.

During the Six-Day War, the Liberty loitered off the Sinai Peninsula, listening to Israel's lightning victory over Egypt.

On the afternoon of June 8, 1967, Israeli jets strafed the ship. Hours later, Israeli torpedo boats attacked. By the evening, 34 U.S. sailors were dead and 171 injured.

Israel said the attack was a terrible mistake caused by the misidentification of the Liberty as an Egyptian vessel. Investigations followed, including the Navy's court of inquiry.

That's when Ward Boston's involvement began.

If Hollywood had discovered Boston, he could have been the real-life prototype for Cmdr. Harmon Rabb, one of the leads on the television show "JAG."

In the Pacific during World War II, Boston flew harrowing photo-reconnaissance missions over Tokyo and Iwo Jima in Navy Hellcat fighters, sometimes making three passes over a single target - once to take pre-bombing pictures, then joining other planes in attacking the target and, finally, a post-attack pass to photograph the damage.

After the war, Boston went to law school, passed the bar and entered private practice. Meanwhile, he continued to fly Navy fighters as a reservist, including its first jet, the FH-1 Phantom.

In the late 1940s, he joined the FBI and was assigned to field offices in San Francisco and Los Angeles. During the Korean War, he rejoined the Navy, this time as a JAG officer.

By June 1967, Boston was legal officer for then-Rear Adm. Isaac Kidd Jr. when the flag officer was assigned to head the hastily convened inquiry into the Liberty attack.

Unable to interview hospitalized sailors and Israeli military and civilian officials, the investigative panel was given just a week to examine the battered ship, interview survivors and collect radio intercepts and other information.

Boston said it was obvious then who was responsible.

"There's no way in the world that it was an accident," Boston said.

In his affidavits and a recent interview, Boston recounted how he and Kidd discussed their conclusions about the survivors' testimony.

"(Kidd) referred to the Israelis as 'murderous bastards,' " Boston said.

After Kidd delivered the panel's report to Washington officials, Boston said the admiral told him, "they aren't interested in the facts or what happened. It's a political issue. They want to cover it up." Then Kidd admonished Boston to keep silent.

Boston said Kidd told him privately that orders came from Johnson and McNamara to find the incident was a mistake and not a deliberate act.

There is no documentation to support Boston's account.

Kidd died in 1999 at 79 after a career topped by command of the Atlantic Fleet. He never spoke of a cover-up.

The late '60s was the height of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. The Soviets were backing the Arab nations; the United States was allied with Israel. U.S. troops were fully engaged in Vietnam and the United States was fearful of growing Soviet influence, especially in the oil-rich Mideast.

Those who claim the attack was no accident argue that Israel wanted to stop the Liberty from snooping on its military during the war.

Boston kept quiet too, until the 2002 publication of "The Liberty Incident," by Judge Jay Cristol, provoked him.

Cristol's book, based on more than 10 years of research and hundreds of interviews and the collection of thousands of documents, argued that Israeli pilots, sailors and top military officials, in the heat of combat and the fog of war, were unaware the Liberty was a U.S. ship, mistaking it for an Egyptian vessel.

The two men spoke twice during the 1990s while Cristol researched his book, but Boston said recently that he only discussed his career and did not reveal details of the inquiry.

"It is Cristol's insidious attempt to whitewash the facts that has pushed me to speak out," Boston said in a Jan. 8 affidavit, read by Bamford at the State Department conference last month. Boston did not attend the conference.

Boston's affidavit was passed to Bamford by a friend who believes that Israel is responsible for the attack on the Liberty.

The judge, during a recent telephone interview, discounted Boston's contention that Johnson and McNamara covered up Israel complicity.

"I think those (accusations) are kind of nonsense," Cristol said.

Cristol - also a former Navy pilot and JAG officer - said Boston's comments show that he either lied in 1967 by knowingly filing a false report or that his memory has changed with age.

Referring to Cristol, Boston said, "I'm not going to get into a spitting contest with a skunk."

He also rejected suggestions that he is anti-Semitic, while acknowledging some sympathy for the plight of Palestinian refugees.

As he splits his day between local organizations and daily visits to the gym to loosen up arthritic joints, Boston remains largely oblivious to the electronic cacophony of e-mail and Internet chat that makes him out to be either a patriot or a patsy for anti-Israel factions.

That's because Boston doesn't have a computer. Friends print out and pass along Internet postings mentioning him or his statements.

"I'm a dinosaur," he said. "I use a pencil with an eraser and a typewriter."



Comment on this Article


Bogeymen


A Small Rabbit Out of a Big Hat

Stan Goff
June 8, 2006

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is apparently dead. The United States armed forces in Iraq have been bombing al-Zarqawi hideouts almost weekly since May 2004 when American businessman Nicholas Berg was shockingly beheaded on film, and someone claiming to be Zarqawi is said to have taken credit for it. With a $25 million reward on his head, there were surely a series of tragic mistakes based on opportunistic calls.

It's hard to say who was more interested in transforming the Jordanian Bedouin fighter, formerly Ahmad Fadhil Nazzal al-Khalayleh, into a legend - Zarqawi himself or the American military. Now the Bush administration will reap the short-term reward for this dramatis persona and the long-term grief. This is the latest symbolic rabbit that the adminsitration has pulled out of the hat labeled "turing the corner." The press will tune in and turn on to this docudrama with monotonous predictability. The Bush adminisitration will get a little bump in the polls as people divert their attention from its other political chicaneries and snatch at the last threads of hope that: the war is about terrorism, after all, and we are the good guys; the lives lost will not be in vain, and we will really "turn the corner" this time... the Iraqis and the world will see that we are a benign and beneficial nation.

But the attention deficit disorder of the media and a society inebriated on the instant-gratification of the consumer bacchanalia will watch this triumphalism fade, in days, not weeks, and the grating realities of our culture's meaningless drudgery and vacuous need to be entertained, the steadily mounting casualties, rising gas prices, the Haditha massacres... all of it, will return. When it does, the draught will be that much more bitter. The war will continue. The blood will spill. Even fewer people will retain the capacity to fall, yet again, for the old Turning-The-Corner parlor trick.

Moreover, the Pentagon and the White House will have lost the personification of evil that Zarqawi represented to justify the war. As Scott McClellan - before his ticket was punched - said hundreds of times, like one of those dolls with a string on its back, "Iraq is the front line in the global war on terror." Zarqawi was the ultimate "foreign fighter," one who willingly adopted the name "al Qaeda in Iraq," feeding the mistaken notion that there is actually an organization called al Qaeda, an official enemy that is global and eternal, and now manifest on this particular part of the oil patch.

Just this year, the Washington Post published a documents showing that the Pentagon had an active program to legendize Zarqawi.

"The Zarqawi campaign is discussed in several of the internal military documents. 'Villainize Zarqawi/leverage xenophobia response,' one U.S. military briefing from 2004 stated. It listed three methods: 'Media operations,' 'Special Ops (626)' (a reference to Task Force 626, an elite U.S. military unit assigned primarily to hunt in Iraq for senior officials in Hussein's government) and 'PSYOP,' the U.S. military term for propaganda work..." (Washington Post, 10 April 2006)

Leverage xenophobia response.

The Pentagon public relations staff, with the active assistance of an obsequious US press, successfully portrayed Zarqawi as a one-man dynamo, an evil genius who was single-handedly running most of the "insurgency" in Iraq, a take-off on the earlier theme of foreign fighters being the majority of the resistance. This, and we should remember when the British SAS was caught in the act of planting bombs last year that would have been attributed, undoubtedly, to Zarqawi.

"They won't have Ahmad Fadhil Nazzal al-Khalayleh to kick around any more," to coin a phrase. No they won't; and it will be their loss. Zarqawi will be sorely missed in Washington.

The rabbits in the Turn-The-Corner hat get smaller with each passing day.



Comment on this Article


Unreported: The Zarqawi Invitation

by Greg Palast
09/06/2006


They got him -- the big, bad, beheading berserker in Iraq. But, something's gone unreported in all the glee over getting Zarqawi ... who invited him into Iraq in the first place?

If you prefer your fairy tales unsoiled by facts, read no further. If you want the uncomfortable truth, begin with this: A phone call to Baghdad to Saddam's Palace on the night of April 21, 2003. It was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on a secure line from Washington to General Jay Garner.
The General had arrived in Baghdad just hours before to take charge of the newly occupied nation. The message from Rumsfeld was not a heartwarming welcome. Rummy told Garner, Don't unpack, Jack -- you're fired.

What had Garner done? The many-starred general had been sent by the President himself to take charge of a deeply dangerous mission. Iraq was tense but relatively peaceful. Garner's job was to keep the peace and bring democracy.

Unfortunately for the general, he took the President at his word. But the general was wrong. "Peace" and "Democracy" were the slogans.

"My preference," Garner told me in his understated manner, "was to put the Iraqis in charge as soon as we can and do it in some form of elections."

But elections were not in The Plan.

The Plan was a 101-page document to guide the long-term future of the land we'd just conquered. There was nothing in it about democracy or elections or safety. There was, rather, a detailed schedule for selling off "all [Iraq's] state assets" -- and Iraq, that's just about everything -- "especially," said The Plan, "the oil and supporting industries." Especially the oil.

There was more than oil to sell off. The Plan included the sale of Iraq's banks, and weirdly, changing it's copyright laws and other odd items that made the plan look less like a program for Iraq to get on its feet than a program for corporate looting of the nation's assets. (And indeed, we discovered at BBC, behind many of the odder elements -- copyright and tax code changes -- was the hand of lobbyist Jack Abramoff's associate Grover Norquist.)

But Garner didn't think much of The Plan, he told me when we met a year later in Washington. He had other things on his mind. "You prevent epidemics, you start the food distribution program to prevent famine."

Seizing title and ownership of Iraq's oil fields was not on Garner's must-do list. He let that be known to Washington. "I don't think [Iraqis] need to go by the U.S. plan, I think that what we need to do is set an Iraqi government that represents the freely elected will of the people." He added, "It's their country ... their oil."

Apparently, the Secretary of Defense disagreed. So did lobbyist Norquist. And Garner incurred their fury by getting carried away with the "democracy" idea: he called for quick elections -- within 90 days of the taking of Baghdad.

But Garner's 90-days-to-elections commitment ran straight into the oil sell-off program. Annex D of the plan indicated that would take at least 270 days -- at least 9 months.

Worse, Garner was brokering a truce between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. They were about to begin what Garner called a "Big Tent" meeting to hammer out the details and set the election date. He figured he had 90 days to get it done before the factions started slitting each other's throats.

But a quick election would mean the end of the state-asset sell-off plan: An Iraqi-controlled government would never go along with what would certainly amount to foreign corporations swallowing their entire economy. Especially the oil. Garner had spent years in Iraq, in charge of the Northern Kurdish zone and knew Iraqis well. He was certain that an asset-and-oil grab, "privatizations," would cause a sensitive population to take up the gun. "That's just one fight you don't want to take on right now."

But that's just the fight the neo-cons at Defense wanted. And in Rumsfeld's replacement for Garner, they had a man itching for the fight. Paul Bremer III had no experience on the ground in Iraq, but he had one unbeatable credential that Garner lacked: Bremer had served as Managing Director of Kissinger and Associates.

In April 2003, Bremer instituted democracy Bush style: he canceled elections and appointed the entire government himself. Two months later, Bremer ordered a halt to all municipal elections including the crucial vote to Shia seeking to select a mayor in the city of Najaf. The front-runner, moderate Shia Asad Sultan Abu Gilal warned, "If they don't give us freedom, what will we do? We have patience, but not for long." Local Shias formed the "Mahdi Army," and within a year, provoked by Bremer's shutting their paper, attacked and killed 21 U.S. soldiers.

The insurgency had begun. But Bremer's job was hardly over. There were Sunnis to go after. He issued "Order Number One: De-Ba'athification." In effect, this became "De-Sunni-fication."

Saddam's generals, mostly Sunnis, who had, we learned, secretly collaborated with the US invasion and now expected their reward found themselves hunted and arrested. Falah Aljibury, an Iraqi-born US resident who helped with the pre-invasion brokering, told me, "U.S. forces imprisoned all those we named as political leaders," who stopped Iraq's army from firing on U.S. troops.

Aljibury's main concern was that busting Iraqi collaborators and Ba'athist big shots was a gift "to the Wahabis," by which he meant the foreign insurgents, who now gained experienced military commanders, Sunnis, who now had no choice but to fight the US-installed regime or face arrest, ruin or death. They would soon link up with the Sunni-defending Wahabi, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was committed to destroying "Shia snakes."

And the oil fields? It was, Aljibury noted, when word got out about the plans to sell off the oil fields (thanks to loose lips of the US-appointed oil minister) that pipelines began to blow. Although he had been at the center of planning for invasion, Aljibury now saw the greed-crazed grab for the oil fields as the fuel for a civil war that would rip his country to pieces:

"Insurgents," he said, "and those who wanted to destabilize a new Iraq have used this as means of saying, 'Look, you're losing your country. You're losing your leadership. You're losing all of your resources to a bunch of wealthy people. A bunch of billionaires in the world want to take you over and make your life miserable.' And we saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, of course, built on -- built on the premise that privatization [of oil] is coming."

General Garner, watching the insurgency unfold from the occupation authority's provocations, told me, in his understated manner, "I'm a believer that you don't want to end the day with more enemies than you started with."

But you can't have a war president without a war. And you can't have a war without enemies. "Bring 'em on," our Commander-in-Chief said. And Zarqawi answered the call.



Comment on this Article


Hubub in Hibhib: The Timely Death of al-Zarqawi

Chris Floyd
Thursday, 08 June 2006

Abu Musab Saddam Osama al-Zarqawi, the extremely elusive if not entirely mythical terrorist mastermind responsible for every single insurgent action in Iraq except for the ones caused by the red-tailed devils in Iran or the stripey-tailed devils in Syria, has reportedly been killed in an airstrike in Hibhib, an area north of Baghdad, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki announced today.

Zarqawi, the notorious shape-shifter who, according to grainy video evidence, was able to regenerate lost limbs, speak in completely different accents, alter the contours of his bone structure and also suffered an unfortunate binge-and-purge weight problem which caused him to change sizes with almost every appearance, was head of an organization that quite fortuitously dubbed itself "Al Qaeda in Iraq" just around the time that the Bush Administration began changing its pretext for the conquest from "eliminating Iraq's [non-existent] weapons of mass destruction" to "fighting terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them over here."
The name change of the Zarqawi gang from its cumbersome original - "The Monotheism and Holy War Group" - to the more media-sexy "Qaeda" brand was thus a PR godsend for the Bush Administration, which was then able to associate the widespread native uprising against the Coalition occupation with the cave-dwelling dastards of the bin Laden organization. This proved an invaluable tool for the Pentagon's massive "psy-op" campaign against the American people, which was successful in sufficiently obscuring reality and defusing rising public concerns about what many experts have termed "the full-blown FUBAR" in Iraq until after the 2004 elections.

However, in the last year, even the reputed presence of a big stonking al Qaeda beheader guy roaming at will across the land has not prevented a catastrophic drop in support for President Bush in general and the war in Iraq in particular. Polls show that substantial majorities - even those still psy-oped into believing the conquest has something to do with fighting terrorism - are now saying that the war "is not worth it" and call for American forces to begin withdrawing.

With the Zarqawi theme thus producing diminishing returns, the Administration has had another stroke of unexpected luck with his reputed sudden demise. Moreover, the fact that Zarqawi was killed in a military action means that Mr. Bush will not have to cough up the $25 million reward placed on the head of the terrorist chieftain. That money will now be given to Mr. Bush's favorite charity, Upper-Class Twits Against the Inheritance Tax, an Administration spokesman said.

Despite its fortuitousness, the reputed death of the multi-legged brigand came as no real surprise. After all, approximately 376 of his "top lieutenants" had been killed or captured by Coalition forces in the past three years, according to press reports, and some 5,997 lower-ranking "al Qaeda terrorists" have been killed in innumerable operations during that same period, according to Pentagon press releases. With the widespread, on-going, much-publicized decimation of his group, Zarqawi had obviously been rendered isolated and ineffective - except of course for the relentless series of high-profile terrorist spectaculars he kept carrying out, according to other Pentagon press releases.

News of the reputed rub-out brought bipartisan praise. "This enormous victory in the War on Terror is due entirely to the courage and wisdom of the president," squealed Senate Majority Leader Lick Spittle of Tennessee. "He has seen us through when so many of the flag-burning destroyers of marriage wanted to cut and run. I think this president is the best president the world has ever seen, and if I am ever fortunate enough to be chosen as president by the American people - minus the three million or so whose votes will be discarded, lost, inadvertently mangled or just ignored, of course - I promise I'll be a president just like him!"

"We must give credit where credit is due," said Democratic Sen. Joe Biden, in a rare television appearance. "I have my differences with the way the Administration is conducting this war, but the elimination of Zarqawi is, I believe, a turning point, comparable to the capture of Saddam Hussein, the first Iraqi elections, the second Iraqi elections, the formation of the first Iraqi government and the formation of the second Iraqi government. This is not the end, or even the beginning of the end, but it is, I believe, the end of the beginning. And no, I didn't plagiarize that. I made it up my own self."

The reputed end of Zarqawi's reign of terror comes a mere four years after U.S. forces had pinpointed his hideout and were prepared to destroy his entire operation, only to be forestalled by the White House. Before the war, Zarqawi and his band of non-Iraqi Islamic extremists had a camp in northern Iraq, in territory controlled by American-backed Kurdish forces, who had wrested it from the hands of Saddam Hussein. U.S. Special Forces, CIA agents and other American personnel had a free hand to operate there; indeed, anti-Saddam Iraqi exiles held open meetings in the territory, safe from the reach of the dictator.

In June 2002, American forces had locked in on Zarqawi's location. They prepared a detailed attack plan that would have destroyed the terrorist band. But their request to strike was turned down not once, but twice by the White House. Administration officials feared that such a strike would have muddied the waters in their public relations effort to foment war fever against Saddam's regime.

At every turn, the Bush team had painted a picture of Saddam Hussein as a powerful dictator able to threaten the entire world. They had implied, insinuated and sometimes openly declared that he was in league with al Qaeda. But this wildly successful psy-ops campaign would have been undermined by a raid on Zarqawi, which would have exposed the truth: that Saddam was a crippled, toothless despot who had lost control of much of his own land and couldn't even threaten vast enemy armies within his own borders - much less his neighbors or the rest of the world. It would have also exposed the fact that the only Islamic terrorists operating on Iraqi soil were in areas controlled by America and its allies - which, now that Mr. Bush's invasion has opened the whole country to extremist terror, is still the case.

With Zarqawi's Bush-granted liberty reputedly at an end, the Pentagon moved quickly to confirm the identity of the man killed in Hibhib today. At a joint press conference with Prime Minister Maliki, U.S. Gen. George Casey said Zarqawi's body had been identified by "fingerprints, facial recognition and known scars" after a painstaking forensic examination by Lt. Col. Gil Grissom and Major Catherine Willows.

In yet another amazing coincidence, the announcement of the death of Zarqawi or somebody just like him came just as Prime Minister Maliki was finally submitting his candidates for the long-disputed posts of defense and interior ministers, which then sailed through parliament after months of deadlock. The fortuitous death also came after perhaps the worst week of bad PR the Bush Administration has endured during the entire war, with an outpouring of stories alleging a number of horrific atrocities committed by U.S. troops in recent months.

Oddly enough, Zarqawi first vaulted into the American consciousness just after the public exposure of earlier U.S. atrocities: the tortures at Abu Ghraib prison in the spring of 2004. With story after story of horrible abuse battering the Administration during an election year, Zarqawi, or someone just like him, suddenly appeared with a Grand Guignol production: the beheading of American civilian Nick Berg. This atrocity was instantly seized upon by supporters of the war to justify the "intensive interrogation" of "terrorists" - even though the Red Cross had determined that 70 to 90 percent of American captives at that time had committed no crime whatsoever, much less been involved in terrorism, as the notorious anti-war Wall Street Journal reported. Abu Ghraib largely faded from the public eye - indeed, it was not mentioned by a single speaker at the Democratic National Convention a few weeks later or raised as an issue during the presidential campaign that year.

Today's news has likewise knocked the new atrocity allegations off the front pages, to be replaced with heartening stories of how, as the New York Times reports, Zarqawi's death "appears to mark a major watershed in the war." Thus in his reputed end as in his reputed beginning, the Scarlet Pimpernel of Iraq has, by remarkable coincidence, done yeoman service for the immediate publicity needs of his deadly enemy, the Bush Administration.

It is not yet known who will now take Zarqawi's place as the new all-purpose, all-powerful bogeyman solely responsible for every bad thing in Iraq. There were recent indications that Maliki himself was being measured for the post, after he publicly denounced American atrocities and the occupiers' propensity for hair-trigger killing of civilians, but he seems to be back with the program now. Administration insiders are reportedly divided over shifting the horns to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's already much-demonized head, or planting them on extremist Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, or elevating some hitherto unknown local talent - or maybe just blaming the whole shebang on Fidel Castro, for old times' sake.

The announcement of the new bogeyman is expected sometime in the coming weeks.

***

UPDATE: It looks like the Twits might not get that reward money after all. Prime Minister Maliki said that those who helped locate Zarqawi, or someone just like him, in Hibhib, would get their reward later: "We believe in honoring our commitments." However, the (London) Times' man in Iraq, Ned Parker, tells us that Zazqawi might have been shopped to the Americans by Iraqi insurgents:

One of the most interesting things about the news of his death is the timing. There have been talks going on since the election last December by US and Iraqi officials to try to bring the homegrown insurgency back into the political process. Certainly there was tension between the homegrown Iraqi insurgency and Zarqawi's foreign fighters. So it's possible a deal was finally cut by some branch of the Iraqi insurgency to eliminate al-Zarqawi and rid themselves of his heavy-handed influence.


So if Bush does decide to pay off the informants -- and it's his money, after all, not Maliki's; in fact, in today's Iraq, any money that Maliki's government might still have left after three years of occupation rapine is Bush's money too -- but if Zarqawi's rumblers are paid off, then it's likely that Bush will be forking over $25 million to Iraq's Sunni insurgents. That will certainly keep them flush with IEDs for a long time to come. It's FUBAR every which way you turn in Bush's Babylon.

Comment:
The announcement of the new bogeyman is expected sometime in the coming weeks.
It has already happened. What has been happening in the past several months? The "real threat" has moved from Iraq to Iran. Bush and gang can't have everyone focused on al-Zarqawi; they need Americans to direct all their attention on Iran's leaders. It is the next psy-ops campaign, and despite the fact that it is exactly the same one used against Iraq and Saddam, it seems to be working!


Comment on this Article


Father of beheaded man blames Bush, not Zarqawi

By Jon Hurdle
Reuters
06/08/06

PHILADELPHIA - Michael Berg, whose son Nick was beheaded in Iraq in 2004, said on Thursday he felt no sense of relief at the killing of the al Qaeda leader in Iraq and blamed President Bush for his son's death.

Asked what would give him satisfaction, Berg, an anti-war activist and candidate for U.S. Congress, said, "The end of the war and getting rid of George Bush."

The United States said its aircraft killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the insurgent leader who masterminded the death of hundreds in suicide bombings and was blamed for the videotaped beheading of Nick Berg, a U.S. contractor, and other captives.

"I don't think that Zarqawi is himself responsible for the killings of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq," Berg said in a combative television interview with the U.S. Fox News network. "I think George Bush is."
"George Bush is the one that invaded this country, George Bush is the one that destabilized it so that Zarqawi could get in, so that Zarqawi had a need to get in, to defend his region of the country from American invaders."

Berg said Bush was to blame for the torture of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.

"Yeah, like George Bush didn't OK the torture and death and rape of people in the Abu Ghraib prison for which my son was killed in retaliation?" he told his Fox interviewers.

Comment: It is funny, isn't it? If Bush did okay the torture and the murder in Iraq, then he is a war criminal. If he didn't, then he is completely unaware of what his administration is doing - in which case he is a completely powerless and incompetent puppet and should be thrown out of office anyway. Either way, Bush has to go. So why aren't Americans protesting en masse in the streets??


In a telephone interview with Reuters from his home in Wilmington, Delaware, the father said: "I have no sense of relief, just sadness that another human being had to die."

Berg, who is running as a Green Party candidate, has repeatedly blamed Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for his 26-year-old son's death.

Nick Berg's videotaped beheading by hooded captors was posted on the Internet, and the father said he could understand what Zarqawi's family was going through.

"I have learned to forgive a long time ago, and I regret mostly that that will bring about another wave of revenge from his cohorts from al Qaeda," he told Fox.

Zarqawi's organization took responsibility for the execution of Nick Berg in May 2004. The video was published with a caption saying: "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi slaughtering an American."

When an Islamist Web site showed the video of a man severing Berg's head, the CIA said Zarqawi was probably the one wielding the knife. The father said he was not convinced.

"I have been lied to by my own government," he told Reuters on Thursday.



Comment on this Article


Baghdad under curfew in fear of Zarqawi successors

by Paul Schemm
AFP
Fri Jun 9, 2006

BAGHDAD - Baghdad was placed under curfew to enhance security in the wake of two evening bombings in marketplaces that followed news that Al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had been killed.

Even as US and Iraqi officials predicted that Zarqawi's surviving lieutenants would launch new attacks to assert their organization's continued presence in the country, two car bombs exploded in predominantly Shiite neighborhoods killing 15 people.

"The curfew is a measure to keep people indoors as there could be more bombings like the ones last night, following Zarqawi's death," a defense ministry official said.
Vehicles will be banned from the streets of Baghdad and nearby Baquba, close to where Zarqawi was killed, from 11:00 am (0700 GMT) until 5:00 pm (1300 GMT), coinciding with Friday prayers.

Zarqawi was killed Wednesday in a joint US-Iraqi raid.

US F-16 war planes dropped two 500-pound bombs on him and some associates as they were huddled in a meeting at a safe house.

Imposition of curfews in Baghdad and Baquba addresses the main question in the wake of Zarqawi's killing, namely the extent to which his death will affect the wave of violence claiming dozens of lives across the country each day.

In marked contrast to the aggressive and victorious rhetoric characteristic of the weeks after the fall of Saddam Hussein in April 2003, or even Saddam's capture that December, US officials have been remarkably cautious.

US President George W. Bush described the event as a "victory" in the war on terror and a chance to "turn the tide."

But he warned that terrorists and insurgents behind violence that has claimed the lives of nearly 2,500 US troops and left many more wounded will "carry on without him (Zarqawi).

"We have tough days ahead of us in Iraq that will require the continued patience of the American people," he said.

US forces spokesman Major General William Caldwell said: "We must be careful not to be overly optimistic, as one man's life does not signal an end to an insurgency."

Websites devoted to Al-Qaeda and other jihadist causes have been flooded with messages of support for the organization and pledges to continue the fight.

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, one of the architects of the war in Iraq, described Zarqawi's death, at the very least, as a major setback for the organization.

"To replace that is not impossible but it takes time, it takes effort, it takes building up relationships and it is unquestionably a stunning shock to the Al-Qaeda system," he said.

Iraq watchers, however, have said the bulk of the Iraqis opposing US troops are nationalists and Saddam loyalists, with foreign Islamic fighters representing only five to seven percent of the anti-US forces.

"The past tendency to demonize both Zarqawi and Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia has been dangerously misleading," said Anthony Cordesman of Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies.

"The insurgency is far more complex and robust."

The US military, however, has always described Al-Qaeda as a key segment of the insurgency since it carries out a disproportionate number of suicide attacks and focuses its efforts on killing civilians and inciting sectarian civil war.

The February 22 bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra, attributed to Al-Qaeda, unleashed a wave of sectarian killing throughout the country that has claimed the lives of thousands and continues in place like Baghdad and Baquba.

In his announcement of Zarqawi's death, Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was blunt about any supporters hoping to continue the Jordanian born militant's work.

"Anyone who looks to emulate Zarqawi, we will find him and kill, this is an open war between unified Iraqi people and sectarianism," he said.

Nearly lost amid all the attention surrounding Zarqawi's death, was a significant event for Maliki's fledgling government as he managed to finally get his choices for security ministries approved.

Finding an interior minister that all the Shiite parties could agree on proved particularly difficult, but parliament gave overwhelming approval to Jawad Polani, an independent Shiite politician with a military background.

Together with the new defense minister, Sunni and former general Abdel Qader al-Obeidi, Polani will have to bring the country's security services under control and implement a new Baghdad security plan to calm the restive capital.

Baghdad, home to a quarter of the country's population, is second only to the Sunni-dominated western province of Al-Anbar as the focus of much of the violence in the country.



Comment on this Article


Bush: Zarqawi death may 'turn the tide' in Iraq

by Olivier Knox
AFP
Fri Jun 9, 2006

WASHINGTON - Asking for patience with the war in Iraq, US President George W. Bush hailed the killing of Al-Qaeda's leader there, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, as a chance to "turn the tide" of the conflict.

Bush also welcomed the long-awaited completion of Iraq's new government and said he would discuss the future of the US military presence there with top US officials on Monday and with Iraq's leaders on Tuesday.

"Zarqawi's death is a severe blow to Al-Qaeda. It's a victory in the global war on terror, and it is an opportunity for Iraq's new government to turn the tide of this struggle," Bush said Thursday in the White House Rose Garden.
The president praised US forces who, acting on intelligence tips from Iraqis, "delivered justice" to Zarqawi in the most dramatic US operation since Saddam Hussein's capture in December 2003.

But he warned that terrorists and insurgents behind violence that has claimed the lives of nearly 2,500 US troops and left many more wounded will "carry on without him" and as sectarian violence continues.

"We have tough days ahead of us in Iraq that will require the continued patience of the American people," he said.

Bush said he congratulated Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on finally completing his government by naming interior, security and defense ministers, and promised "full support" from the United States.

Bush gave no explicit sign of what this might mean for the fate of 130,000 US troops in the country but said he would meet with his top security aides Monday at Camp David to discuss "the way forward."

Bush said he would consult with top US diplomats and military commanders and hold a teleconference discussion on Tuesday bringing in Maliki and members of Iraq's first permanent cabinet since Saddam's ouster three years ago.

"Together, we will discuss how to best deploy America's resources in Iraq and achieve our shared goal of an Iraq that can govern itself, defend itself and sustain itself," said the US leader.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said there would be no "snap change" in troop levels, saying: "The death of Zarqawi does not change overnight the situation."

"The ultimate objective is for the Iraqis to take full responsibility and for the Americans to come home, but there is certainly no timetable and that's not going to be part of the discussion," he said.

Bush on Thursday also discussed the killing of Zarqawi by telephone with Jordan's King Abdullah II and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones said.

Bush and Abdullah "discussed the removal of al-Zarqawi and noted the significance of it," while Olmert "congratulated the president ... noting that he understands such achievements are ...difficult and complex," Jones said.

Bush has seen his standing in public opinion polls plummet to the lowest level for a US president in a generation, with three in five Americans believing the March 2003 invasion to topple Saddam was a mistake amid mounting calls for a quick US withdrawal.

With the war set to shape key congressional elections in November, the White House has sought to emphasize good news out of Iraq and complain that the US media has improperly focused on the insurgents' spectacular acts of violence.

If recent history is an indication, any bump Bush gets in the polls from Zarqawi's demise might be temporary.

His popularity rose, but only marginally, in the days after Saddam's capture on December 13, 2003.

But his ratings tumbled below 50 percent barely two months later, after confirmation that the weapons of mass destruction at the core of his public case for war had not been found.

Bush first learned around 4:35 p.m. on Wednesday (2035 GMT) that Zarqawi might have been killed, telling aides "that would be a good thing" but not the end of fighting in Iraq, according to White House spokesman Tony Snow.

"This certainly has to be dispiriting to members of the opposition in Iraq. They now know that the most protected man, at least in terms of terror networks, was not safe," said Snow.

General Peter Pace, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, later told Bush national security adviser
Stephen Hadley at 9:10 pm Wednesday (0110 Thursday) that Zarqawi's body had been identified, said the spokesman.

DNA identification will probably not be available for another 24 hours, said Snow.

"General Pace called Hadley at 9:10 and informed him that the fingerprints and other body markings, and it may have been tattoos, I know that scars were also part of it, confirmed it was Zarqawi," said Snow.

Bush got confirmation from Hadley at 9:20 p.m. (0120 GMT Thursday).

Comment: First, it was Osama under the bed in Afghanistan. Then al-Zarqawi came back from the dead as America's most talked about enemy in the "war on terror" in Iraq. Now that Zarqawi is officially dead and the Neocons' new target is Iran, guess who the new bad guy is?

Comment on this Article


UN watchdog says Iran accelerated uranium enrichment

by Michael Adler
AFP
Thu Jun 8, 2006

VIENNA - Iran accelerated uranium enrichment on the same day this week that world powers asked it to halt the work and open talks on guaranteeing it will not make nuclear weapons, the UN atomic agency said in a report obtained by AFP.

Iran stepped up enrichment on June 6 -- the same day
European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana visited Tehran to present a package of benefits to be discussed if Iran would suspend uranium enrichment, which makes nuclear reactor fuel or in highly refined form atom bomb material, the report said.
On that Tuesday, it said, Iran started feeding the raw material of uranium hexafluoride gas, or UF6, into a connected series of 164 centrifuges -- known as a cascade -- to produce enriched uranium.

Iran is also building new production lines of the centrifuges that carry out the sensitive nuclear work, the
International Atomic Energy Agency said in a confidential report to be discussed by the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors next week in Vienna.

The damaging report appears to dash hopes Iran is preparing an immediate pause in its nuclear fuel activities in order to start talks with six major powers on guaranteeing its program is peaceful.

"This just shows that there's a long way to go before there's a deal," nuclear analyst David Albright told AFP from his ISIS think tank in Washington.

The report also said IAEA inspectors had found new traces of highly enriched uranium on equipment on Iran.

But it was unclear whether the enriched uranium traces were contaminants from equipment Tehran had purchased abroad or from enrichment that had been carried out by Iran.

A European diplomat in Vienna described the report as negative on all accounts for Iran.

But the diplomat said this was not "crucial" since what mattered was getting Iran and the US-led "Iran six" of world powers to find a way of getting down to talks.

Tehran says it is seeking solely to develop a civilian nuclear power program but Washington and the European Union fear this is a cover for building nuclear weapons.

"Iran is continuing its installation work on other 164-machine cascades," said the report from the IAEA chief, Mohamed ElBaradei.

Iran built the cascade as a pilot plant for what it hopes will eventually be an industrial plant of more than 50,000 centrifuges, used to refine out the uranium 235 isotope.

At no time had Iran actually halted feeding uranium gas into centrifuges since making a first batch on April 11, a UN official said.

During a pause in feeding the 164-centrifuge cascade, but leaving it running empty for technical reasons, it had fed the gas into two single centrifuge machines.

London-based analyst Mark Fitzpatrick said: "This will strengthen Washington's resolve that full and complete suspension of Iran's nuclear fuel program has to be a condition for negotiations to begin, including no centrifuges spinning at all."

A UN official said the Iranians had fed "10s of kilos (pounds) into the system so far" and have produced only small amounts, "grams and hundreds of grams," of enriched uranium.

Iran also has produced 118 tonnes of uranium hexafluoride gas at its Isfahan plant since August. The "new conversion campaign" that began June 6 involved more than 30 tonnes of uranium ore to be converted into uranium gas, a senior UN official said.

These quantities would yield enough material for over 20 nuclear bombs, experts say.

According to the report Iran had also:

-- Failed to clear up IAEA questions over high-tech centrifuges it may have acquired.

-- Left unanswered questions over secret military projects that could be related to making nuclear weapons.

-- Failed to comply with a request to halt work on a heavy-water reactor that would make plutonium, another potential atomic weapons material.

Iran has consistently refused to halt its uranium enrichment program and said Thursday that while it was open to talks with the West, nuclear technology was not up for discussion.

The last IAEA report on April 28 had also said Iran was not heeding an IAEA call to suspend uranium enrichment.

Iran started last August to make feedstock uranium hexafluoride gas, which it then fed into centrifuges in February this year, producing enriched uranium from April.

The quality of enriched uranium being produced in April was appropriate for nuclear reactor fuel and was not the highly-enriched variety needed to make weapons.



Comment on this Article


Iran confirms stepping up nuclear activities

AFP
Jun 09, 2006

An Iranian official has confirmed that the country has stepped up its nuclear activities, following a report from the UN atomic agency that said Iran has accelerated uranium enrichment.

"Iran has started another stage of injecting hexafluoride gas into centrifuge machines," the student news agency ISNA quoted an unnamed official as saying on Friday.
"Iran is also pursuing a plan to have a 3,000-centrifuge cascade by the end of the current year (March 2007)," he noted, adding that all the material used in uranium enrichment facilities has been produced domestically.

A report from the International Atomic Energy Agency obtained by AFP on Thursday said that Iran had accelerated uranium enrichment on June 6, the same day world powers asked it to halt the work and open talks to guarantee it will not make nuclear weapons.

On that Tuesday, European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana visited Tehran to present a package of benefits aimed at enticing Iran to suspend uranium enrichment.

Enriched uranium makes nuclear reactor fuel, and in a highly refined form can produce atom bomb material.

"Iran is continuing its installation work on other 164-machine cascades," said the report from the IAEA chief, Mohamed ElBaradei.

Iran built the cascade as a pilot plant for what it hopes will eventually be an industrial plant of more than 50,000 centrifuges, used to refine the uranium 235 isotope.

Iran started last August to make feedstock uranium hexafluoride gas, which it then fed into centrifuges in February this year. It produced enriched uranium beginning in April.

The quality of enriched uranium being produced in April was appropriate for nuclear reactor fuel and was not the highly-enriched variety needed to make weapons.



Comment on this Article


Amerika


Richard Perle reveals US War Plans in the Iranian Theater

by Dr. Michael Carmichael
June 7, 2006
GlobalResearch.ca

A New "Perle Harbor": Neocon Foreign Policy Architect Richard Perle reveals US War Plans in the Iranian Theater

"I think of war with Iran as the ending of America's present role in the world. Iraq may have been a preview of that, but it's still redeemable if we get out fast. In a war with Iran, we'll get dragged down for 20 or 30 years. The world will condemn us. We will lose our position in the world."
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Vanity Fair, 2006.

One US carrier task force is already in position in the Persian Gulf. Two more task forces are moving swiftly to take up their positions in the Iranian theatre.

The controversial neoconservative American bureaucrat, Richard Perle, visited Britain on the eve of the papal audience between Prime Minister Tony Blair and Pope Benedict XVI. Earlier in the same week, the Iranian Nobel Laureate for Peace, Dr. Shirin Ebadi, was in Britain to voice her concerns about a confrontation between the west and Iran. In London, Metropolitan Police swooped down on two suspected Islamist terrorists believed to be in the process of building a chemical bomb. Summertime tensions are building.
In bland remarks delivered to a small audience of students at the Oxford Union, Richard Perle outlined the Bush administration's response to the crisis of 9/11 and the neoconservative doctrines of pre-emptive war. In a droning monotone designed to anaesthetize his keen academic audience, Perle explained the need for an invincible American military apparatus and a foreign policy predicated on the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war permitting direct and simultaneous interventions into multiple theatres.

While Perle stated his hope that the need for military interventions would be minimal, he left the impression that his definition of excessive use of military power might well differ from that of the average American or European citizen. Perle is on the public record advocating pre-emptive strikes against North Korea, Syria, Iran and a list of other countries. Some of his critics accuse Perle of darkly malignant machinations. (Richard N. Perle, Sourcewatch)

Citing Iraq as a glowing example of an obvious need for direct intervention, Perle admitted that he had long advocated military solutions for regime change in that theatre. In his talk, he reminded us that President Bush had launched the invasion on the basis of several triggering factors including Nigerian yellow cake, WMDs, terrorist connections, democracy-building and humanitarian issues. Thus, Perle was finally reduced to justifying the Iraq War as a humanitarian crusade - a theme that struck hollow in the midst of reports of civil war, torture and US war crimes against innocent civilians in Haditha.

Questioned by a largely supportive audience of admiring students willing to attend a late lecture on a Friday night, Perle touched upon the diplomacy between the West and Iran in the most insipid terms he could muster. Taking into account the latest diplomatic developments, he gave his Oxford audience the impression that the outcome remains obscure in spite of the fact that he is one of the principle architects - and the sternest - of the Iran negotiations.

Perle emphasised that President Ahmadinejad holds fanatical religious beliefs involving the necessity for an Armageddonite conflict to trigger the return of the Hidden Imam at the end of the world in the Shiite tradition for the Last Judgement and the Islamic Apocalypse. Perle singled out the fanaticism of Islamic terrorism as the most serious threat to international security, and he praised the Israeli air-strike against Saddam's nuclear reactor in 1981 as a model of pre-emptive military intervention. In his view, the threat of precision air-strikes against the nuclear infrastructure of Iran constitute the best negotiating option.

An Iranian student asked Perle whether he considered the Mearsheimer and Walt paper, "The Israel Lobby," to be, "anti-Semitic." Castigating the eighty-five page paper as, "bad scholarship," Perle admitted that he did not know what he was talking about when he confessed that he had not read it in its entirety. This question put Perle on the defensive, and he asserted that there was no secret agenda amongst America's plethora of, "Jewish groups," that sought to place the national security of Israel above that of the United States.

In the limited time available, no one was able to follow up Perle's pregnant point about the non-existence of a secret agenda with a question about the Israeli spy scandal that shook his own office at the Pentagon, when Larry Franklin was discovered to be the conduit between the Office of Special Plans and two Israeli officials who were later identified as espionage agents assigned to the embassy. Neither was he questioned about the incident that took place in 1970, when an FBI wiretap revealed that Perle discussed classified intelligence with an official at the Israeli embassy. Washington insiders have long considered Perle to be, "an Israeli agent of influence."

Another fact fuels these suspicions swirling around Perle since he serves as a director of Hollinger International which owns the Jerusalem Post. Perle has been paid millions for his "work" for Hollinger even though he is the only 'outside' director on the Executive Committee. Perle's complicated business dealings have brought him under suspicion for conflicts of interest and the charge that he is attempting to profit from wars that he was strenuously working to create and implement through his official capacity in the Department of Defense. In 2004, Perle's conflicts of interest resulted in his resignation from the Defense Policy Board. (ibid)

When a perceptive student asked about his preferences for the next president of the United States, Perle made some riveting remarks. He immediately stated his hope that Senator Joseph Lieberman would be the Democratic candidate. Failing that miracle, Perle hopes former Governor Mark Warner will win the Democratic nomination. Perle warmly praised both right-leaning Democrats who are doyens of the Democratic Leadership Council. Richard Giuliani is Perle's favourite Republican. When asked about potential presidential candidates who would cause him concern, Perle swiftly reeled off a long list of Democrats led by Governor Howard Dean, followed closely by Senator John Kerry, former Vice President Al Gore, former Senator John Edwards, and he finished his list of neoconservative hate figures with a revealing comment about Senator Hillary Clinton.

It is hardly secret that Senator Clinton has attempted to appeal to the Israeli right. When she visited Israel, she condemned the Palestinians, but Perle was not impressed. Quite the contrary, Perle said that while she had made some smart moves in her attempt to appeal to the right, the left did not believe her. This comment gave the clear impression that Perle did not believe her, either. Criticizing other Democrats, Perle said that Senator John Kerry, "did not understand power," and was not able to perform the duties of the president of America. In his form of damnation by faint praise, Perle said that Howard Dean was a much nicer man off the podium than on it - and he gave him pride of place at the top of his most worrisome Democratic politicians.

The love affair between Perle's base in Likud on the hard line Israeli right and the neoconservatives of both US political parties is alive and kicking. Perle has long been associated with Likud that has been reduced to a weak rump huddling around Benjamin Netanyahu in the new Knesset. As a close associate of Netanyahu, Perle is seen as Likud's top-ranking advocate in Europe and America with his tentacles into both political parties, the Bush White House, the Pentagon and many other leading institutions. Next year, it would not be surprising to find Perle's name on contributors lists to Giuliani, Lieberman and Warner.

The morning after his Oxford talk, Perle appeared on the very influential BBC radio programme, Today, where he was interviewed by John Humphries, the ranking heavyweight commentator in Britain. Admitting President Bush's political weakness, Perle made a revealing comment when Humphries pressed him on US plans to bomb Iran. When Humphries pointed out that a unilateral US bombardment of Iran would be greeted with global howls of derision, Perle said,

"No American president who believes that there is a last opportunity to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state is going to be deterred by derision. He will do what he believes to be in the best interests of the protection of those who might come under attack from an Iranian nuclear weapon including the United States." (Today, BBC4, 3rd June 2006)

When Humphries pressed him harder by pointing out that the former British Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, had termed the US bombing of Iran, "inconceivable," Perle shot back with a revealing retort. "Well, it's no longer conceivable that he's the Foreign Secretary." Humphries then asked whether Straw had been sacked over his offence putting Perle on the spot by asking, "You think there's a link there?" Perle replied,

"I don't know. He was expressing a view that the government had not concluded yet in a way that diminished the leverage to produce a political result, a diplomatic result. That's obviously unwise."(ibid)

This response left the clear impression that Straw had been removed specifically because he had ridiculed Washington's negotiating position and that Perle had been intimately involved in ordering and engineering the surprise sacking.

While Perle was undergoing his public interrogation before six million listeners on the BBC, Tony Blair was entering the Vatican for his long-awaited audience with Pope Benedict XVI. Blair's last papal audience occurred in early 2003 shortly before the launch of the Iraq War, when he pleaded with the late pontiff. John Paul II, to support the Crusade against Islamist terrorism.

The German Pope has been a strident critic of, "fundamentalist terror," the Vatican's code term for Islamism. According to the published accounts, Blair and the pope discussed the current negotiations with Iran. The Sunday Times reported, "Pope Benedict XVI pressed Tony Blair to find a diplomatic resolution to the Iran nuclear crisis." The Pope is more than well aware of the escalation of the military planning on both sides.

There can be little serious doubt that George Bush had given Tony Blair his marching orders - the assignment of negotiating a papal blessing for his pre-emptive bombing campaign against Iran. From the Pope's remarks, it is clear that Benedict dreads a new level of violence in Bush's wars in the Middle East. As a very public supporter of George Bush during the 2004 presidential campaign, the Pope rightfully fears the political consequences he will suffer in the aftermath of a new phase in what is seen globally as a western religious crusade against Islam. Smarting from a punishing round of criticism for ignoring the Anti-Semitic dimension of the Holocaust during his visit to Auschwitz only one week ago, Benedict XVI is praying to avoid any more political controversies that would undermine his increasingly challenged papacy.

Last week, Ray McGovern, a former high-ranking CIA intelligence analyst, appeared on the Alex Jones Show where he expressed his fears that staged terrorist attacks in Europe and America are being prepared to pave the way for public approval of pre-emptive air-strikes against Iran. McGovern said,

"There is already one carrier task force there in the Gulf, two are steaming toward it at the last report I have at least - they will all be there in another week or so. The propaganda has been laid, the aircraft carriers are in place, it doesn't take much to fly the bombers out of British and US bases - cruise missiles are at the ready, Israel is egging us on."(Former CIA Analyst Says Iran Strike Possibly Set For June Or July)

McGovern predicted dire consequences would result from Bush's policy of pre-emptive war. In McGovern's opinion, Iran would retaliate with a cruise missile attack against the US fleet then launch a military invasion of Iraq and simultaneously activate a world wide ring of terrorists that would make Al-Qaeda look like, "a girls netball team."

McGovern's predictions may be unfolding already. The London police raid that coincided with Perle's visit to Britain netted two men suspected of terrorist plotting to build a massive chemical bomb. But, after four days of excruciating forensic examination of their premises, the police found no evidence of bomb-building activities. Whether this "swoop" was staged or not remains to be seen, but this episode resonates with an official campaign to ratchet up the public concern about terrorism. The non-productive raid has produced a predictable backlash among the local residents who are demanding some form of official confirmation that the raid was based on credible evidence rather than a melange of Islamophobic paranoia.

Last week in Wales at the annual literary festival at Hay-on-Wye, Dr Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian Nobel Laureate for Peace in 2003, explained her opposition to western military intervention in Iran.

"America says that Iran would pose a threat if it gains access to nuclear weapons because it is not a democratic country, and because its government is fundamentalist, and this could pose a danger to the whole region, but America has forgotten that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and Pakistani Muslims are much more fundamentalist than Iranian Muslims, and Pervez Musharraf did not come to power as a result of an election. The only difference between Iran and Pakistan is that Pakistan is friendly towards America and obeys America, while Iran does not obey America. This double standard is something that the Iranian people cannot understand."

Exactly as Richard Perle intimated to the BBC, the world is witnessing the machinations in a game of geopolitical poker. The stakes are high. In spite of his perceived weakness, George Bush holds a very strong hand, The White House, the Pentagon, the Supreme Court and both houses of Congress. Yet his political weakness with the American public is the primary factor motivating him to launch a pre-emptive attack against Iran. With his approval rating falling into the low 30s, Bush has too little - if anything - to lose to worry about current public opinion.

Because of his chronic unpopularity, Bush is already in a complicated political predicament. Bush is facing the loss of his American political hegemony in the midterm elections this November. If Bush loses even one house of Congress, he will face the immediate threat of official probes led by partisan special prosecutors and a rising demand for his impeachment. In his game of poker with Ahmadinejad, Bush has nothing to lose by upping the ante and wrapping himself in the American flag while dropping a massive bombardment onto the primary vortex of his Axis of Evil, Iran.

However, if Bush were to attack Iran, he would instantaneously transform Ahmadinejad into the most powerful figure in the increasingly Anti-American world. With that transfiguration, Ahmadinejad would have nothing to constrain him from launching attacks not only against American targets as Ray McGovern suggests, but the Iranian Prime Minister would be free to join forces with Hizbollah and Islamic Jihad in an attack against America's primary ally in the region, Israel. Bristling with potential targets from its vulnerable nuclear facility at Dimona as well as its major population centers including Tel Aviv, Haifa and Elat, Israel would be in the frontline of any potential counter-attack by Ahmadinejad.

With leaders like Bush, Ahmadinejad, Blair, Olmert and Benedict XVI there can be little wonder why the world - driven by achingly inept religious fundamentalists holding the reigns of power in Washington, London, Tehran, Rome and Tel Aviv - is lurching forward into battle toward what can, indeed, be called a new Perle Harbor.

Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty a distinction not shared with three nuclear states, India, Israel and Pakistan, who have declined to sign the document.

Michael Carmichael became a professional public affairs consultant, author and broadcaster in 1968. He worked in five American presidential campaigns for progressive candidates from RFK to Clinton. In 2003, he founded The Planetary Movement, a nonprofit public affairs organization based in the United Kingdom. He has appeared as a public affairs expert on the BBC's Today, Hardtalk, and PM, as well as numerous appearances on ITN, NPR and European broadcasts examining politics and culture. He can be reached through his website: www.planetarymovement.org


References

The War They Wanted, The Lies They Needed
http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/articles/060606fege02
Richard N. Perle
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_N._Perle
Richard Perle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Perle
Former CIA Analyst Says Iran Strike Possibly Set For June Or July
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13481.htm
Terror raid: the backlash
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=389222&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5
Police 'had no choice' over terror raid
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1790820,00.html
'Trust at risk' after terror raid
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1791424,00.html
Intelligence behind raid was wrong, officials say
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1791110,00.html
Intelligence needed
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1791188,00.html
A pantomime in Forest Gate
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1790984,00.html
Pope calls on Blair to end Iran stand-off
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2210005,00.html
The troublemaker
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1788781,00.html
Nobel Prize winner accuses US of double standards over Iran
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article624193.ece
A giant awakes
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1789542,00.html



Comment on this Article


FBI confidential informant also said to be provocateur

Jennifer Van Bergen
Thursday June 8, 2006

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

The McDavid Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

But just who is Anna and what makes her reliable?

Organization of American States (OAS) Protests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criminal Activity Plus Salary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are there other Annas?

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

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

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

Jennifer Van Bergen is a freelance journalist with a law degree. Her book "The Twilight of Democracy: The Bush Plan for America" is available on Amazon. Her book "Archetypes for Writers: Using the Power of Your Subconscious" will be out next year. She can be reached at jvbxyz@earthlink.net.

Comment: Not a surprise. The whole 911 Truth Movement is infested with informants, provocateurs, false fronts, vacuum cleaners, and a host of other critters too numerous to mention. In fact, the most prominent of the 911 Truth people are very likely Tar Babies.

Comment on this Article


New Hampshire Democrats call for Bush impeachment

By JOHN DISTASO
Senior Political Reporter
New Hampshire Union Leader
Jun. 8, 2006

STATE DEMOCRATS did more than listen to rousing speeches at their convention last Saturday at St. Anselm College.

They passed several resolutions - chief among them a call for the impeachment of President George W. Bush because he "has committed high crimes and misdemeanors as he has repeatedly and intentionally violated the United States Constitution and other laws of the United States."

Is that all? No.
Before voting overwhelmingly by a show of hands on that one, there was a strong voice vote to censure the President - a resolution submitted on behalf of one of the keynote speakers, "red meat" Wisconsin Sen. Russell Feingold.

The censure motion contended Bush authorized the illegal wire-tapping of "perhaps more than 1 million Americans."

State Democratic Party Kathy Sullivan acknowledged that the two, taken together, may have been "a bit of overkill," but, she said, "You've got people here who are very angry with George Bush."

She did not speak against them. "It was not my job to speak in favor or against resolutions." But as a delegate, she voted against them because "I don't think the majority of voters want the Congress to be spending time on impeachment or censure."

The convention also backed resolutions:

* Calling for "responsible, prompt withdrawal" from Iraq while supporting the troops there.

* Supporting the state's first-in-the-nation primary.

The censure and impeachment resolutions were opposed by the convention's resolution committee, comprising state Rep. Jane Clemons of Nashua, Chaz Proulx of Exeter and Deb Crapo of Rye. The committee also said Democrats should focus on a positive agenda and leave such matters to the next Congress.

Who led the charge? The censure move was sponsored by Peter Somssich of Portsmouth and co-sponsored by Paul Wolfson of Hanover and Robert Padian of Portsmouth. The impeachment resolution was sponsored by Bob Perry of Stratford and co-sponsored by Manny Krasner of Farmington.

Sullivan said that for the fourth consecutive convention, an effort to add a pro-income tax plank to the party platform was rejected by voice vote.

"It was definitely an interesting convention," understated Nick Clemons, the state party executive director.

--
DEPOSING GILLESPIE?

The state Democratic Party yesterday made a bold move in its civil suit against the Republican Party over the Election Day 2002 phone-jamming scandal, the Granite Status has learned.

The party asked the Hillsborough County Superior Court to appoint commissioners to take out-of-state depositions of:

* Ed Gillespie, the former Republican National Commmittee Chair who authorized the RNC to pay the legal bills of now-convicted phone-jam conspirator James Tobin. Gillespie has said he spoke with someone in the White House about that decision, but could not remember who.

* Alicia Davis, who worked in the White House political affairs office in 2002 and received telephone calls from Tobin in the days and hours leading up to the phone-jam operation on the morning of election day.

* Chris Cupit, who worked with convicted conspirator Allen Raymond and allegedly helped Raymond and former state GOP executive director Chuck McGee plan the scheme.

* Terry Nelson, Tobin's boss at the RNC in 2002.

* Chris Lacivita, Tobin's boss in 2002 at the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

* Darrell Henry, a Washington lobbyist who allegedly was interested in continuing the phone jam after it was called off.

The Democrats also ask to subpoena the custodian of records for the Executive Office of the President. The want records of the White House political affairs office during the time the phone-jam was being planned. They also want the names associated with several telephone numbers called by Tobin, the state Republican Party and former party chairs John Dowd and Jayne Millerick.

The party also asks for all outgoing calls by Davis and former political affairs director Ken Mehlman, the current RNC chair, from Oct. 1, 2002 to March 1, 2003.

The party also asks for records of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which, Henry allegedly contacted to continue the phone jam after it had been called off.

--
THE ROVE VISIT

State GOP officials were a bit concerned for a while about the turnout for Monday's annual party dinner featuring controversial Bush White House political advisor Karl Rove. E-mails flew recruiting patrons, and at last report, between 400 and 500 are expected, with the number expected to increase.

Democrats intend to protest at Veterans Park, across the street from the dinner venue, the Center of New Hampshire Radisson Hotel. They'll call on Rove and the GOP to stop "stonewalling" the civil court process that could allow further investigation into the aforementioned phone-jamming scandal.

--
WHO'S RUNNING?

With the filing period under way, the biggest surprise of "opening day" yesterday were the decisions by two Democrats, Kathy Sgambati and veteran activist Harold Janeway, to run in state Senate Districts 4 and 7, respectively.

Sgambati, the former deputy Health and Human Services commissioner, would face the winner of an expected Republican primary between Sen. Bob Boyce of Alton and Rep. Jim Fitzgerald of Laconia, while Janeway would take on GOP incumbent Bob Flanders of Antrim.

It will be interesting to see how strongly "apolitical" Gov. John Lynch campaigns for the Democratic slate, particularly for Janeway, who is a veteran income tax proponent.

Six years ago, Janeway co-founded the Courage and Leadership PAC with Stonyfield Yogurt CEO Gary Hirshberg and was a member of pro-income tax candidate for governor Mark Fernald's exploratory committee.

Fernald that year lost a primary to anti-income tax Democratic incumbent Jeanne Shaheen. Several members of her former staff now work for Lynch.

In District 20, top Republicans this week were trying to talk veteran Goffstown Rep. Bob Wheeler into opposing Manchester Democrat Lou D'Allesandro.

Wheeler, however, is quite undecided.

--
A MESSY HOUSE

It could get interesting in the New Hampshire House by next December when the new speaker is chosen.

With Deputy House Speaker Ken Weyler announcing his candidacy yesterday (joining Reps. Mike Whalley and Betsey Patten), conservatives and moderate "Main Street" Republicans are contemplating their options.

While the "Main Streeters" are expected to float one of their own, some conservatives are hoping to exact pledges from the candidates that they won't "throw in" with the Democrats, as lame duck Doug Scamman did, if they don't win the GOP caucus vote. And they want their candidate for speaker to allow a rank-and-file vote for House majority leader, rather than having the speaker make the choice.

That will be tough for any candidates to swallow.

Veteran Exeter Republican Lee Quandt says he has received several emails asking him to run for the top spot. He believes if he does, he'll start out with about 20 votes.

But Quandt said he considers Weyler a friend, "so I'll stand back for a while and see what happens with him."

"This year," said a veteran House Republican, "is going to be as messy as the last one was."

--
THE GRIFFIN SEAT

GOP lobbyists/strategists Rich Killion and Erik Taylor of Elevare Communications are working for Republican District 3 Executive Council candidate Chuck Morse. The outgoing Senate Finance chair will formally announce his candidacy on June 20 at the Castleton in Windham.

Sean Mahoney of Portsmouth resigned as state GOP finance chair this week to run for the seat, while Dover businessman Dan Philbrick is still in the mix.

Philbrick said this week he was concerned that Mahoney may be disqualified because he may not have resided in the state for seven years prior to the election, as the law requires.

Mahoney is confident that he meets the law. Philbrick said, "It's a tough call. If I knew that Sean qualified time-wise I'd step behind him and even be his chairman." But he said he will run, if necessary, to try to ensure that the seat remains occupied by a Seacoast resident.

--
ALIVE AND WELL

National Democrats take notice. An '08 presidential primary campaign is shaping up here, despite efforts to "dilute" its impact.

Four national leaders will be here in the next two weeks, beginning today with former Sen. Tom Daschle, followed by Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh tomorrow and Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and Delaware Sen. Joe Biden next week.

--
QUICK TAKES:

* Sen. Judd Gregg and his wife, Kathy, hosted a fundraiser for Republican Rep. Jeb Bradley at their Rye home last weekend. More than 200 attended and Bradley raised about $130,000.

* Former Democratic state Rep. Mike Downing is expected to run for Morse's seat, as a Republican.

* Lucky Craig and Tina Morshead won lunch with the governor, Scamman and Senate President Ted Gatsas in the State House cafeteria on Tuesday. The Bedford computer specialist and his wife won an auction by bidding $325, with proceeds going to the Friends of the Manchester Animal Shelter. Gatsas' wife, Cassandra, came up with the idea and the Senate president bought lunch.

* Potential 2008 Presidential hopeful Mark Warner's PAC noted in a recent report to supporters that "the Manchester Union-Tribune" covered the state Democratic convention, at which he appeared, last Saturday. Guys, what's a "Manchester Union-Tribune?"

* Bradley is trying to drum up a crowd for a rally on Monday morning at the State House before he files for reelection.

* GOP candidate for governor Jim Coburn will file on Wednesday (Flag Day) at high noon.

John DiStaso is senior political reporter of the New Hampshire Union Leader and Sunday News.



Comment on this Article


Cheney's Office Declares Exemption from Secrecy Oversight

by Michelle Chen
The New Standard
7 June 06

Thickening the haze of secrecy surrounding the executive branch, the Office of Vice President Dick Cheney has declared itself exempt from a yearly requirement to report how it uses its power to classify secret information.
In its 2005 report to the president released last month, the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), a branch of the National Archives, provides a quantitative overview of hundreds of thousands of pages of classified and declassified documents. But the vice president's input consists of a single footnote explaining that his office failed to meet its reporting requirements for the third year in a row.

Open-government advocates say Cheney's refusal to divulge even basic information about classification activities reflects an alarming pattern of broadening executive privilege while narrowing public accountability.

"It's part of a larger assertiveness by the Office of the Vice President and a resistance to oversight," said Steve Aftergood of the Project on Government Secrecy, a division of the public-interest association Federation of American Scientists. "It's as if they're saying, 'What we do is nobody's business.'"

Though not the only government entity to shrug off the reporting duties, Cheney's office is unique in that it has actually issued a public justification for its non-compliance. Cheney's office argued on Monday that its dual role in the federal government places it above the reporting mandate.

"This matter has been carefully reviewed, and it has been determined that the reporting requirement does not apply to [the Office of the Vice President], which has both executive and legislative functions," Lea McBride, a spokesperson for Cheney's office, told The NewStandard.

Cheney's press aides declined to specify to TNS how the office's legislative role effectively exempted it from the executive order, or why the office had complied prior to 2003.

In a May 30 letter to J. William Leonard, director of the ISOO, the Project on Government Secrecy contended that Cheney's rationale was illogical, because additional legislative functions should have no bearing on the vice president's executive-branch obligations. Troubled by the continued non-compliance, the organization warned that if the ISOO did not act to enforce the vice president's responsibilities under the executive order, "every agency will feel free to re-interpret the order in idiosyncratic and self-serving ways."

Each year, the ISOO publishes data on the amount of information classified by government entities, such as the Department of Justice and the Pentagon, and broadly analyzes how the bureaucracy processes national-security secrets. Mandated by an executive order, the report is intended to encourage greater accountability and minimize secrecy.

In 2003 - around the time Cheney's office stopped reporting to the ISOO - the Bush administration affirmed and expanded the vice president's classification powers through a revision of Executive Order 12958, the same order mandating the yearly ISOO assessment. The amended order explicitly granted the vice president unprecedented authority to classify information "in the performance of executive duties," including the ability to label information "secret" and "top secret" on par with the heads of federal agencies and the president himself.

Critics also note another legal shield compounding the vice president's reticence about how he handles secrets: Cheney enjoys general immunity from the Freedom of Information Act, which empowers members of the public with a process for demanding the release of government documents.

Along with Cheney's office, the President's Foreign-Intelligence Advisory Board and Homeland Security Council - both advisory bodies attached to the White House - also failed to report classification activity in 2005. In the footnote of its report, the ISOO suggested that the loss of this information was inconsequential, because these entities "historically have not reported quantitatively significant data."

However, Aftergood argued that because the annual report is a statistical breakdown of information processed, the quantitative data merely reflects the volume, not the individual public-interest value, of the secrets withheld by the government.

The most recent report shows that decisions to classify information have declined by about 9 percent since 2004, and the volume of newly declassified information has risen slightly. But watchdogs say the government is still amassing secrets at a disturbing rate: total classification activity was over 60 percent higher in 2005 than in 2001. Overall, agencies reported 14.2 million classification decisions last year.

Though Cheney's obfuscation of his classification activity has been ongoing since 2003, the explosion of the Valerie Plame leak scandal, which centers on the suspected retaliatory leak of a CIA agent's identity by the White House, has invited fresh scrutiny of the administration's political opacity. Some question whether Cheney has wielded his power over secret government information to smear opponents.

In a February interview with Fox News, asked whether he had ever exercised declassification powers, Cheney replied, "I've certainly advocated declassification and participated in declassification decisions," though he refused to elaborate on the nature of those decisions.

Aftergood said that the ISOO could try to compel Cheney to comply with the executive order through enforcement mechanisms. These could include sanctions, which under the ISOO's mandate might entail "termination of classification authority" or "denial of access to classified information" - or officially requesting an advisory ruling from the attorney general to clarify the vice president's obligations.

Since receiving the letter, Leonard of the ISOO told TNS that he is "currently pursuing the matter." Noting the novelty of Cheney's defense, he added, "I am not aware of any other entity claiming any such 'exemption.'"

Jennifer Gore, communications director for the watchdog group Project on Government Oversight (POGO), pointed to a precedent for public-interest advocates bringing legal challenges to curb executive secrecy. Referring to the Watergate scandal, which also involved a court battle over the White House's refusal to disclose incriminating documents, she said, "In the past, when members of the executive branch have voiced privilege as a reason not to turn something over, then it's time to go to the courts."

To counterbalance the expansion of secrecy under the current administration, POGO is also advocating the Executive Branch Reform Act of 2006. The bill, introduced by Representatives Tom Davis (R-Virginia) and Henry Waxman (D-California), targets new, vaguely defined categories that build on the regular classification system, mainly the "sensitive but unclassified" label that has enabled agencies to limit public access to counterterrorism-related information.

Aftergood said that systemic problems in the classification system undermine the public value of the ISOO's annual report, with or without full compliance from agencies. To move toward genuine transparency, he said, the ISOO's tracking should encompass more aggressive, in-depth reviews of classified materials to monitor whether federal operatives are overusing or abusing their privilege.

"What's really missing is a sense of the quality of the classification activity," Aftergood said. "You could tell me how many things you classify, but that doesn't give me any indication of whether you exercised good judgment or not."



Comment on this Article


Congress Snivels While Bush Breaks Laws

By Stephen Pizzo
News for Real
June 9, 2006

Am I missing something? I mean, I wasn't exactly an A student in civics class, but I do clearly recall that the way the U.S. Constitution was written -- and remains unamended -- is that Congress passes bills and the president either signs them into law or vetoes them. If he signs a bill, it becomes a law that the executive branch is then constitutionally required to enforce.

Am I wrong about that? Did I miss the passage of a constitutional amendment that changed the balance of power established by our founders?

If not, then the president of the United States has broken the law, not just once, but hundreds of times.

That's how many times this guy has signed bills into law and then, after the camera left, signed a separate document he calls "a signing statement," that, in effect, says, "Just kidding. Here's which parts of that bill I just signed that I will enforce, and which parts I won't enforce."

Phillip Cooper is a leading expert on signing statements; in fact he wrote the book on the subject: By Order of the President: The Use and Abuse of Executive Direct Action. Two years ago Cooper wrote that George W. Bush had issued 23 signing statements in 2001; 34 in 2002, raising 168 constitutional objections; 27 statements in 2003, raising 142 constitutional challenges; and 23 statements in 2004, raising 175 constitutional criticisms. In total, during his first term Bush raised a remarkable 505 constitutional challenges to various provisions of legislation that became law.

That number has now passed 750.

The White House claims all this is constitutionally kosher. But how can it be? Would someone explain to me how these noxious signing statements are any different from the line-item veto, which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled was unconstitutional? If you read one of Bush's signing statements they read very much like a line-item veto -- "Yes to this part of the bill, no to this part," etc. Sure looks like a duck to me.

For those of you unfamiliar with a Bush signing statement, here's a sample. Bush signed this little gem right after signing the USA Patriot Act "Improvement and Reauthorization Act," earlier this year. The president hailed that bill in a presigning statement for the cameras. What he didn't mention was the little piece of paper under the bill that he would sign after everyone left the room. Here it is:

President's Signing Statement on H.R. 199, "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005"

Today signed into law H.R. 3199, the "USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005," and then S. 2271, the "USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006." The bills will help us continue to fight terrorism effectively and to combat the use of the illegal drug methamphetamine that is ruining too many lives.

The executive branch shall construe the provisions of H.R. 3199 that call for furnishing information to entities outside the executive branch, such as sections 106A and 119, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to withhold information the disclosure of which could impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative processes of the Executive, or the performance of the Executive's constitutional duties.

The executive branch shall construe section 756(e)(2) of H.R. 3199, which calls for an executive branch official to submit to the Congress recommendations for legislative action, in a manner consistent with the President's constitutional authority to supervise the unitary executive branch and to recommend for the consideration of the Congress such measures as he judges necessary and expedient.

GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 9, 2006.

"Shall construe?" Who gives a fig how the president "construes" something he's about to sign? Surely not the U.S. Constitution. And most certainly the courts don't care. I've read a lot of Supreme Court cases where the "intent of Congress" in passing a bill was central to the case. But I have never heard of a case in which the "intent of the president" in signing a bill was given a scintilla of regard. Because it doesn't matter, constitutionally. If the court sees that a president signed a bill, rather than vetoing it, they consider it prima facie evidence of only one thing -- that the president intended to sign the bill into law. Not some of it; all of it.

(Besides, when it comes to "construing" the meaning of laws, isn't that the job of the third branch of government, the courts? Is Bush claiming that right now as well? Our newly self-minted Construer in Chief-Justice?)

Therefore, can any party of the first, second, third or millionth part, explain to me why a single member of Congress has yet to drag this White House into court over this clear and present attack on the Constitution's separation of powers?

After all, established law (stare decisis) is on the side of the angels in this matter. We've been here before, and not that long ago. The Supreme Court settled this matter with a clear and unambiguous decision in 1998. The court ruled against a law Congress passed that granted the president the power to pick and chose which budget items he would or would not enforce, the line-item veto. The court struck it down and told both Congress and the president that, if they wanted to rearrange the constitutional balances of power, the only constitutionally legal way is with a constitutional amendment.

"U.S. District Court Judge Thomas F. Hogan decided on February 12, 1998 that unilateral amendment or repeal of only parts of statutes violated the U.S. Constitution. This ruling was subsequently affirmed on June 25, 1998 by a 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Clinton v. City of New York." Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, in a concurrence of the opinion of the Court, objected to the argument that the Act did not violate principles of the separation of powers and threaten individual liberty, stating that the "undeniable effects" of the Act were to "enhance the President's power to reward one group and punish another, to help one set of taxpayers and hurt another, to favor one State and ignore another." (More)

Bush's signing statements are an even more egregious constitutional insult than the line-item veto. At least the line-item veto was granted to the president by Congress. This time Congress wasn't even asked. Bush simply claimed this power for himself. And so far, he's gotten away with it.

So, I ask again, why has no member of Congress filed suit? You would think that they would at least be offended. Besides being unconstitutional, Bush's signing statements are also condescending. They might as well be worded like this:

To: Congress
From: The President of the United States

To Whom it May Concern:
I have read your bill noted above and I signed it in front of the TV cameras surrounded by all you smiling jackals. Because I understand you need to show your constituents back home that you really are doing something up here after all.

But I didn't like some of the parts of the bill you gave me. Rather than embarrass you with a veto or -- God forbid! -- provide you with an opportunity to embarrass me with veto override, I will simply ignore the parts of this bill that I don't like.

So, for your records, here is my marked-up copy of your bill. For your convenience I drew a happy face :-) next to the sections I will enforce, and a frowny face :-( next to the sections I intend to ignore.

Now, y'all all have a nice day.
George W. Bush :-)

This administration has usurped plenty of congressional power over the last six years as well as chipping away at the third "co-equal" branch of government, the courts. But Bush's signing statements, which treat congressional legislation like boxes of See's candy, are the most blatant, obnoxious and dangerous coup of them all.

"These signing statements are to Bush and Cheney's presidency what steroids were to Arnold Schwarzenegger's bodybuilding. Like Schwarzenegger with his steroids, Bush does not deny using his signing statements; does not like talking about using them; and believes that they add muscle. But like steroids, signing statements ultimately lead to serious trouble." --John W. Dean, former White House Counsel under Nixon

Where's Congress today? Well, the Senate is voting on an amendment to the Constitution -- to protect us from the scourge of same-sex marriages.

Where are key Democrats?

Hey, Hillary, tell us if you will, which poses the greatest threat to the American way of life -- flag burning or presidential signing statements? Hmm?

Hello, members of Congress! Is anyone home? Did you all forget that the Supreme Court is just across the street? Hell, you could pitch a briefcase full of Bush's signing statements and hit the goddamn place. Shouldn't you be storming the steps of the Supreme Court, frothing at the mouth, lawyers in tow, demanding the court's immediate and urgent attention to this attack on the legislative branches' constitutional power?

Shouldn't you? After all, didn't each of you take the oath pledging to "obey and protect the U.S. Constitution"? Or did you have your own little signing statement tucked into your pocket when you took that oath? Maybe you signed later. You know, "just kidding." That's about the only thing that would explain it. I look forward more and more with each passing day to the first Tuesday of November. Because on that day I'm going into the voting booth loaded for bear -- incumbent bear. Shame on you. You are beneath contempt. All of you.

Stephen Pizzo is the author of numerous books, including "Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans," which was nominated for a Pulitzer.





Comment on this Article


Bush Says Deportation 'Ain't Gonna Work'

By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press
June 8, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Rejecting an argument being made by some conservatives in his own party, President Bush said Thursday that the idea that the United States could force millions of illegal immigrants to return home "ain't gonna work."

Bush told a gathering of Hispanic leaders that the immigration system is broken and Congress needs to pass "commonsense" reform that strengthens the border while allowing more foreigners in to work temporarily and giving those who sneaked in years ago a chance to become citizens.
"There are those here in Washington who say, 'Why don't we just find the folks and send them home,'" Bush said. "That ain't gonna work."

He said although it sounds simple, it is impractical to insist that the 12 million illegal immigrants estimated to be living in the U.S. leave and come back legally. Some prominent conservatives in his party say allowing those immigrants to become citizens without returning home would amount to amnesty.

Bush defined amnesty as allowing those immigrants to automatically become citizens. He said instead they first should be required to prove that they have been working and abiding the law, pay a fine, learn English and wait behind those who have been in the country legally.

"We don't have to choose between the extremes," Bush said. "There's a rational middle ground."

Bush is trying to get Congress to pass his immigration plan, but a block of conservative lawmakers have been firmly opposed to it and prefer legislation that would take a harder stance against those who break the law to sneak in the country. House and Senate negotiators have yet to meet to resolve the differences in the two different approaches.

Bush's remarks came during a 15-minute speech at the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast in which he also talked about his faith in God. "I rely upon the Almighty for strength and comfort," Bush told the participants gathered in a hotel ballroom just a couple blocks from the White House.

"This morning we come together to give our thanks for all our blessings, and recognize our nation's continuing dependence on divine providence," he said.



Comment on this Article


Senate to consider letting Hawaiians pursue sovereignty

By Brian DeBose
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 7, 2006

Hawaii Sen. Daniel K. Akaka thinks Hawaiians should be allowed to govern themselves as Native Americans and Alaskans do, and after seven years of pushing a bill to start the process, the Senate is expected to take it up this week.

Mr. Akaka says the bill is a way to give "indigenous" Hawaiians a sense of pride and a chance for sovereignty for the first time since 1893, when Queen Liliuokalani was deposed and lands were illegally seized by U.S. Marines and a cadre of sugar-plantation businessmen.
"For the first time, if it passes, Hawaiians will have parity and be able to form a government entity to address their concerns, since the overthrow," Mr. Akaka said.

Republican senators annually have blocked the legislation, saying it would violate the Constitution by establishing a sovereign race-based government. It is only coming up now through a deal worked out between Democratic and Republican leaders to move other bills.

Opponents, including many native Hawaiians, say the bill opens up a "Pandora's box" of new race classifications and called the bill ambiguous as to what benefits it will bring.

The bill calls for an Office of Native Hawaiian Relations in the Department of the Interior, and a Native Hawaiian Interagency Coordinating Group to administer programs, a commission that would certify who are indigenous Hawaiians, and provides a process of reorganization of the Native Hawaiian governing entity.

"The bill will not authorize gaming in Hawaii. The bill will not allow private lands to be taken. The bill will not create a reservation in Hawaii," Mr. Akaka said.

The legislation is supported by both Republican and Democratic senators, primarily those from states with substantial Native American and Eskimo populations, as well as the American Bar Association and Alaska Federation of Natives.

Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, who has kept the bill from coming to the floor, said the creation of a native Hawaiian government -- composed only of redefined natives and whose members can only be voted in by native Hawaiians -- could divide Hawaii's people.

"Unlike reservation Indians, Native Hawaiians do not live in one area of the State that is set aside for Indians; they live in the same cities and neighborhoods and on the same streets, as other Hawaiians do," Mr. Kyl said.

Reservation Indian tribes have the power to tax, regulate and make laws for members. There are an estimated 400,000 Native Hawaiians living throughout the United States.

Native Hawaiians also say it "too narrowly" redefines who is indigenous.

"It is only for people of Native Hawaiian blood," said 'Ehu Kekahu Cardwell, director of the Koani Foundation, a grass-roots group dedicated to restoring the Hawaiian nation.

"We want it to be for any descendants of kingdom nationals who were loyal to the queen during the time she was deposed. We want everyone to be able to have a say in how this turns out," Mr. Cardwell said.

Leon Siu, a Chinese Hawaiian lobbying against the bill on Capitol Hill, said it has already caused division in Hawaii.

"We reject a race issue being brought into our community; the bill will change the definition of who we are," he said. "Native Hawaiian is not a pure bloodline and ... this bill will introduce a new concept of racial apartheid."

Mr. Siu's father fled China in search of a better life and settled in Hawaii 70 years ago, as did hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals from America, Japan, China, Vietnam, and the Philippines who became Hawaiian citizens.

The Hawaiian monarchy historically never kept anyone from participating in its government structure and did not have a race-specific citizenship definition.

One of the most salient points in the debate will be a history lesson on how Hawaii became a U.S. territory and a state, which Native Hawaiians say was an "illegal annexation."

Queen Liliuokalani, the last Hawaiian monarch, was deposed in 1893 by a collection of sugar exporters doing business on the island with the complicity of the U.S. government.

Hawaii became a U.S. territory under a congressional resolution passed in the late 1890s, but the Constitution states that the U.S. can only acquire land held by sovereign foreign nations through a formal treaty.

The treaty authorized by the Safety Commission -- an illegitimate government established by the sugar plantation owners -- failed in Congress after 38,000 of the 40,000 natives living on the island in 1897 petitioned the Congress to reject it.

Congress formally acknowledged that the coup was unlawful in an apology resolution in 1993.

"This is just the next step in that process of acknowledging the wrong committed against the Native Hawaiian people and recognize them as a sovereign entity," said Donalyn Dela Cruz, spokeswoman for Mr. Akaka.



Comment on this Article


Iraq


Iraqi boy death reports investigated by MoD

Jun 8, 2006

Reports that a 13-year-old Iraqi boy was killed by British troops in southern Iraq are being investigated, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has revealed today.

A MoD spokesman confirmed that the department was aware of reports that the teenager was killed by baton rounds in Maysaan province yesterday and was looking into the matter.

Two other Iraqi youngsters are also believed to have been shot in the incident, which occurred after a mob of Iraqis began throwing stones at the British troops as they dealt with a roadside bomb.

The soldiers were aware that they had hit, but not killed, the two youths, but media reports from the region suggest they also fatally hit the other teenager.

'We are investigating the reports,' the spokesman said, adding that there was no further information available at the present time.

The shots were fired in order to keep a security cordon that had been placed around the explosive device, he added, as well as to protect the group of about 100 Iraqis who had gathered.

Such reports will not be welcomed by defence chiefs, who have already come under criticism this week for prosecuting three British soldiers accused of the manslaughter of a 15-year-old Iraqi in 2003.

The three troops were all cleared of drowning Ahmed Jabber Kareem in Basra, southern Iraq, at a court martial in Colchester on Tuesday.



Comment: The three British troops who were cleared last week of the "manslaughter" of an Iraqi boy walked free, depsite the fact that they had thrown him into the Tigris river and watched him drown. Par for the course for the conduct of American and British troops as they go about the process of "freeing" Iraq.

Comment on this Article


Poll: U.S. disapproves of war in Iraq

AP
8 June 06

WASHINGTON - The death of al-Qaida leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq came as more Americans than ever thought the war in Iraq was a mistake, according to AP-Ipsos polling.

The poll, taken Monday through Wednesday before news broke that U.S. forces had killed al-Zarqawi, found that 59 percent of adults say the United States made a mistake in going to war in Iraq - the highest level yet in AP-Ipsos polling.
Approval of President Bush's handling of Iraq dipped to 33 percent, a new low. His overall job approval was 35 percent, statistically within range of his low of 33 percent last month. The poll of 1,003 adults has a sampling error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

Among other findings:

- More than half, 54 percent, said it's unlikely that a stable, democratic government will be established in Iraq, a new high in AP-Ipsos polling. The survey was completed before Iraq's parliament approved three key new government ministers. Just 67 percent of Republicans, 63 percent of conservatives, and 57 percent of white evangelicals believed a stable, democratic government is likely.

- Only 68 percent of Republicans, 57 percent of white evangelicals and 51 percent of self-described conservatives - key groups in Bush's base of support - approved of his handling of Iraq. Those most likely to disapprove are Democrats (89 percent), women (70 percent), minorities (84 percent), city dwellers (72 percent), those with household incomes under $25,000 (71 percent), and unmarried men (70 percent).

- Those most likely to believe the war in Iraq was a mistake are Democrats (84 percent), women (63 percent), especially suburban women (67 percent), minorities (76 percent), city dwellers (66 percent), self-described liberals (82 percent), moderates (64 percent), and Catholics (62 percent).



Comment on this Article


Poll: U.S. backing for troops steadfast

By DONNA CASSATA
Associated Press
June 9, 2006

WASHINGTON - The latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that many Americans perceive the alleged atrocities against Iraqi civilians by U.S. forces as isolated incidents while saying the U.S.-led invasion was a mistake, an unusual disconnect that sets this conflict apart from Vietnam.

The survey of 1,003 adults was completed Wednesday, shortly before the announcement that U.S. airstrikes had killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaida leader in Iraq, and the Iraqi parliament's approval of candidates for ministers in charge of the army and police.

It remains to be seen how those events could affect opinion, especially among a public paying close attention to war dispatches.
Some 76 percent of those questioned said they were following reports about allegations that U.S. troops killed unarmed Iraqi civilians.

The military is investigating reports that a small number of Marines murdered 24 Iraqi civilians - including unarmed women and children - in the town of Haditha on Nov. 19. It also is conducting a probe of an incident in Hamdaniya following allegations that Marines pulled an unarmed Iraqi man from his home on April 26 and shot him to death without provocation.

Regardless of whether the allegations turn out to be true, 63 percent of those surveyed said they thought the killings of civilians were isolated incidents. That view was especially true among Americans over 35, whites and those living in the South, where the military has a strong presence.

"I think they're doing everything possible to avoid such things," said Christine Berchelmann, a retired nurse and Republican-leaning independent from San Antonio. "The people they are seeking out, they are in dwellings right in the middle of all these civilians. There are always going to be casualties."

Sixty-one percent in the survey said the military is doing all it can to avoid killing Iraqi civilians.

While the AP poll found that most Americans are willing to give U.S. troops the benefit of the doubt, their misgivings about the war and the prospect of Iraq establishing a stable, democratic government are growing.

Fifty-nine percent said the United States made a mistake in going to war, a new high and a significant jump from the 34 percent in December 2004.

"The biggest mistake was going into Iraq," said David Smith, 38, a salesman from Springfield, Mo., and Democrat who leans independent. "If hindsight was 20-20, they should have thought about the repercussions."

Despite President Bush's pronouncements about Iraq setting up a viable government, only 44 percent of those polled said it was likely they would see a stable government in Baghdad. It was a new low in the survey.

"I think this is the first time in recorded history where the American people wholeheartedly support the troops and support for the mission is waning," said Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.

The 15-term lawmaker cited the greater involvement of the National Guard and Reserves in the war. Some 25,000 members of the Guard and Reserve are in Iraq among the 132,000 U.S. troops.

"People have a neighbor or a cousin," Skelton said.

During Vietnam, growing opposition to the war paralleled disenchantment with American forces, many of whom had been drafted to serve. The conflict dragged on more than a decade, more than 50,000 Americans were killed and the U.S. departed Saigon in April 1975 as the communists prevailed.

Capturing the public consciousness during Vietnam was the My Lai massacre, in which U.S. soldiers killed hundreds of innocent civilians in 1968.

In Iraq, the military has relied on an all-volunteer force of trained professionals.

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, said it is possible to oppose the war but "nonetheless see the military as divorced from that. The military is our sons and daughters and, of course, we wouldn't systematically engage in something that defiles American values."

Rep. John Kline, R-Minn., said he was not surprised "that the American people believe in the fundamental goodness of the American soldiers." Kline, a member of the Armed Services Committee, described the current troops as the "best we've ever had."

The survey also found that the war continues to take a toll on the public's view of Bush. Approval of the president was at 35 percent, essentially unchanged from his rating of 33 percent last month based on the poll's margin of error of 3 percentage points.

His handling of Iraq and foreign policy and the fight against terrorism hit new lows: Just 33 percent approved of his actions on Iraq and 39 percent on the commander in chief's fight against terrorism.

People had an even lower opinion of the Republican-controlled Congress. Only 24 percent approved of the way it's doing its job, essentially unchanged from last month but still a new low.

Fifty-two percent want Democrats to capture control of Congress in November, about the same as last month's poll.



Comment on this Article


Other People's Blood

By BOB HERBERT
New York Times
06/08/06

For the smug, comfortable, well-off Americans, it doesn't seem to matter how long the war in Iraq goes on - as long as the agony is endured by others. If the network coverage gets too grim, viewers can always switch to the E! channel (one hand on the remote, the other burrowing into a bag of chips) to follow the hilarious antics of Paris, Britney, Brangelina et al.

The war is depressing and denial is the antidote. Why should ordinary citizens (good people, religious people, patriots) consider their role in - and responsibility for - the thunderous, unending carnage? Enough with this introspection. Let's go to the ballpark, get drunk and boo Barry Bonds. The nation is in deep denial about Iraq.
For years the president and his supporting cast of arrogant, bullying characters have tried to put the best face on this war. They had no idea what they were doing when they ordered the invasion of Iraq, and they still don't. Many of the troops who were assured that the Iraqis would welcome them with open arms are now dead. And there's still no plan.

Paul Wolfowitz, who fashioned the phony intellectual underpinnings of this catastrophe, told us that Iraqi oil revenues would cover the cost of reconstruction. He was as wrong about that as the president was about the weapons of mass destruction. (And as wrong as Dick Cheney was last June when he said the insurgency was in its last throes.)

Here are the facts: The war so recklessly launched by the amateurs in the Bush White House has already taken scores of thousands of lives, and will ultimately cost the United States $1 trillion to $2 trillion.

No one has been held accountable for this.
While Mr. Bush's approval ratings are low, the public has been largely indifferent to the profound suffering in Iraq. This is primarily for two reasons: Because most Americans have no immediate personal stake in the war, and because the administration and the news media keep the worst of the suffering at a safe distance from the U.S. population.

The killing of American troops is usually kissed off with a paragraph or two in the major papers, and a sentence or two, at best, on national newscasts. (Imagine if someone in your office, sitting at a desk across from you, were suddenly blown to bits, splattering you with his or her blood. You wouldn't get over it for the rest of your life. This is what happens daily in Iraq.)

The many thousands of Iraqis who are killed - including babies and children who are shot to death, blown up, or incinerated - remain completely unknown to the American public. So not only is there very little empathy for the suffering of Iraqis, there is virtually no sense among ordinary Americans of a shared responsibility for that suffering.

Despite the frequently expressed fantasies expressed by President Bush and some of the leading politicians of both parties, the idea of a U.S. victory in Iraq is an illusion. The nightmarish violence is rising, not receding. Iraq is not being pacified. A suicide bomber blew himself up in a bustling market in Basra over the weekend, killing 27 and wounding scores. On Sunday, 20 people were stopped and pulled from their vehicles on a highway near Baquba and shot to death.

John Burns, writing in yesterday's New York Times, told us: "The death toll in one of the most grisly recent attacks, in the village of Hadid, near the Diyala provincial capital of Baquba, rose to 17 on Tuesday when the police delivered nine severed heads to the Baquba morgue in the fruit boxes in which they were found in the village."

Eight other heads had previously been found.

Instead of beginning to pull our troops out of Iraq, we are sending more in. The permanent Iraqi government, which was supposed to be the answer to everybody's prayers, is a study in haplessness. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Al Qaeda's man in Iraq, remains at large. (As does Osama bin Laden, somewhere in Pakistan.)

Comment: Zarqawi is now officially dead. So, to the Bush administration's credit, 1 out of 3,265,984 isn't too bad!!


As was the case with Vietnam, the war in Iraq is a fool's errand. There is no clear mission for American troops in Iraq. No one can really say what the dead have died for. And yet the dying continues.

When it all finally comes to an end (according to President Bush, on somebody else's watch) we'll look around at the hideous costs in human treasure and cold hard cash and ask ourselves: What in the world were we thinking?



Comment on this Article


Stormy Weather


World Population to Crash by 80 Percent, Says Top U.K. Scientist

James Lovelock

Some like it hot. According to environmentalist James Lovelock, we'll get plenty of hot between now and the end of the century. "We are so far down the path toward the hottest we have been, since we were 55 million years ago," Dr. Lovelock, who is also a leading atmospheric scientist, told StockInterview in a tape-recorded interview last week, "that as many of us look at it, it's not going to make very much difference what anybody does." In stronger commentary, which he wrote for England's Independent newspaper, this past January, Lovelock warned, "The Earth is about to catch a morbid fever that may last as long as 100,000 years." And we were worrying about another Ice Age?
Skeptics might wonder if his 1200-word essay was just book publicity hype. Lovelock's scathing our-world-is-doomed article was published about two weeks before Penguin Books (UK) began selling his latest work, The Revenge of Gaia, in bookstores across the British Isles. He did admit within his newspaper commentary, "This article is the most difficult I have written." While interviewing Dr. Lovelock, during our transatlantic phone conversation, the octogenarian sounded sad with his prediction, but still optimistic, despite his ruthless appraisal of what may lay ahead for the rest of this century. "I see the crunch coming as an opportunity to improve ourselves in a way. Who knows? Man may have a better chance when he starts again."

ONLY ABOUT ONE BILLION HUMANS WILL SURVIVE

What does he mean by starting again? "By the end of this century, there is a high probability that the bulk of our species on the planet will be eliminated," the soft-spoken Lovelock gravely remarked. "There may be something, plus or minus, on the order of a billion left." Is there much hope, we asked. "I don't see our current civilization hacking it," he lamented in his response. But, but, what if? "Enormous changes must be made," he stressed. "Society is much too slow in cutting back." He insisted these changes should have started at least 50 years ago. Later he added, as an afterthought, "If Europe and USA were trying to be good and cut back by 30 percent, it's really not going to help much. I don't think the public wants to do it."

In Lovelock's forecast, he envisions, at the end of this century, the last few humans would be forced to rebuild the remnants of our civilization in the Arctic. It won't be as cold up there by then, as you might think. He told us, "Within 25 years, most of the global ice in the Arctic will be gone. You will be able to take a sailboat to the North Pole." How long before we begin to feel these changes? "In my own modeling, I rather think it is an unknown number of years," Lovelock explained. "It may be five years or it may be 30 years." He offered a visual, "Think of it as a rope or a string. Global warming may run up in a straight line or a curve lying a bit loose as the IPCC seems to project."

Lovelock summarized why his forecast is dire and probably irreversible, "Everybody forgets the greatest damage we've done to the earth is not so much the emissions from greenhouse gases, but taking away the natural resistance from the farmland ecosystem. By doing that, we have disabled the planet's ability to regulate itself." Lovelock does not enjoy painting a picture of what earth might look like several decades from now. He wrote in the Independent, in January, "Much of the tropical land mass will become scrub and desert, and will no longer serve for regulation; this adds to the 40 per cent of the Earth's surface we have depleted to feed ourselves." Through his book and in various articles, Lovelock has repeatedly blasted environmentalists who gamble away earth's future by campaigning for renewable energy sources.

That's when we began talking about environmentalists, especially the idealists who claim to be helping preserve the earth. So, we asked this leading environmental scientist what was really wrong with today's environmental movement. Bitterness entered his voice when Lovelock answered, "It's mostly made up of urban people, who know almost nothing about the countryside and still less about the ecosystem." He scoffed, "Their solutions are basically urban-political solutions. They continue to insist on wanting to run their cars on bio fuels. This is one of the maddest ideas of the lot." Lovelock cuts no slack for those championing the cause of bio fuels. He writes in The Revenge of Gaia, "It would require us to burn every year about two to three gigatons of carbon as bio fuel (a gigatons is one thousand million tons). Compare this quantity with our yearly food consumption of half a gigaton tons... We would need the land area of several Earths just to grow fuel."

Does he believe environmentalists are wrecking the environment? "I'm afraid I do," he glumly responded. Because we know there remain several environmental groups who refuse to embrace nuclear energy as a much-needed solution to the planet's energy mix, we asked what he would like to say about them. "They are being very foolish," he quickly shot back. After a pause, he added, "They are living in a dream world." Like the father figure he is, Lovelock is disappointed but tries to remain buoyant. He wrote in his recent book, "My feelings about modern environmentalism are more parallel with those that might pass through the mind of a head-mistress of an inner-city school or the colonel of a newly formed regiment of licentious, and naturally disobedient young men: how the hell can these unruly charges be disciplined and made effective?"

LOVELOCK WANTS THE WORLD TO GO NUCLEAR NOW

The headline of a recent editorial in a Boston newspaper asked, "Are Pro Nuclear People the New Greens?" We discussed that. "It's a bit of an old term, really," he grinned. "Nuclear has been around for more than 40 years at least. I suppose in some countries, like the United Kingdom, you will find some groups are looking more toward nuclear."

Make no mistake in thinking James Lovelock is anything but Pro Nuclear. His quote adorns the top of the front page of the World Nuclear Association's website, "There is no sensible alternative to nuclear power if we are to sustain civilization." Rightly so, the trade association refers to their proponent as the "preeminent world leader in the development of environmental consciousness." In his book, Lovelock writes, "There is no alternative but nuclear fission until fusion energy and sensible forms of renewable energy arrive as a truly long-term provider. Nuclear energy is free of emissions and independent of imports from what will be a disturbed world."

Lovelock briefly analyzes the value and harm of each energy source in The Revenge of Gaia. He has a burning disgust for coal mining, and finds carbon-based fuels inefficient and dangerous, not only to humans but also to earth as a self-regulating system. He has frequently warned that renewables are insufficient to meet our planetary energy needs. In contrast to renewable advocates Amory Lovins or Senator Hillary Clinton, Lovelock sees little value in the immediate future for either solar or wind energy programs, and has harsh words for them, writing, "It will fail and bring discredit both to the greens and to the politicians foolish enough to adopt renewables as a major source of energy before they have been properly developed." He believes their renewable energy solutions might only hasten our civilization's demise.

Comment: The C's have a slightly different take on this:

A: Climate is being influenced by three factors, and soon a fourth. 1) Wave approach. 2) Chloroflorocarbon increase in atmosphere, thus affecting ozone layer. 3) Change in the planet's axis rotation orientation. 4) Artificial tampering by 3rd and 4th density STS forces in a number of different ways. ...

Q: (Laura) All right, were those given in the order in which they are occurring? The fourth being the one that's coming later?

A: Maybe, but remember this: a change in the speed of the rotation may not be reported while it is imperceptible except by instrumentation. Equator is slightly "wider" than the polar zones. But, this discrepancy is decreasing slowly currently. One change to occur in 21st Century is sudden glacial rebound, over Eurasia first, then North America. Ice ages develop much, much, much faster than thought.


Comment on this Article


Low pressure in the Northwest Caribbean Might Become an Organized Tropical System Late in the Weekend or by Early Next Week

AccuWeather.com
9-JUN-2006

A broad area of low pressure over the northwest Caribbean has some potential for slow development over the next few days. Satellite images continue to show a general cyclonic motion in the clouds over this region, although strong north to northwest winds have been creating too much shear over this area for any organization. The shear, however, is forecast to decrease over the next day or two.
We believe this feature will move north or northwest during the next 24-48 hours which could put it either in the Bay of Campeche or on the north or northeast coast of the Yucatan by late in the weekend. Once away from the Yucatan this feature might have some chance for further development. Water temperatures just east of the Yucatan are very warm and the waters in the Bay of Campeche are also very warm. So, the main issue will be shear. The shear will diminish over the Bay of Campeche faster than to the north of the Yucatan. So, if the feature moves more to the west or northwest it might have a better chance for organizing sooner than if it were to move due north. Computer models are showing various ideas on this and just about every model now shows some kind of low pressure area near the Yucatan by the end of this weekend. Our current feeling is that if the shear can drop off enough we could have a developing tropical system by the end of the weekend or early next week.

Elsewhere in the tropical Atlantic we are following tropical waves along 23 west, 54 west, 67 west and 78 west. All waves are moving to the west at about 4-6 degrees longitude per day and are to the south of 15 north. The wave along 23 west has the best organzation. But it will have to move across cooler water with strong shear. So, it will have a tough time as it crosses the Atlantic. The large area of African Dust extending from roughly 30 west to just east of the Lesser Antilles continues to thin out. Tropical waves moving within this dust have shown no thunderstorm development due to the drier air aloft created by this swath of dust. This dust area will move into the Lesser Antilles and eastern Caribbean during Friday and over the weekend.



Comment on this Article


Last But Not Least


Malaysia's Mahathir warns World War 4 looming

AFP
June 7, 2006

A new world war involving nuclear weapons may have already begun, Malaysia's former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad said Wednesday, warning that an attack on Iran would be disastrous.

Mahathir said that bloodshed in Iraq and Afghanistan could have marked the start of the world's fourth conflict after the two great wars and the Cold War, which ended with the collapse of Russia.

The veteran leader who ruled Malaysia for two decades until stepping down two years ago said he was convening a "peace forum" later this month bringing together experts who were sounding the alarm on the looming conflict.

"They feel that the threat is very real, certainly the fourth world war has already begun... they are convinced nuclear weapons will be used, maybe not immediately, maybe some time later," he said.

"It's not acceptable that the world should endure a prolonged fourth war," he added. "I'm convinced this might happen unless they change leaders or something like that."
Mahathir said he feared that an attack by the United States on Iran, which is insisting on pursuing nuclear capability, could trigger a global wave of suicide bombings that would create widespread insecurity.

"I went to Iran myself ... and the Iranians seem to be very determined that they will defend their country. They will not give in nor will they give up their right to do research in nuclear material," he said.

"They will fight back and I believe that they have the capacity to inflict damage on whoever attacks them."

Mahathir said without providing evidence that he had read reports of up to 14,000 suicide bombers being trained in Iran.

"They will not confine themselves to Iran. We will not know where they are and as we have seen, people who are desperate and angry will not be very particular about whom they attack," he said.

"So the world will become very insecure if Iran is attacked. Anywhere at all they may decide to take action, they may blow themselves up wherever."

Mahathir said that terrorism was the result of powerful countries attacking nations that had no other means to defend themselves, and compared their actions with independence movements during the British colonial era.

"We think that nobody should kill but there are instances where people have no other means of defending themselves -- they are being attacked using helicopter gunships, bombs, rockets etc and they are without any means of fighting back."

"They are in fact defending themselves. I'm not going to excuse them for killing children etc but one has to remember that children are also being killed by government forces," he said.

"So what is needed here is a proper perspective. If your country is being attacked, I think it's legitimate to fight back."


Comment: Two years ago, Mahathir publicly lambasted Israel and urged Muslims to unite to resist the Israeli crusade to wage war on Islam. Mahathir appears courageous enough to call things as he sees them, perhaps we would all do well to take his most recent warning seriously. All evidence suggests that he is once again 'on the mark'.

Comment on this Article


US warns of terror threat in China

Reuters
Fri Jun 9, 2006

BEIJING - The United States warned on Friday of a possible terrorist threat against its interests in China, especially in the three major cities of Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou.

"This threat also may exist for places where Americans are known to congregate or visit, including clubs, restaurants, places of worship, schools or outdoor recreation events," the U.S. embassy said in a notice on its Web site (www.beijing.usembassy.gov).

U.S. citizens should be alert to possible threats, the notice said.
Chinese authorities were not immediately available for comment.

The warning gave no further details, but it comes two days after the killing in Iraq of al Qaeda militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a U.S. airstrike in Iraq.

The embassy issued a similar notice in China in November, warning at that time that police had told them Islamic extremists could be planning attacks on luxury hotels in China.

China has not traditionally been a hotbed of terror attacks, but the government has accused ethnic Uighurs in its mostly Muslim northwestern region of Xinjiang of using violence to agitate for an independent East Turkestan state.

Beijing has waged a campaign against Uighur activists in an attempt to crackdown on separatist sentiment, which rights groups say has been characterized by arbitrary arrests and closed trials.



Comment on this Article


Jesus Loves A Machine Gun - It's the new 'Left Behind' video game, where you maim and murder and hate, all in God's name. Praise the Lord!

By Mark Morford
SF Gate Columnist
June 7, 2006

Are you a true believer? Do you just know deep down in your black Wal-Mart socks that every word of the Bible is the absolute literal truth and nothing dare be doubted and anyone who thinks that God is merely an ambisexual omniblissful bloom of moist divine nondenominational honeydew melon should be strung up by their small intestine and beaten with sticks sharpened by Mel Gibson's teeth?

Do you feel, furthermore, that human cretins like, say, gays and Jews and Wiccans and all those hippie weirdos with their iPods and low-cut jeans and easy laughter are a plague upon this fine and holy land?

Do you think that contemptible books like "The Da Vinci Code" are not only blasphemy, but that you should probably go out into the street right now and behead a few lambs and perhaps mow down some Taoists with a Gatling gun just to deflect its horrible notions of the sacredness of the feminine divine? You do?

Praise Jesus! Your video game has arrived.
Behold, blessed children, the new and upcoming "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" video game, based on the freakishly best-selling series of apocalyptic trash-lit books. It's an ultraviolent, hilariously inept, wondrously accurate portrayal of what every true right-wing Christian fundamentalist really fantasizes about after they've had one too many pink wine spritzers and have logged a few hours in the gay chat rooms and have sufficiently indoctrinated their happily numb kids with tales of vile homos and scary "progressive" liberals who want to buy them candy and tattoo their sacrums and feed them organic hot dogs.

What's the game actually about? How do you play? I believe the pro-choice, pro-religion Talk to Action blog describes it best:

Imagine: you are a foot soldier in a paramilitary group whose purpose is to remake America as a Christian theocracy, and establish its worldly vision of the dominion of Christ over all aspects of life. You are issued high-tech military weaponry, and instructed to engage the infidel on the streets of New York City. You are on a mission -- both a religious mission and a military mission -- to convert or kill Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, gays, and anyone who advocates the separation of church and state -- especially moderate, mainstream Christians. Your mission is "to conduct physical and spiritual warfare"; all who resist must be taken out with extreme prejudice.

Ah yes, the neo-Christian ideal. The ultimate dominionist police state, a smoking, reeking, post-apocalyptic vision of New York, a world teeming with nonbelievers just waiting to be either converted or massacred by nothing less than a Christianized American Taliban, a world of righteousness and judgment and death, all in the name of one very nasty and bloodthirsty God. It's "Grand Theft Auto" for the Rick Santorum set. It's "Resident Evil 4" for American Family Association types who eat too much BGH meat and never have sex.

Is it worth delineating all the appalling whorings of Christ's true message in this thing? Do you need to imagine the explosive reaction if, say, a powerful Muslim organization came out with a major video game where Islamic fundies killed hapless Christians with machine guns in order to restore the world to Allah? Or if the KKK or Aryan Nations created a game where you get to "cleanse" 'Merka of all the Jews and blacks so happy white people can stop being so scared of hip-hop? Verily, you do not.

But it is worth mentioning that, while the vast majority of sane Christians will recoil from this silly video game as violently as any sighing Wiccan, the bad news is the 10 "Left Behind" books -- a certified phenomenon, they -- have sold nearly as many copies as "The Da Vinci Code" (upward of 40 million worldwide) and their rabid fans are legion and dominionist demagogue megapastors like Rick Warren (whose megaministry is tacitly connected to the game) and famed hatemongering homophobes like James Dobson of the AMA are indoctrinating countless new and militant Christbots into their happy shiny armies of God every single day.

We can never forget: These are the people who still whisper into Dubya's ear when he's playing with his little green army men in the White House bathtub. They have stained the Supreme Court, attacked science and open discourse, made the human female nipple a symbol of shame and humiliation. Their power may be waning slightly as BushCo crumbles, but their agenda remains deeply sickening.

But hey, everyone needs a fantasy, right? Everyone needs an outlet for their violent daydreams, even fundamentalist right-wing bonk-jobs and their hapless 13-year-old male children, for whom (presumably) this game is designed. It's venomous bigotry made fun! More good news: The game should be ready just in time for Christmas.

Oh but wait. There's a lovely kicker: When you get bored with the sanctimonious drabness of fighting on the side of a hateful Christ (which, invariably, you most certainly will), the game apparently allows you to switch modes and fight for the army of the Antichrist, unleashing cloven-hoofed demons who feast on the flesh of the righteous as you blow away Bible-thumping soldiers who, just before they die, secretly confess their intense gay love for their platoon commanders. Isn't that thoughtful?

It's also a bit of genius marketing. After all, aren't the villains always far cooler and sexier than the self-righteous and the holy? The devil always has better vodka than God. Who wants to run around shooting Buddhists and praying, when you can don the armor of hell itself and drink and have dirtyfun sex and get tattoos and listen to Metallica and wear low-slung jeans and laugh easily? No one, that's who.

Which is why the game could become the sleeper hit of the year. Sure, brainwashed fundamentalist kids will love playing on the side of God. For a while. But then the dark side will beckon. The irresistible scent of rebellion will hit their noses like hot porn pizza. They will fall into the clutches of a crazy self-defined happiness, they will squirm and giggle and feel anarchic and seditious and free, running clean in a place where the beer is cold and the dancing is hot and no one is telling them they have to kill someone because that person dared to believe that God isn't, well, a misanthropic, murderous jackass.

Now that's heaven.

Thoughts for the author? E-mail him.

Mark Morford Mark Morford's Notes & Errata column appears every Wednesday and Friday on SF Gate and in the Datebook section of the SF Chronicle. To get on the e-mail list for this column, please click here and remove one article of clothing. Mark's column also has an RSS feed and an archive of past columns, which includes another tiny photo of Mark probably insufficient for you to recognize him in the street and give him gifts.

As if that weren't enough, Mark also contributes to the hot, spankin' SF Gate Culture Blog.




Comment on this Article


The real bias in Wikipedia: Visionless, self-selected, value-light, deformed shadow of what the public needs

Robert McHenry
7 June 06

Wikipedia's visionless, self-selected, value-light online encyclopedia is a deformed shadow of what the global public deserves, says former editor-in-chief of Encyclopędia Britannica, Robert McHenry.
More than a dozen years ago I was involved in a project to build an internet-delivered encyclopedic reference source. Those of us who worked on it were dazzled by the potential that seemed to be opening up before us. There was a worldwide communication network that anyone could use; here in hand was the most comprehensive and authoritative general reference work in the English language; and in between us and the goal that grew more ambitious each day were only some technical challenges and the limits of our imaginations. It was a wonderful time to be an encyclopedia editor.

Well, things didn't work out just as we hoped, for reasons too numerous to mention here. I recall this episode mainly to make the point that I understand the enthusiasm, the evangelism, that Wikipedia evokes in many, many people. I wish I could share it with them now. But, as David Shariatmadari's openDemocracy article "The sultan and the glamour model" (25 May 2006) shows once again, Wikipedia's most eloquent advocates fail, or refuse, to acknowledge certain issues.

Bias and imbalance

Shariatmadari's article praises the work of a group calling itself by the unfortunately self-congratulatory label Wikiproject: Countering Systemic Bias and ends with a call for more such efforts to improve the coverage of the encyclopedia. Certainly such work is needed. I would suggest that it needs to begin with a clear distinction between "bias" and "imbalance", terms that Shariatmadari uses interchangeably but that to an editor mean quite different things. The Wikiproject seems to concern itself with topics that are treated in insufficient detail or not at all; to me, this is addressing imbalance. "Bias" denotes a lack of objectivity or fairness in the treatment of topics. Thus, when a writer called Joseph McCabe alleged in a widely distributed pamphlet that certain articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica had been unduly influenced by the Catholic church, he was charging bias. (That was in 1947, and he was quite wrong, by the way.)

Is imbalance in Wikipedia "systemic"? I should rather say that it results inevitably from a lack of system. Given the method by which Wikipedia articles are created, for there to be any semblance of balance in the overall coverage of subject-matter would be miraculous. Balance results from planning. As an example, the planning of the coverage of the fifteenth edition of Britannica took an in-house staff and dozens of advisers several years to complete. That was forty years ago; it would be harder now.

It is unremarkable that the topics covered at present in Wikipedia reflect the interests of those who contribute to it, and that these contributors represent a relatively narrow, self-selected segment of society. In the absence of planning and some degree of central direction, how else could it have been?

It is well to bear in mind also that imbalance is a judgment, not a fact, and that it cannot be reduced to numbers. To say that article A is longer than article B is not to show that B has not been given its due. Some subjects require more background, more context, more sheer wordage to convey a sense of understanding to the reader. Are 260 lines too much to devote to the Scots language? Clearly, someone does not think so. Someone else might well feel that there ought to be much more. Three lines for the language of the Yi is almost certainly too few, but what is the right number? Who - I'm asking for a showing of hands here - knows? What is lacking is not some numerical standard but editorial standards: a set of principles that define what constitutes adequate treatment of various kinds of topics for an intended audience.

Truth and openness

David Shariatmadari writes that the situation is "uncannily like free market economics applied to knowledge." This is quite inapt. I suppose it is meant to shock; what could be worse than, you know, capitalism? I'll just point out that another shocking word that might properly be applied to Wikipedia is "globalist." Sorry, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

More seriously, a better analogy might be a children's soccer team. It is notorious that, in the United States, at least, a game involving the youngest children will consist of a swarm of twenty or so players buzzing ineffectively about the ball. As the children grow older, however, they will develop individual skills and learn to play positions and to execute strategies. Just so, traditionally, have editors honed skills, learned appropriate methods and processes, and developed the synoptic view required by the job.

No complex project can be expected to yield satisfactory results without a clear vision of what the goal is - and here I mean what a worthy internet encyclopedia actually looks like - and a plan to reach that goal, which will include a careful inventory of the needed skills and knowledge and some meaningful measures of progress. To date, the "hive mind" of Wikipedia's "digital Maoism" (as Jaron Lanier's vigorous critique on edge.org calls it) displays none of these.

That vision of the goal must do something that Wikipedia and Wikipedians steadfastly decline to do today, and that is to consider seriously the user, the reader. What is the user meant to take away from the experience of consulting a Wikipedia article? The most candid defenders of the encyclopedia today confess that it cannot be trusted to impart correct information but can serve as a starting-point for research. By this they seem to mean that it supplies some links and some useful search terms to plug into Google. This is not much. It is a great shame that some excellent work - and there is some - is rendered suspect both by the ideologically required openness of the process and by association with much distinctly not excellent work that is accorded equal standing by that same ideology.

One simple fact that must be accepted as the basis for any intellectual work is that truth - whatever definition of that word you may subscribe to - is not democratically determined. And another is that talent, whether for soccer or for exposition, is not equally distributed across the population, while a robust confidence is one's own views apparently is. If there is a systemic bias in Wikipedia, it is to have ignored so far these inescapable facts.

Robert McHenry is the former editor-in-chief of Encyclopędia Britannica. He is the author of How to Know (Booklocker, 2004) and a frequent contributor to TCS Daily. His writings have appeared in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Skeptical Inquirer, Vocabula Review, and the Chicago Tribune.

His widely-discussed article on Wikipedia, "The Faith-Based Encyclopedia Blinks" was published in TCS Daily (14 December 2005)




Comment on this Article



Remember, we need your help to collect information on what is going on in your part of the world!
Send your article suggestions to: sott(at)signs-of-the-times.org