About two years ago, candidate Obama, writing in Foreign Affairs, strongly criticized Bush’s practice of “extraordinary renditioning.” Under this policy, terror suspects were apprehended, transferred, sometimes through secret prisons and black cites, and handed over to foreign regimes like Egypt and Morocco. Sometimes this involved torture. Maher Arar, for example, was a Canadian citizen later determined to be innocent, captured in New York and sent to Syria where he was tortured in brutal ways. See this piece in the New Yorker chroniciling other such horror stories.
Obama’s criticism of renditioning, along with his general criticism of the Bush administration’s violations of habeas corpus, was one of his most serious indictments of the war on terrorism as managed by the Republicans.
Now the New York Times reports that “[t]he Obama administration will continue the Bush administration’s practice of sending terror suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation, but will monitor their treatment to insure they are not tortured.”
How will they monitor such treatment? The administration “would give the State Department a larger role in assuring that transferred detainees would not be abused.” This is the State Department headed by Hillary Clinton — the same politician whom Ann Coulter had said she’d vote for over John McCain because Clinton was more pro-torture!
The Times goes on to report:
“It is extremely disappointing that the Obama administration is continuing the Bush administration practice of relying on diplomatic assurances, which have been proven completely ineffective in preventing torture,” said Amrit Singh of the American Civil Liberties Union, who tracked rendition cases under President George W. Bush.
She cited the case of Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian sent in 2002 by the United States to Syria, which offered assurances against torture but beat Mr. Arar with electrical cable anyway.a new administrative interrogation unit, to be housed within the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which will oversee the interrogations of top terror suspects using largely non-coercive techniques approved by the administration earlier this year.”
Shares of Roche Pharmaceuticals, the company that now owns Tamiflu (Oseltamivir) skyrocketed on Friday when news reported the Mexico swine flu outbreak. [Source] Tamiflu has been effective in curing thousands of Mexicans from hybrid swine flu and helped many during the bird flu outbreak.
In 2005 when the bird flu “pandemic” was in full gear, Tamiflu investor former Bush Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld held stocks in Gilead Sciences, the California biotech company that developed Tamiflu (a product that is now manufactured and sold by Roche Pharmaceuticals). According to Rumsfeld’s federal financial disclosures his stock holdings valued between $5 million – $25 million. [Source]
Activists from truthaction.org have obtained the official guest list for Bohemian Grove’s 2008 midsummer encampment along with a map of the Grove’s facilities. According to the guest list, this year’s attendees include George H. W. Bush, David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell and several former CIA directors. Also attending are two members of the Grateful Dead, one of whom is camping with the elder Bush. During an action at the entrance of the elite retreat, several 9/11 truth information packs were accepted by Bohemian Grove campers and taken into the grove, including one by former CIA Director James Woolsey’s bunkmate.
The Bohemian Grove, located in the small town of Monte Rio in Sonoma County, California is notorious for its annual summer retreats for the rich and powerful during which participants kick back, relax and enjoy a simulated child sacrifice called ’Cremation of Care’. The Grove is strictly off-limits to the uninvited and much effort is made to maintain secrecy. Workers at the retreat must sign a comprehensive confidentiality agreement and the entrance to the 2,700 acre getaway is guarded not only by private security but also the local Sheriff’s department, at taxpayers expense.
This year, 9/11 truth activists have been a regular presence at the entrance to the Grove during the two week event, talking to many of the workers coming in and out and also to several of the campers. A number of workers have expressed profound gratitude for the presence and message of the activists and at least one elite camper displayed a seemingly genuine interest in the 9/11 truth materials he was given, stopping to talk for awhile and revealing that he was camping with a former CIA director before heading back into the Grove with his infopack.
The Pacific Epilepsy Society in affiliation with the Epileptic Foundation of Maui has completed a seven year study on Epilepsy and Seizures, finding that epilepsy is at an all time high in Hawaii and the western states and Pacific Ocean Territories. There has been a100% increase over the two previous years. See EFM Survey, Freedom of Info Act 2000-2008 & EFM Survey 1999-03
The most profound reason for the spectacular increase in seizures is the inclusion of the drug ASPARTAME in with the new larger sized anti-seizure drugs: DILANTIN, DEPACOAT, TEGRATOL and several others produced by major pharmaceutical corporations. In 2007 the manufacture of Dilantin changed the description of the 100 mg. Dilantin, changed the 100 mg white capsule with red stripe to a much larger white capsule, orange on one end, which contains 100 mg of the drug, plus aspartame. 150 people who took the new Dilantin capsule found the seizure rate increased in every case. The Chemical Pharmaceutical Engineer employee, in fear of his job would not reveal his name, but said they were adding aspartame. He said the new larger orange & white Dilantin is also labeled 100 mg.
Christie Todd Whitman Confronted on 9/11 Air Quality On September 11, 2001 former NJ governor Christie Todd Whitman was the Environmental Protection Agency Director. The agency issued false statements and declared the air safe to breathe. Here is the former EPA Director’s response to critical questions nearly seven years later.
Army uses “Calmatives”, non-lethal Chemical Weapons The US Army’s XM1063 projectile is designed to be ’non-lethal’ – but is it peaceful or hovering on the brink of illegality?
Is the XM1063 a stink bomb, a banana skin, or a bad trip? It’s hard to know. XM1063 is the code name for the US army’s new secret weapon which will “suppress” people without harming them, as well as stopping vehicles in an area 100m square. But is it a violation of chemical weapons treaties, or a welcome move towards less destructive warfare using non-lethal weapons?
Exactly how it works is classified, but we have established some details. The first part of the weapon is an artillery round – or as the army puts it, “a non-lethal personal suppression projectile” – fired from a 155mm howitzer, with a range of 28km. It scatters 152 small non-explosive submunitions over a 1-hectare area; as each parachutes down, it sprays a chemical agent. Development was overseen by the US Army’s Armament Research, Development and Engineering Centre (Ardec).
A presentation by the makers, General Dynamics, says the XM1063 will “suppress, disperse or engage personnel” and “deny personnel access to, use of, or movement through a particular area, point or facility” (=see PDF).
Smelling it out
Experts suggest three possible payloads: an existing riot-control agent, malodorants or a new chemical agent. Existing agents include CS gas and a form of pepper spray. But these seem unlikely choices, because their effects only last minutes, and could wear off before friendly forces arrive. They could also face a legal challenge: the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits the use of riot control agents in warfare
“The matter is further complicated if pepper gas was used as the irritant since this is a plant toxin,” says Steve Wright of Leeds Metropolitan University. “Such toxins are explicitly banned.”
The possibilities seem to boil down to anti-traction agents (which make the whole area impossibly slippery), a malodorant or some novel chemical agents.
Anti-traction agents are possible, but seem unlikely because research in this area (such as Darpa’s Black Ice program) still seems to be at an early stage. It would be unusual for an agency to still be doing basic research when another is about to field a finished product.
A malodorant is a super stinkbomb with a truly intolerable smell. The Pentagon has been working on such chemicals for years, and a recent US army briefing on future artillery concepts specifically mentions artillery-delivered malodorants. (see PDF)
This might sidestep the Chemical Weapons Convention with the argument that malodorants are not chemical weapons. However, Ralf Trapp, an independent disarmament consultant formerly with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, challenges this interpretation.
“That argument rests on the assumption that there are no other toxic effects of these chemicals, and that one can control the dose so that one never crosses into the dose range for toxic effects,” says Trapp. “It also is based a concept of toxicity that is centuries out of date – malodorants do have a physiological effect and toxicity is not limited to lethality.”
Finally, there is the possibility that the US has decided to ignore the convention and use new non-lethal chemical agents. This approach has supporters in high places. Before the Iraq war in 2003, Donald Rumsfeld pushed for rules of engagement that would allow US forces to use non-lethal chemicals.
Until the 1980s, the US maintained stockpiles of a chemical incapacitant known as BZ or Agent Buzz. BZ is a psychoactive chemical causing stupor, confusion and hallucinations lasting for more than 24 hours. It has an evil reputation, but this is based largely on rumour as few facts are available. Most people have only heard of BZ in connection with the film Jacob’s Ladder. This depicted soldiers exposed to a secret chemical weapon in Vietnam with terrible results, including permanent psychosis.
“We are reaping the whirlwind today because of government secrecy in the past,” says Jim Ketchum, who ran the BZ testing program in the 1960s. “It has allowed critics to make unsupportable claims about agents such as BZ without rejoinder from the government research community.” Although the US is known to have been active in this area since 2000, no comments are available from researchers on non-lethal chemical agents – now termed “calmatives”, whatever their chemical action.
Ketchum has written a book, Chemical Warfare Secrets Almost Forgotten, about his experiences of testing BZ on hundreds of volunteers. The effects are very different to those portrayed by Hollywood. None suffered physical harm, mental breakdown or any lasting after-effects. Rather than driving subjects berserk, it has a sedative action. But unlike the fentanyl used in 2002 by Russian police when they stormed a Moscow theatre where Chechen rebels were holding hostages, BZ does not rely on sedation for its effects and does not carry the same risk.
Clouding the issue
Ketchum is now retired, and his successors have had decades to develop more effective and safer agents. But strict secrecy is still in place and there is no information about current research. Ketchum argues that the use of incapacitants would save lives, especially in situations where insurgents are mixed with the civilian population. Others believe that such agents are not just illegal but a step towards unlimited chemical weapons.
“It shouldn’t be forgotten that the horrors of gas warfare in the first world war began with teargas, followed up with lethal firepower,” says Wright.
As a sideline, the XM1063 projectile also has a “vehicle area denial” component composed of nanoparticles. The US army has researched chemicals to interefere with engine combustion in the past, including work with ferrocene (normally used as an anti-knock additive) which prevent engines from working, with the idea is that this would stop any vehicle within the affected area. However, the potential health risks are unknown, especially when nanoparticles are involved.
Testing of the XM1063 was completed successfully last year and it is due for low-rate production from 2009. Ardec says that the production decision is on hold awaiting further direction from the program manager. It seems the decision on whether to enter a new age of chemical warfare now rests with the military rather then civilians. Unless put under pressure, the US Army seems unlikely to give any details of what’s in the surprise package until it is used. And maybe not even then.
Reporter Details Congressionally Approved Covert Funding Of Terrorists In Iran Military, intelligence, and congressional sources say secret war is vamped to bring down Iranian leadership
Award-winning journalist Seymour Hersh has detailed a move by the Bush administration, with Congressional backing, which represents a “major escalation” in covert military operations aimed at destabilizing the Iranian leadership.
Hersh also details how The CIA and the United States Special Operations Forces have long-standing ties to the PEJAK, the outlawed breakaway faction of the PKK terrorist group in Iran, as well as other Sunni fundamentalists that former intelligence officials say “can also be described as Al Qaeda.”
Hersh describes how the neocon White House has vamped up secret efforts to work with the same terrorist groups that were once populated with figures such as Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was fingered as one of the leading planners of the September 11th attacks.
“The Finding was focused on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change,” and involved “working with opposition groups and passing money,”Hersh reveals, quoting an unnamed “person familiar with its contents.”
Congress, under Democratic leadership, approved a $400 million request for funding late last year, according to Hersh’s sources, military, intelligence, and congressional officials with direct knowledge of the top secret Presidential Finding, which by law must be issued when covert intelligence operations get underway.
The corporate media has somewhat downplayed the revelations, which essentially highlight once again how the so called “war on terror” is a complete fiction, as US elites are funding Sunni extremists intent on destroying the Shiite Iranian leadership.
Hersh spoke about the article in an interview with CNN’s Candy Crowley:
“Well, one of the basic points is no matter what we say about diplomacy, you know, carrot and stick, the stick is working pretty hard and the stick is working overtime. This president did escalate the secret war inside Iran. We’ve been doing stuff inside Iran since ‘05 pretty heavily, Looking at the nuclear facilities, collecting intelligence and trying to undermine the regime, et cetera, et cetera but there was a significant escalation this year.” Hersh said.
“They got a great deal of authorization to spend up to $400 million. That doesn’t mean he’s spent it all yet but he’s got that kind of authorization. The secret committees — anyone who saw “Charlie Wilson’s war,” — Charlie Wilson was able to generate a lot of money secretly. That’s what happens in Congress and the other major thing is we’ve sent in a special task force that operates out of Afghanistan into Iran.”
“I did notice what Ambassador Crocker said about ‘not cross-border’ and I have a lot of respect for him and I don’t want to challenge him. But the fact is were inside but not necessarily cross-border. We have teams inside Iran. These include joint special operations forces (JSOC), the most elite commando units and basically they’re guys go after high-value targets around the world. They capture them or kill them so it’s a significant increase in American potential for damage inside Iran.”
Hersh went on to state that one of the reasons former Commander of the U.S. Central Command Admiral Fallen was forced out and purged by the Bush administration was that he was unable to find out the full scope of clandestine operations inside Iran. Hersh also stated that the endgame for Bush and Cheney is to ensure that they do not leave office without first having eliminated Iran’s nuclear program, whether that be by attacking the country or forcing regime change inside the country.
We have previously carried reports of how the US and Britain are already at war with Iran, have been at war with Iran for a number of years now and are funding anti-Iranian terrorist groups inside Iran in preparation for the fallout that will occur after overt military action is commenced.
High ranking CIA officials, Defense department officials, former UN officials and retired US air force Colonels have gone on record with the specific details.
In an article entitled The US war with Iran has already begun, written back in June 2005, former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter described how intelligence gathering, direct action and the mobilizing of indigenous opposition is all being carried out already by CIA backed US special forces.
Ritter stated:
As with Iraq, the president has paved the way for the conditioning of the American public and an all-too-compliant media to accept at face value the merits of a regime change policy regarding Iran, linking the regime of the Mullah’s to an “axis of evil” (together with the newly “liberated” Iraq and North Korea), and speaking of the absolute requirement for the spread of “democracy” to the Iranian people.
But Americans, and indeed much of the rest of the world, continue to be lulled into a false sense of complacency by the fact that overt conventional military operations have not yet commenced between the United States and Iran.
As such, many hold out the false hope that an extension of the current insanity in Iraq can be postponed or prevented in the case of Iran. But this is a fool’s dream.
The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.
The violation of a sovereign nation’s airspace is an act of war in and of itself. But the war with Iran has gone far beyond the intelligence-gathering phase.
President Bush has taken advantage of the sweeping powers granted to him in the aftermath of 11 September 2001, to wage a global war against terror and to initiate several covert offensive operations inside Iran.
Ritter goes on to describe how Iranian opposition groups, including the well known right-wing terrorist organization known as Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), once run by Saddam Hussein’s dreaded intelligence services, but now working exclusively for the CIA’s Directorate of Operations, are carrying out remote bombings in Iran of the sort that the Bush administration condemns on a daily basis inside Iraq.
He also describes how to the north, in neighbouring Azerbaijan, the US military is preparing a base of operations for a massive military presence that will foretell a major land-based campaign designed to capture Tehran.
Ritter is not alone in his assertions.
During an interview on CNN in 2006, retired U.S. Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner claimed that U.S. military operations were already ’underway’ inside Iran.
“I would say — and this may shock some — I think the decision has been made and military operations are under way,” Col. Gardiner told CNN International anchor Jim Clancy.
“The secretary point is, the Iranians have been saying American military troops are in there, have been saying it for almost a year,” Gardiner said. “I was in Berlin two weeks ago, sat next to the ambassador, the Iranian ambassador to the IAEA. And I said, ’Hey, I hear you’re accusing Americans of being in there operating with some of the units that have shot up revolution guard units.’ He said, quite frankly, ’Yes, we know they are. We’ve captured some of the units, and they’ve confessed to working with the Americans,’” said the retired Air Force colonel.
The full seven minute CNN segment can be viewed below:
Around the same time that Gardiner revealed this, RAW story ran an exclusive, which also revealed that, according to counterintelligence officials, covert operations were underway that included CIA co-option and use of right wing terror groups:
“We disarmed [the MEK] of major weapons but not small arms. [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld was pushing to use them as a military special ops team, but policy infighting between their camp and Condi, but she was able to fight them off for a while,” said the intelligence official. According to still another intelligence source, the policy infighting ended last year when Donald Rumsfeld, under pressure from Vice President Cheney, came up with a plan to “convert” the MEK by having them simply quit their organization.
“These guys are nuts,” this intelligence source said. “Cambone and those guys made MEK members swear an oath to Democracy and resign from the MEK and then our guys incorporated them into their unit and trained them.”
The MEK were notorious in Iraq, indeed, Saddam Hussein himself had used the MEK for acts of terror against non-Sunni Muslims and had assigned domestic security detail to the MEK as a way of policing dissent among his own people. It was under the guidance of MEK ‘policing’ that Iraqi citizens who were not Sunni were routinely tortured, attacked and arrested.
MEK has been linked with numerous bombings inside Iran over the course of the last few years. The organization has also killed U.S. troops and civilians since the 70’s, yet the Bush cabal continues to fund them.
According to Global Security.org, “In the early 1970s, angered by U.S. support for the pro-Western shah, MEK members killed several U.S. soldiers and civilians working on defense projects in Iran. MEK members also supported the 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, in which 52 Americans were held hostage for 444 days.”
After a bombing inside Iran in February 2007, the London Telegraph also reported on how a high ranking CIA official blew the whistle on the fact that America is secretly funding terrorist groups in Iran in an attempt to pile pressure on the Islamic regime to give up its nuclear program.
The claims were backed by Fred Burton, a former US state department counter-terrorism agent, who said: “The latest attacks inside Iran fall in line with US efforts to supply and train Iran’s ethnic minorities to destabilise the Iranian regime.”
John Pike, the head of the influential Global Security think tank in Washington, said: “The activities of the ethnic groups have hotted up over the last two years and it would be a scandal if that was not at least in part the result of CIA activity.”
More recently, this May, the Iranian Intelligence Ministry busted a CIA-backed terror group that was planning to bomb scientific, educational, and religious centers, and carry out assassinations, according to a report in the Tehran Times. The arrests came weeks after Ret. Gen. Thomas McInerney urged the U.S. to carry out terror bombings in Iran.
McInerney publicly called for the U.S. government to support groups like MEK and carry out deadly bombings in Iran:
Here’s what I would suggest to you. Number one, we take the National Council for Resistance to Iran off the terrorist list that the Clinton Administration put them on as well as the Mujahedin-e Khalq at the Camp Ashraf in Iraq,” said McInerney.
“Then I would start a tit-for-tat strategy which I wrote up in the Wall Street Journal a year ago: For every EFP that goes off and kills Americans, two go off in Iran. No questions asked. People don’t have to know how it was done. It’s a covert action. They become the most unlucky country in the world,” he added.
Top Neo-Cons have been calling for the US to back terror groups in Iran and other reports clearly indicate that this program has already been in place for years.
Last November, Fox and Friends host Brian Kilmeade openly called for US support for acts of terrorism, such as car bombings, in Tehran. Colonel David Hunt, who has over 29 years of military experience including extensive operational experience in Special Operations, Counter Terrorism and Intelligence Operations, agreed with Kilmeade, stating “absolutely” in response to Kilmead’s question about whether cars should start blowing up in Tehran.
“The CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan,” the London Telegraph reported last year.
The group has been blamed for a number of bombings inside Iran aimed at destabilizing Ahmadinejad’s government and is also active in Pakistan, having been fingered for its involvement in attacks on police stations and car bombings at the Pakistan-US Cultural Center in 2004.
As Seymour Hersh himself also reported back in 2004, U.S. intelligence and Israel’s Mossad are busy at work stirring up trouble in Iran in preparation for an attack on that country. In early 2005, the Guardian reported that “American special forces have been on the ground inside Iran scouting for US air strike targets for suspected nuclear weapons sites.”
If this all sounds a little familiar, it’s because it is. The fact is that the US has a long history of provocation and covert action inside Iran.
The In 1953 the CIA and MI6 carried out Operation Ajax (officially TP-AJAX), a covert operation by the United Kingdom and the United States to remove the democratically elected nationalist cabinet of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh from power, to support the Pahlavi dynasty and consolidate the power of Mohammed Reza Pahlavi in order to preserve the Western control of Iran’s hugely lucrative oil infrastructure.
In planning the operation, the CIA organized a guerrilla force incase the communist Tudeh Party seized power as a result of the chaos created by Operation Ajax. According to formerly “Top Secret” documents released by the National Security Archive, Undersecretary of State Walter Bedell Smith reported that the CIA had reached an agreement with Qashqai tribal leaders in southern Iran to establish a clandestine safe haven from which U.S.-funded guerrillas and intelligence agents could operate.
The conspiracy centered around having the increasingly impotent Shah dismiss the powerful Prime Minister Mossadegh and replace him with General Fazlollah Zahedi, a choice agreed on by the British and Americans after careful examination for his likeliness to be pro-British.
Zahedi was installed to succeed Prime Minister Mossadegh. The deposed Mossadegh was arrested, given a show trial, and condemned to death. The Shah commuted this sentence to solitary confinement for three years in a military prison, followed by house arrest for life.
“If there had not been a military coup, there would not have been 25 years of the Shah’s brutal regime, there would not have been a revolution in 1979 and a government of clerics,” Ibrahim Yazdi, a former foreign minister and leading member of a political party that traces its origins to Mossadegh’s National Front, told the Christian Science Monitor on the 50th anniversary of the coup and installation of the Shah. “Now it seems that the Americans are pushing towards the same direction again. That shows they have not learned anything from history.”
“For many Iranians, the coup was a tragedy from which their country has never recovered. Perhaps because Mossadegh represents a future denied, his memory has approached myth,” Dan De Luce writes for the Guardian. “Beyond Iran, America remains deeply resented for siding with authoritarian rule in the region.”
Alex Jones’s latest film Terrorstorm covers the ousting of Mossadegh in depth.
After the Iranian revolution in 1979, the US again found itself sparring with Iran. Again we find a history of provocation and aggression. In particular, a fierce assault known as Operation Praying Mantis, is renowned. The operation began after a US warship had entered mined Iranian territorial waters in the Persian Gulf.
On April 14 1988, the guided missile frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts struck a mine while sailing in the Persian Gulf as part of Operation Earnest Will, the 1987-88 convoy missions in which U.S. warships escorted reflagged Kuwaiti oil tankers to protect them from Iranian attacks. The explosion put a 25-foot hole in the Roberts’ hull and nearly sank it. But the crew saved their ship with no loss of life, and Roberts was towed to Dubai on April 16.
After the mining, U.S. Navy divers recovered other mines in the area. When the serial numbers were found to match those of mines seized along with the Iran Ajr the previous September, U.S. military officials planned a retaliatory operation against Iranian targets in the Gulf.
The battle, the largest for American surface forces since World War II,[1] sank two Iranian warships and as many as six armed speedboats. It also marked the first surface-to-surface missile engagement in U.S. Navy history.
The US also attacked and destroyed several Iranian oil platforms in a full out military assault. At the time the Chicago Sun Times reported:
U.S. naval forces on Monday attacked Iranian targets in the Persian Gulf to show the Iranians that “if they threaten us, they’ll pay a price,” President Reagan said.
In fighting conducted over nine hours, the U.S. forces knocked out two Iranian oil platforms, and then sank or disabled a fast-attack missile patrol boat, two frigates, and three speedboats when Iran attempted to fight back.
Note Reagan’s comments. Hence the name ’Operation Praying Mantis’ was a reference to the fanning of the wings used to make the mantis seem larger and to scare the opponent.
On November 6, 2003 the International Court of Justice dismissed Iran’s claim for reparation against the United States for breach of the 1955 Treaty of Amity between the two countries. The court also dismissed a counter-claim by the United States, also for reparation for breach of the same treaty. As part of its finding the court did note that “the actions of the United States of America against Iranian oil platforms on 19 October 1987 (Operation Nimble Archer) and 18 April 1988 (Operation Praying Mantis) cannot be justified as measures necessary to protect the essential security interests of the United States of America.”
The fallout of Praying Mantis also resulted in the U.S. Navy guided missile cruiser USS Vincennes shooting down an Iranian civilian commercial airliner,Iran air flight 655, between Bandar Abbas and Dubai, killing all 290 passengers and crew aboard, including 38 non-Iranians and 66 children. The Vincennes was inside Iranian territorial waters at the time of the shoot-down.
The On the morning of July 3, the Vincennes crossed into Iranian territorial waters during clashes with Iranian gunboats. Earlier in the day, the Vincennes – along with Iranian gunboats – had similarly violated Omani waters until challenged by an Omani warship.
According to the U.S. government, the Iranian aircraft was mistakenly identified as an attacking military fighter. The Iranian government, however, maintains that the Vincennes knowingly shot down a civilian aircraft.
According to the Iranian government, the shooting down of IR 655 by the Vincennes was an intentionally performed and unlawful act. Even if there was a mistaken identification, which Iran has not accepted, it argues that this constituted gross negligence and recklessness amounting to an international crime, not an accident.
Newsweek reporters John Barry and Roger Charles wrote that Rogers acted recklessly and without due care. Their report accused the U.S. government of a cover-up. An analysis of the events by the International Strategic Studies Association described the deployment of an Aegis cruiser in the zone as irresponsible and felt that the expense of the ship had played a major part in the setting of a low threshold for opening fire.
George H.W. Bush, at the time Vice President said “I will never apologize for the United States of America — I don’t care what the facts are” in reference to the incident.
It took four years for the US administration to admit officially that the USS Vincennes was in Iranian waters when the skirmish took place with the Iranian gunboats. Subsequent investigations have accused the US military of waging a covert war against Iran in support of Iraq. In February 1996 the US agreed to pay Iran $61.8 million in compensation for the 248 Iranians killed, plus the cost of the aircraft and legal expenses.
So we see that Britain and the US have a long history of covert action against and provocation of Iran in their bid to aggressively control the region. Nothing has changed.
Shocking excerpts of confidential recordings recently released under the Freedom of Information Act feature former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld talking with top military analysts about how a flagging Neo-Con political agenda could be successfully restored with the aid of another terrorist attack on America.
The tape also includes a conversation where Rumsfeld and the military analysts agree on the possible necessity of installing a brutal dictator in Iraq to oversee U.S. interests.
The tapes were released as part of the investigation into the Pentagon’s “message force multipliers” program in which top military analysts were hired to propagandize for the Iraq war in the corporate media.
In attendance at the valedictory luncheon Rumsfeld hosted on December 12, 2006 were David L. Grange, Donald W. Sheppard, James Marks, Rick Francona, Wayne Downing, and Robert H. Scales, Jr. among others.
The most extraordinary exchange takes place when Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong bemoans shrinking political support for Neo-Con war plans on Capitol Hill and suggests that sympathy for the Bush administration’s agenda will only be achieved after a new terror attack.
Rumsfeld agrees that the psychological impact of 9/11 is wearing off and the “behavior pattern” of citizens in both the U.S. and Europe suggests that they are unconcerned about the threat of terror.
DELONG: Politically, what are the challenges because you’re not going to have a lot of sympathetic ears up there until it [a terror attack] happens.
RUMSFELD: That’s what I was just going to say. This President’s pretty much a victim of success. We haven’t had an attack in five years. The perception of the threat is so low in this society that it’s not surprising that the behavior pattern reflects a low threat assessment. The same thing’s in Europe, there’s a low threat perception. The correction for that, I suppose, is an attack. And when that happens, then everyone gets energized for another [inaudible] and it’s a shame we don’t have the maturity to recognize the seriousness of the threats…the lethality, the carnage, that can be imposed on our society is so real and so present and so serious that you’d think we’d be able to understand it, but as a society, the longer you get away from 9/11, the less…the less…
In another exchange, after assuring that comments are “off the record,” Rumsfeld and one of the military analysts agree that Iraq could use a “Syngman Rhee” to take control of Iraq. Syngman Rhee was the ruthless authoritarian dictator of South Korea from after World War II through the Korean War to 1960. If the invasion of Iraq was about liberating the Iraqis from a tyrant in the form of Saddam Hussein why is Rumsfeld talking about installing an even more brutal dictator?
Rumsfeld’s admission that the correction for dwindling support of the Neo-Con imperial crusade is another terror attack is perhaps the most startling and blatant indication that 9/11 was an inside job.
During an appearance at a Long Island bookstore last month, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was asked by a member of the audience why the United States has not been hit again since 9/11.
“I honestly don’t know,” Gingrich replied. “I would have expected another attack. I was very, very worried … when we had the sniper attacks, because the sniper attacks were psychologically so frightening. … I was amazed that the bad guys didn’t figure out how to send ten or twelve sniper teams.”
“This is … one of the great tragedies of the Bush administration,” Gingrich continued. “The more successful they’ve been at intercepting and stopping bad guys, the less proof there is that we’re in danger. And therefore, the better they’ve done at making sure there isn’t an attack, the easier it is to say, ’Well, there never was going to be an attack anyway.’ And it’s almost like they should every once in a while have allowed an attack to get through just to remind us.”
Gingrich then recommended splitting the FBI into a domestic crime unit, which would respect civil liberties, and a “small but very aggressive anti-terrorism agency” with “extraordinary ability to eavesdrop.”
“I think that your liberties in a domestic setting are paramount,” Gingrich explained. “I would rather risk crime than risk losing my civil liberties. But I would not rather risk a nuclear weapon. … I think the greatest danger to our liberty is to actually have the country end up in the kind of attack that would lead us to favor a dictatorship for security.
Spooks Promise Terror Attack For New President Both Clinton and Bush exploited bombings within first year of taking office, Obama or McCain likely to enjoy the same opportunity
National intelligence spooks are all but promising that history will be repeated for a third time running, and the new President of the United States – likely Barack Obama or John McCain – will be welcomed into office by a terror attack that will occur within the first year of his tenure.
“When the next president takes office in January, he or she will likely receive an intelligence brief warning that Islamic terrorists will attempt to exploit the transition in power by planning an attack on America, intelligence experts say,”
“Islamic terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in February 1993, in Mr. Clinton’s second month as president. Al Qaeda’s Sept. 11 attacks came in the Bush presidency’s first year….The pattern is clear to some national security experts. Terrorists pay particular attention to a government in transition as the most opportune window to launch an attack.”
Naturally, the Washington Times article makes out as if a terror attack within the early stages of a new presidency is a bad thing, but both Clinton and Bush exploited terror in America to realize preconceived domestic and geopolitical agenda
The 1993 World Trade Center bombing was an inside job from start to finish – it did not come as a “surprise” to the U.S. government since they ran the entire operation, having cooked the bomb for the “Islamic terrorists” that they had groomed for the attack.
In 1993 the FBI planted their informant, Emad A. Salem, within a radical Arab group in New York led by Ramzi Yousef. Salem was ordered to encourage the group to carry out a bombing targeting the World Trade Center’s twin towers. Under the illusion that the project was a sting operation, Salem asked the FBI for harmless dummy explosives which he would use to assemble the bomb and then pass on to the group. At this point the FBI cut Salem out of the loop and provided the group with real explosives, leading to the attack on February 26 that killed six and injured over a thousand people. The FBI’s failure to prevent the bombing was reported on by the New York Times in October 1993.
The attack, coupled with the Oklahoma City bombing less than two years later, enabled Bill Clinton to whip up support for the passage of a plethora of unconstitutional legislation, including the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, the Brady Bill, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, and a $100 million dollar grant to Israel for “counter-terrorism” purposes.
By the time Clinton left office, the Patriot movement – which before the OKC bombing had grown in leaps and bounds, spurred on by the atrocities committed by the federal government at Waco – was effectively dead.
Few need reminding of George W. Bush’s agenda before he took office. The ideological framework that would shape his presidency – encapsulated by the goals of the Neo-Con Project For a New American Century – required a “new Pearl Harbor” to get things started, which is exactly what they received on September 11, 2001.
“One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade—if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency,” Bush told Herskowitz.
That “chance to invade” arrived on the morning of 9/11, within hours of which Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, “Was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq — even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks.”
A Congressional Research Service report last month stated, “Whether an incident of national security significance occurs just before or soon after the presidential transition, the actions or inactions of the outgoing administration may have a long-lasting effect on the new president’s ability to effectively safeguard U.S. interests and may affect the legacy of the outgoing president.”
The government seems pretty certain that McCain or Obama will be presented with a terror attack early on in their presidency and is giving them ample time to prepare the best method of exploiting it, but only to “safeguard U.S. interests,” naturally.
The pattern is clear – each time a new President takes office they have a mandate to act as a torch bearer for the same agenda – domestic repression and foreign invasion. A terror attack provides the perfect pretext to realize those goals.
Whether it be Barack Obama or John McCain, we can expect a new crisis to conveniently arrive shortly after they take office, enabling them to pursue the same tyrannical blueprint followed by their predecessors.
Pakistani Newspaper: “Another Twin Towers like drama is being planned”
From an article out of Pakistan’s The Nation newspaper.
“…the situation in Afghanistan looks precarious. Some NATO countries are already slithering over sending more troops and some are being frugal with financial support. President Karzai, who faces the election next year, is quarrelling with UK over the deals it has been making with the former Taliban leaders to get them to change sides. Recent think-tank reports warn of the possible collapse of the whole government leaving a vacuum that Taliban would fill. And to cover up their failure in Afghanistan, the US-allied forces are once again making Pakistan as a nexus of the so-called Islamist terror.
Once again fabricating lies, as was done in Iraq, Pakistani tribesmen are accused of working on a plan in concert with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to launch another attack on the US and its western allies. To convince the allies of the looming Taliban attack, another Twin Towers like drama is being planned in which Pakistan is the villain apparent while the US-installed Afghan president is ruling the roost. He has 40,000 highly equipped US and NATO forces in addition to the US-trained Afghan army against scattered Taliban militants whose strength hardly exceeds ten thousand. Instead of fighting with them fair and square in Afghanistan, he conveniently shifts the blame onto Pakistan.”
The Bush administration is planning to carry out air strikes against Iran by August and two U.S. Senators have already been briefed on the attack according to a report in the highly respected Asia Times, which cites a former assistant secretary of state and U.S. career diplomat as its source.
Muhammad Cohen’s article claims that Senator Diane Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Senator Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana, were informed of the attack plan and planned to voice their opposition to it in a New York Times editorial in an attempt to offset the air strike. The editorial is yet to materialize.
According to Cohen’ source, the Neo-Cons believe that they can perpetrate a “limited” air strike aimed more at sending a message than destroying Iran’s supposed nuclear program, but the consequences of such a move are likely to provoke a massive Iranian retaliation, as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has consistently warned.
The George W Bush administration plans to launch an air strike against Iran within the next two months, an informed source tells Asia Times Online, echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently.
Two key US senators briefed on the attack planned to go public with their opposition to the move, according to the source, but their projected New York Times op-ed piece has yet to appear.
The source, a retired US career diplomat and former assistant secretary of state still active in the foreign affairs community, speaking anonymously, said last week that that the US plans an air strike against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). The air strike would target the headquarters of the IRGC’s elite Quds force. With an estimated strength of up to 90,000 fighters, the Quds’ stated mission is to spread Iran’s revolution of 1979 throughout the region.
The source said the White House views the proposed air strike as a limited action to punish Iran for its involvement in Iraq. The source, an ambassador during the administration of president H W Bush, did not provide details on the types of weapons to be used in the attack, nor on the precise stage of planning at this time. It is not known whether the White House has already consulted with allies about the air strike, or if it plans to do so.
Speculating on whether such a strike will benefit either McCain or Obama on the eve of the presidential election, the report points out that McCain has built his candidacy around an aggressive foreign policy therefore would be the likelier to take advantage.
“A strike on Iran could rally American voters to back the war effort and vote for McCain,” states the article.
“On the other hand, an air strike on Iran could heighten public disenchantment with Bush administration policy in the Middle East, leading to support for the Democratic candidate, whoever it is.”
Iran’s inevitable response would send oil prices skyrocketing towards $200 dollars a barrel as global instability threatened to boil over into numerous different regions in the aftermath of any attack. McCain’s ability to grandstand as a tough war leader would no doubt be amplified by a compliant corporate media and a sizable proportion of the American public would rally behind the Arizona Senator, especially if American interests were the subject of terrorist attacks on behalf of Hezbollah and Hamas.
China’s response to any attack, with the Communist nation being Iran’s biggest customer for oil, would also be key. Any inkling of a hostile reaction would place the world under the greatest threat since the height of the cold war.
Lugar and Feinstein’s public opposition to the plan “would likely create a public groundswell of criticism that could induce the Bush administration reconsider its plan,” states the article but, “Given their obligations to uphold the secrecy of classified information, it is unlikely the senators would reveal the Bush administration’s plan or their knowledge of it.”
The impending invasion of Iran has been on the grapevine for the past three summers running and many are beginning to fear that the “boy who cried wolf” mentality is starting to discredit those who repeatedly warn of the coming attack. However, rhetoric has notably heated in the past few months.
During a recent news conference at Israel’s parliament, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House majority leader Steny Hoyer stated that the military option against Iran was still on the table.
Prominent political figures such as Zbigniew Brzezinski and Gary Hart have warned that an attack on Iran won’t arrive absent a staged provocation or a new Gulf of Tonkin style incident.
During a 2007 Senate Foreign Relations Committee meeting, Brzezinski alluded to the potential for the Bush administration to manufacture a false flag Gulf of Tonkin type incident in describing a “plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran,” which would revolve around “some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a ‘defensive’ US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
In an open letter to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, former Senator and current CFR member Hart warned the Iranian President that he would be, “Well advised to read the history of the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana harbor in 1898 and the history of the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964,” two false flag events manufactured by the U.S. itself to kick start a war.
Neo-Con General Calls For Terror Attacks In Iran McInerney urges U.S. government to support terrorist organization MEK, Bush administration already bankrolling Al-Qaeda-linked Jundullah groupPaul Joseph Watson Prison Planet May 16, 2008
Fresh off the revelation of Donald Rumsfeld’s 2006 audio tape admission that a method to reinvigorate the Neo-Con agenda would be another terror attack, Neo-Cons like Ret. Gen. Thomas McInerney, who was part of the Pentagon’s “message force multipliers” propaganda program, have been calling for the Bush administration to commit acts of terror in Iran.
According to the Crooks and Liars blog, McInerney has appeared on Fox News 144 times since Jan 2002. In one of his recent appearances he publicly called for the U.S. government to support groups like MEK, which is listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization, and carry out deadly bombings in Iran.
McInerney: Here’s what I would suggest to you. Number one, we take the National Council for Resistance to Iran off the terrorist list that the Clinton Administration put them on as well as the Mujahedin-e Khalq at the Camp Ashraf in Iraq. Then I would start a tit-for-tat strategy which I wrote up in the Wall Street Journal a year ago: For every EFP that goes off and kills Americans, two go off in Iran. No questions asked. People don’t have to know how it was done. It’s a covert action. They become the most unlucky country in the world. …
McInerney’s frothing desire to see women and children blown to bits in the streets of Tehran may have something to do with the fact that “McInerney is on the Board of Directors for several companies with defense-related contracts that would seem to benefit from his pro-war propaganda. For example, Alloy Surfaces Company (ASC), whose contracts for “ammunition and explosives” with the Department of Defense appear to have grown from $15 million in 2002 to more than $169 million in 2006. A conflict of interest, perhaps?”
McInerney “tit-for-tat” strategy, to support MEK-run terror bombings in Iran in retaliation for Iran supposedly killing U.S. troops in Iraq, a baseless claim in itself, is all the more horribly ironic when one considers the fact that MEK “has killed US troops and civilians before back in the 1970s”.
As Crooks and Liars points out, the U.S. government is already funding MEK and the group has been linked with numerous bombings inside Iran over the course of the last few years.
“The CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan,” the London Telegraph reported last year.
The group has been blamed for a number of bombings inside Iran aimed at destabilizing Ahmadinejad’s government and is also active in Pakistan, having been fingered for its involvement in attacks on police stations and car bombings at the Pakistan-US Cultural Center in 2004.
Crooks and Liars documents White House efforts to censor reports about MEK and other Iranian terror groups in the U.S. corporate media.
In Dec 2006, just days after Rumsfeld was forced to step down, the NYT published a heavily redacted op-ed by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann. Though none of the info was classified, all of which had previously “been extensively reported in the news media,” much of their article was blacked out because the “White House intervened” before it went to print. In response, Leverett and Mann followed up with an accompanying piece “What We Wanted to Tell You About Iran“ where they provided citations to previously reported sources for all of the redacted info. Raw Story compiled those sources in their “The redacted Iran op-ed revealed” and, surprise, many of the articles refer directly to the MEK terrorist group, but there had been nary a mention in the portions the White House allowed.
So, to recap: One of the Pentagon’s propaganda TV analysts who has clear ties to defense industries that would likely stand to benefit from any increased hostilities is advocating that the US ought to use a terrorist organization to commit acts of terrorism against Iran in response to alleged Iranian involvement in attacks against US forces in Iraq, which might be true, or maybe not. And if that wasn’t outrageous enough, it seems that Bush may have been authorizing such tactics already.
In November 2007, Fox and Friends host Brian Kilmeade openly called for US support for acts of terrorism, such as car bombings, in Tehran. Colonel David Hunt, who has over 29 years of military experience including extensive operational experience in Special Operations, Counter Terrorism and Intelligence Operations, agreed with Kilmeade, stating “absolutely” in response to Kilmead’s question about whether cars should start blowing up in Tehran.
U.S. media organizations like CNN, NBC, FOX and others recently reported that the death total of U.S. combatants in Iraq War had just reached 4,000. The problem is that this data seems to be an intentional distortion. Indeed, official U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs data indicates that the death total from the attrition of Iraq Wars had already reached 73,846, as of May 2007. In comparison Sky News reports that during the Vietnam War, 58,000 soldiers were killed between 1964 and 1973, an average of 26 a day. LINK
It is indeed, a well known fact that in a so-called free society, the U.S. President George W. Bush administration has banned media organizations from photographing most of the coffins, along with the maimed military personnel returning into the U.S. from Iraq. And, if you think that the U.S. President Bush administration has followed “freedom of the press” in Iraq, you have made a sudden mistake.
Journalists in Iraq, who have not prostituted themselves into disseminating the Bush administration’s public relations on the “overall success” of the Iraq War, are being subjected to oppressive persecution.
Journalists have complained of fascist-style harassment.
Is this the action of a U.S. President, who is fighting for democracy, that fundamentally relies on transparency toward supporting a critically informed public?
Indeed, award-winning independent Journalist Dahr Jamail reports that “when the United States handed over power to a ’sovereign’ Iraqi interim government, [Paul] Bremer [former U.S. administrator in Iraq] simply passed on the authority to Ayad Allawi.” LINK
Mr. Dahmail further documents that, Mr. Allawi is the “U.S.-installed interim Prime Minister, who has had longstanding ties with the British intelligence service MI6 and the CIA.” LINK
Investigative Journalist Dahr Jamail, also reports that Allawi’s “media commission had sent out an official ’order’ for news organisations to “stick to the government line on the U.S.-led offensive in Fallujah, or face legal action.” The warning was sent on the letterhead of Mr. Allawi.
The result is that Iraq has become under the Bush administration, a far worse “modern Stalinist” police state, than Iraq had ever been under Saddam Hussein. Over 1 million people in Iraq have been reportedly killed, as the direct result of the Bush regime’s pre-emptive War in Iraq. This is in addition to the over 73,000 U.S. military personnel already killed, as documented by U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs.
Mr. Bush has coordinated an effort to limit the American public’s understanding of the current Iraq War, based upon the myth-making presentation of the War. That myth-making” has sought to convince Americans, in part, that the war is taking a far less toll of American lives.
Indeed, it is apparent that the U.S. Bush administration, is anxious to “declare progress” and “victory” in Iraq, so that it can pursue its further military expansionist agenda against Iran. Seymour M. Hersh has sounded alarm bells about the Bush regime’s nuclear war ambitions against Iran. LINK
But, “The Bush administration has rejected comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam, which traumatized Americans a generation ago, with a sad procession of military body bags and television footage of grim wartime cruelty,” observed China Daily.LINK
The intellectual inspiration for the U.S. Bush administration’s public relations management of the Iraq War, is Leo Strauss.Wikipedia notes that “Strauss asks his readers to consider whether it is true that noble lies have no role at all to play, in uniting and guiding the polis.” LINK
In 2003, the magazine Foreign Policy In Focus, noted that thanks to the “Week in Review” section of the 4 May 2003 edition of the New York Times and another investigative article in a recent New Yorker magazine, “The cognoscenti have suddenly been made aware that key neoconservative strategists behind the Bush administration’s aggressive foreign and military policy, consider themselves to be followers of Strauss. LINK
Two other very influential Straussians, noted by Foreign Policy in Focus in May 2003, “include Weekly Standard Chief Editor William Kristol and Gary Schmitt, founder, chairman, and director of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). This is a six-year-old neoconservative group whose alumni include Vice President Dick Cheney and Pentagon [then] chief Donald Rumsfeld, as well as a number of other senior foreign policy officials.” LINK
“PNAC’s early prescriptions and subsequent open letters to President George W. Bush on how to fight the war on terrorism, have anticipated to an uncanny extent precisely what the administration has done.” LINK
The Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), notes that a leading “Straussian” advisor to the Bush Administration has been “Paul Wolfowitz, who was trained by Strauss’ alter-ego and fellow University of Chicago professor Allan Bloom. EIR specifically noted that Wolfowitz has helped champion the “war party” within the civilian bureaucracy at the Pentagon. LINK
Strauss emphasized that ’myths’ are “vitally needed” to “give people meaning and purpose and to ensure a stable society”; and even though he was Jewish, he praised Nazi Germany for embracing the power of myth to control the development of “liberal tendencies” in society. In the view of Strauss, presenting the truth harms society, by liberating “the governed” as “free thinkers” from the “necessary” social control of “elites”.
The Bush administration is inspired by the neo-fascist ideology of Leo Strauss, and has sought to dupe the American public into ignorance about the human suffering of U.S. military personnel in Iraq, by using Straussian techniques of political manipulation.
Shadia Drury, in Leo Strauss and the American Right (1999), argues that Strauss taught different things to different students and inculcated an elitist strain in American political leaders, that is linked to imperialist militarism and to Christian fundamentalism.
Drury accuses Strauss of teaching that “perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical, because they need to be led and because they need strong rulers to tell them what’s good for them.”
Nicholas Xenos in “Leo Strauss and the Rhetoric of the War on Terror,” Logosjournal.com similarly argues that Strauss “was not an anti-liberal in the sense in which we commonly mean ’anti-liberal’ today, but an anti-democrat in a fundamental sense; a true reactionary. Strauss, was somebody who wanted to go back to a previous, pre-liberal, pre-bourgeois era of blood and guts; of imperial domination, of authoritarian rule, and of pure fascism.”
The U.S. President Bush administration’s stated goal of staying in Iraq, to guide Iraq into democracy, and also to combat “terrorists” who threaten American and international security interests, is an apparent clever Straussian ruse. The Bush administration seeks an apparent agenda in Iraq which is far from being the affirmation of democracy and peace.
The lives of Americans have been lost not in the defence of democracy and toward global peace, but as apparent “ritual sacrifices” to the messianic Eugenic ideology of America’s ruling elites. The War on Terrorism appears to being used as a pseudonym for a Eugenics War, that seeks to use the pre-text of terrorists, to execute genocide against Iraqis, through the exploitation of and the “sacrifice” of more than 73,000 U.S. military personnel.
Get the full U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs report: PDF LINK
Massive federal deficits, not enough money for social programs. Where have all our tax dollars gone? The charts below (click for full page versions) show how our income tax dollars were spent in FY2007, which ended last September 30 (data from Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables Fiscal Year 2009, Table 8.7). As you can see, 52.7% of these discretionary funds went to the military.
These charts exclude expenditures for Social Security, Medicare, and federal highways since these programs are paid from dedicated taxes maintained in separate trust funds. They also exclude interest paid on the national debt since that spending is “mandatory”, not “discretionary”. These charts show the part of the federal budget that Congress and the President directly allocate each year (with the funds derived from our income taxes, corporation taxes, excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, and other miscellaneous taxes).
“If, in the dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran,” says the March Esquire, “it’ll all come down to one man. If we do not go to war with Iran, it’ll come down to the same man.” The piece describes this top military figure as the last obstacle to the Bush administration’s persistent push for war with Iran: “It’s left to” him and him “alone … to argue that, as he told al-Jazeera last fall: ‘This constant drumbeat of conflict … is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working [for].'”
That was Adm. William “Fox” Fallon speaking, top U.S. commander in the Middle East, last of the Vietnam vets in the high command, and, yes, the very same Adm. Fallon who has just submitted his resignation as head of Central Command. What makes this particularly ominous is that, according to former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst Patrick Lang, Fallon told him, upon taking over at Centcom, that war with Iran “isn’t going to happen on my watch.” Lang asked him how he thought he could stop it: “‘I have options, you know,’ Fallon responded, which Lang interpreted as implying Fallon would step down rather than follow orders he considers mistaken.”
Do I really need to draw you a picture to get you to imagine what’s coming next? This is as clear a signal as any that the Bush administration intends to go out with a bang – one that will shake not only the Middle East but this country to its very foundations.
In a statement, Fallon hinted at the reason for his resignation:
“Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president’s policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the Centcom region. And although I don’t believe there have ever been any differences about the objectives of our policy in the Central Command Area of Responsibility, the simple perception that there is makes it difficult for me to effectively serve America’s interests there.”
What “efforts” is he hampering but the effort to drag us into another war?
Fallon has long been a thorn in the administration’s side: while in Egypt, on a tour of his Centcom command, he assured President Hosni Mubarak that there would be no attack on Iran, which leaked to the Egyptian media. Washington was livid. “I’m in hot water, again,” he confided to Thomas P.M. Barnett, the Esquire journalist who accompanied him on his trip.
He’s been in hot water with administration hawks – including the president, wildest hawk of them all – before. Last fall, he was quoted by Pentagon insiders as calling Gen. David Petraeus an “ass-kissing little chickensh*t” for telling the president what he wanted to hear on Iraq and the “surge.” Long an advocate of engagement with China as well as Iran, Fallon has been relentlessly attacked by the neocons as “soft and accommodating.” After Fallon began reaching out to the Chinese, the response was delayed but vehement – and telling – when it came:
“It was only after the Pentagon and Congress started realizing that their favorite ‘programs of record’ (i.e., weapons systems and major vehicle platforms) were threatened by such talks that the sh*t hit the fan. ‘I blew my stack,’ Fallon says. ‘I told Rumsfeld, Just look at this sh*t. I go up to the Hill and I get three or four guys grabbing me and jerking me out of the aisle, all because somebody came up and told them that the sky was going to cave in.'”
The military-industrial-neocon complex, as it were, has been working overtime to get him out of the way of their war plans, and this week they finally succeeded. Not that Fallon is all that surprised, I’ll bet. Speaking freely to Barnett, he telegraphed his resignation:
“Sitting in his Tampa headquarters office last fall, I asked Fallon if he considered the Centcom assignment to be the same career-capping job that it’d been for his predecessors. He just laughed and said, ‘Career capping? How about career detonating?'”
It’s a detonation that will reverberate throughout the Middle East, prefiguring the mega-explosion to come. One can hardly imagine a clearer indication that the White House has made the decision to go to war with Iran . It’s just a matter of when and how the administration can provoke an incident.
That’s why U.S. warships are patrolling the Lebanese coast; and why our warships are playing hide-and-go-seek with Iranian gunboats in the Gulf. It’s the reason the Israel lobby has been beating the tom-toms for war, and the reason the anti-Fallon, Petraeus, has been so vocal about the Iranian roots of our Iraqi problem. With Fallon out of the way, the road to war – a regional conflagration that will make the invasion of Iraq seem like a holiday picnic – is cleared. Get ready for World War III.
SOME of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.
“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”
A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. “All the generals are perfectly clear that they don’t have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.
“The strategic communication problem is to make good news as entertaining as bad news,” says a new report by the Defense Science Board, a senior-level Pentagon advisory panel that normally looks at science and technology issues.
Though the panel has done other reports on strategic communication, this one is significant in that the panel reaches beyond the Pentagon to make recommendations about how strategic communication should be handled by other parts of the government, such as State Department and the White House. While the panel does not mention Donald Rumsfeld’s idea of a new global communications agency, it does suggest a senior White House position for strategic communication.
Some of the recommendations are interesting, such as the proposed creation of a RAND-like organization to study “strategic communication.” But what is strange about this report (and perhaps the majority of reports I’ve seen on strategic communication) is that it discusses the issue as if convincing people to like the United States is a matter of simply crafting the right messages. While more effective strategic communication is a worthy goal, it’s mystifying that there is little or no discussion in reports such as this about that actual implications of policy choices for how the rest of the world perceives the United States.
Double Agent Gadahn Threatens Bush In Neo-Con Stunt
Jewish Zionist who once called Muslims “bloodthirsty terrorists” helps Giuliani’s flagging numbers before New Hampshire primary
Adam Pearlman, the Jewish Mossad agent who once wrote stinging essays condemning Muslims as “bloodthirsty terrorists”, has once again popped up as an “Al-Qaeda spokesman” to boost the Neo-Con’s imperial agenda by threatening George Bush on the eve of his trip to the middle east.
In a new videotape, Pearlman, now calling himself Adam Gadahn, states, “The occupied territories are awaiting their first visit by the crusader Bush and the mujahideen are also waiting for him,” reports ABC News.
According to the tape, Gadahn promises to welcome Bush “with bombs and traps.”
Gadahn’s appearance is also perfectly timed to boost the flagging poll numbers of Rudy Giuliani and other establishment Republican candidates who have invoked the imaginary threat of terror for political points scoring before the New Hampshire primary tomorrow.
But who is the mysterious Adam Yehiye Gadahn?
The FBI lists Gadahn’s aliases as Abu Suhayb Al-Amriki, Abu Suhayb, Yihya Majadin Adams, Adam Pearlman, and Yayah.
Adam Pearlman is his real name and his grandfather is none other than the late Carl K. Pearlman; a prominent Jewish urologist in Orange County. Carl was also a member of the board of directors of the Anti-Defamation League, which was caught spying on Americans for Israel in 1993. Mike Rivero has the scoop at WhatReallyHappened.com.
Pearlman has a knack of releasing his tapes at the most politically opportune time for Bush, having first burst onto the scene shortly before the 2004 presidential election and then again right after Katrina when the President’s approval rating was tanking fast.
Even more mainstream publications, like the Los Angeles City Beat, have dismissed Pearlman before as nothing more than “cartoonish propaganda.”
Pearlman had a hippy upbringing, a brief but intense flirtation with death metal and before a sudden transformation, once referred to Muslims as “bloodthirsty, barbaric terrorists.” Pearlman was a hardcore Jewish Zionist and wrote essays and screeds bashing the Muslim faith. He even got into fights at mosques and beat up Muslim worshippers.
Pearlman, the hardcore Jewish Zionist who trashed Muslims and beat them up, grows a beard and suddenly becomes an “Al-Qaeda spokesman” – nothing suspicious here, move along! Pearlman’s personal history and the highly suspicious nature in which he suddenly professed his conversion to Islam in a single Internet posting and later appeared on the scene as a spokesman for “Al-Qaeda” are all the ingredients needed to draw the conclusion that Pearlman is working as a double agent and most likely for Mossad.
The new tape is once again the work of As Sahab, Al-Qaeda’s alleged media arm and was released by the U.S. government affiliated IntelCenter organization.
The previous Pearlman tape, released at the end of May last year, was also obtained by the IntelCenter group, a U.S. government contractor, and its head Ben Venzke gave the tape credence in media interviews concerning the story, as he has done again on this occasion.
In our previous groundbreaking expose, we unveiled the ties between Intelcenter, a group that regularly ‘obtains’ Al-Qaeda tapes and the Pentagon. Intelcenter is an offshoot of IDEFENSE, which was staffed by a senior military psy-op intelligence officer Jim Melnick, who has worked directly for Donald Rumsfeld.
Intelcenter were behind the October 2006 release of the “laughing hijackers” tape that showed Mohammad Atta and Ziad Jarrah allegedly attending a 2000 Al-Qaeda meeting and reading their last will and testament.
Segments of the video that were interspersed with footage of the “laughing hijackers,” Jarrah and Atta, showing Bin Laden giving a speech to an audience in Afghanistan on January 8 2000, were culled from what terror experts described as surveillance footage taken by a “security agency.”
News reports at the time contained the admission that the U.S. government had been in possession of the footage since 2002, while others said it was found when the United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001, and yet it was still bizarrely reported that the tape, bearing all the hallmarks of having been filmed and edited by undercover US intelligence and having admittedly been in US possession for five years, was released over the weekend of September 31/October 1 by Al-Qaeda.
The video also contained segments that were first broadcast in a British documentary called The Road to Guantanamo, which was originally aired in March 2006. The context of the corresponding scene in the dramatized documentary featured U.S. interrogators attempting to coerce Gitmo detainees into confessing Al-Qaeda membership by showing them fake videos where their likeness had been computer generated to appear as if they were in attendance during Bin Laden’s January 8 2000 speech.
The new Pearlman/Gadahn propaganda tape will no doubt be seized upon by bellicose Neo-Cons who desperately yearn for another terror attack like junkies yearn for their next hit. Unfortunately for them, crass videotapes presented by discredited intelligence double agents don’t have nearly the same impact they did before masses of people started waking up to the fact that the entire war on terror is a complete fraud propped up by crude smoke and mirror stunts which manage to fool only the dumbest of Americans.