Plan of Attack
THE NEW REPUBLIC
Bob Woodward versus the White House.
Gabriel Sherman, The New Republic Published: Wednesday, June 17, 2009
In early May, White House Counsel Greg Craig circulated a memo inside the West Wing. Part of a series of memos on protocol, it explained how to deal with writers researching books and articles on the White House. (Craig's unsurprising instructions: Clear interview requests with the press office.) While the memo didn't mention any journalists by name--and while there are currently no fewer than half a dozen major reporters under contract to write books about the nascent Obama presidency and the 2008 campaign, any of whom could conceivably end up embarrassing the administration--there is one person in particular the White House is undoubtedly nervous about: Bob Woodward.
Since the inauguration, the Washington Post legend has been quietly reporting a new book on the Obama White House. "I'm in the preliminary stages of working on it," Woodward confirmed to me by phone recently. "I'm working on it and making progress."
Officially, the White House says it is not adopting a press strategy to respond to Woodward. Ben LaBolt, an Obama spokesman, wrote in an e-mail that the Craig memo "was not issued in relation to any inquiry related to a specific reporter or author." Still, there is reason to think that Woodward might make the administration particularly anxious. "Every White House is wary of Woodward, " says New York Times White House correspondent Peter Baker, who worked alongside him at the Post. What's more, Obama's White House is known to hate process stories, exactly the sort of exhaustive, in-the-room descriptions of high-level debates at which Woodward excels. And, even worse, Woodward has some extra motivation to fill his next book with big scoops. His fourth and final Bush book, The War Within, sold just 159,000 copies, according to Nielsen BookScan, far below his third Bush installment, State of Denial, which sold more than half a million. "The last time I talked to him about books, earlier this year, he had been lamenting the fact his last Bush book didn't sell as well," one of Woodward's friends told me.
And an especially hungry Bob Woodward is especially bad news if you're one of the people being written about. "Good luck," another Woodward friend told me when I asked if the White House will succeed in keeping Woodward out. "If you want to hide things from Bob, it always comes out. It always does."
As former White House officials have made clear, Woodward can easily become a vexing problem at the highest reaches of an administration. In his 1999 memoir All Too Human, George Stephanopoulos detailed the fallout from Woodward's 1994 best-seller, The Agenda, which helped to define the Clinton presidency as freewheeling and dysfunctional. "His books invariably created embarrassing headlines for their subjects, but his sources were assumed to be the most important, connected, and knowledgeable people in Washington. I was wary of Woodward, but flattered and curious too," the former Clinton spokesman wrote about his decision to meet Woodward and grant an interview.
Stephanopoulos explains Woodward's reporting style: "He flashes a glimpse of what he knows, shaded in a largely negative light, with the hint of more to come, setting up a series of prisoner's dilemmas in which each prospective source faces a choice: Do you cooperate and elaborate in return (you hope) for learning more and earning a better portrayal--for your boss and yourself? Or do you call his bluff by walking away in the hope that your reticence will make the final product less authoritative and therefore less damaging? If no one talks, there is no book. But someone--then everyone--always talks."
Not only did Stephanopoulos end up talking, he also passed along a letter from Woodward to President Clinton, who himself sat for an interview. It was a decision the president came to regret. Stephanopoulos writes that the "repercussions were immediate" when Woodward's book was released. (Clinton fired his chief of staff, Mack McLarty, and brought on Leon Panetta.) The president was said to be furious at Woodward's portrayal of his administration.
From the outset, the Bush White House decided to cooperate with Woodward. "It was a different era when the first Woodward book came out," recalls former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. "President Bush was riding high, and events were going well." Fleischer says that Bush himself urged staffers to cooperate with Woodward, especially then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who was reluctant to grant an interview (he did). "The message got down to everybody: 'Talk to him,'" Fleischer says. Bush sat for interviews for Woodward's first two installments, and, even though the president didn't personally cooperate with Woodward's third book, State of Denial, Fleischer says that "the White House tried to be helpful."
This time around, Woodward told me that, while he had heard about the Obama White House's effort to manage access for writers, he was not worried. "People make their individual choices about what they're going to do, even in the White House and in the government," he said. "Over my four decades of working on books, you find that some people will help, some people won't help, some will help at certain stages and not at others, some people won't help at the beginning but will help later on. That's reporting."
"What he does," one Woodward friend told me, "is he just turns on the vacuum cleaner and goes around Washington scooping up information until he gets a focus." That focus, of course, is subject to change. For his first book on Bush, Woodward told me he initially reported on the Bush tax cut, which dominated headlines in the languid summer of 2001, before September 11 jolted the White House onto its war footing. "In the case of Bush, after he was elected, I decided the center of gravity was his tax cut," Woodward said. "So I worked for nine months on his tax cut. I was doing the last interviews on the Hill on 9/11, and, of course, the center of gravity shifted to national security, so I shifted. I still have those boxes sitting in my office. It's a book about the Bush tax cut that was never written and probably never will be written."
One possibility, and a potentially worrisome one for this administration, is that Woodward will choose to focus on national security--the area where Obama has always seemed hypersensitive about being portrayed as weak and directionless. If he does, a likely source could be Obama's national security adviser, Jim Jones. A couple of years ago, Jones was a guest of Woodward at his wife Elsa Walsh's fiftieth birthday party held at Sally Quinn and Ben Bradlee's house. "He and Elsa were glued to Jones at the cocktail party before the dinner started," one attendee told me. Another source could be David Petraeus. A favorite Washington parlor game consists of trying to figure out whether various officials talk to Woodward based on how generously he depicts them. If that method is accurate, then it suggests that Petraeus, who was portrayed glowingly in The War Within, was a Woodward source--and perhaps will be again.
Of course, Woodward is not the only well-known author the White House has to worry about. Journalists writing books on Obama's presidency include Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter, New Yorker Washington correspondent (and former TNR staffer) Ryan Lizza, and TNR's Noam Scheiber; two campaign books--one by Haynes Johnson and Washington Post reporter Dan Balz, the other by New York magazine's John Heilemann and Time's Mark Halperin--are also in the works.
But Woodward isn't fazed. "As they say in the book business, you can't judge a book by the proposal," he told me. "There are a lot of people doing books with angles that may or may not pan out." Woodward, it seems, not only plays head games with his sources, but also with the competition.
Gabriel Sherman is a special correspondant for The New Republic.
2009/05/31
Obama Nervous about Woodward's New Book
Plan of Attack
THE NEW REPUBLIC
Bob Woodward versus the White House.
Gabriel Sherman, The New Republic Published: Wednesday, June 17, 2009
In early May, White House Counsel Greg Craig circulated a memo inside the West Wing. Part of a series of memos on protocol, it explained how to deal with writers researching books and articles on the White House. (Craig's unsurprising instructions: Clear interview requests with the press office.) While the memo didn't mention any journalists by name--and while there are currently no fewer than half a dozen major reporters under contract to write books about the nascent Obama presidency and the 2008 campaign, any of whom could conceivably end up embarrassing the administration--there is one person in particular the White House is undoubtedly nervous about: Bob Woodward.
Since the inauguration, the Washington Post legend has been quietly reporting a new book on the Obama White House. "I'm in the preliminary stages of working on it," Woodward confirmed to me by phone recently. "I'm working on it and making progress."
Officially, the White House says it is not adopting a press strategy to respond to Woodward. Ben LaBolt, an Obama spokesman, wrote in an e-mail that the Craig memo "was not issued in relation to any inquiry related to a specific reporter or author." Still, there is reason to think that Woodward might make the administration particularly anxious. "Every White House is wary of Woodward, " says New York Times White House correspondent Peter Baker, who worked alongside him at the Post. What's more, Obama's White House is known to hate process stories, exactly the sort of exhaustive, in-the-room descriptions of high-level debates at which Woodward excels. And, even worse, Woodward has some extra motivation to fill his next book with big scoops. His fourth and final Bush book, The War Within, sold just 159,000 copies, according to Nielsen BookScan, far below his third Bush installment, State of Denial, which sold more than half a million. "The last time I talked to him about books, earlier this year, he had been lamenting the fact his last Bush book didn't sell as well," one of Woodward's friends told me.
And an especially hungry Bob Woodward is especially bad news if you're one of the people being written about. "Good luck," another Woodward friend told me when I asked if the White House will succeed in keeping Woodward out. "If you want to hide things from Bob, it always comes out. It always does."
As former White House officials have made clear, Woodward can easily become a vexing problem at the highest reaches of an administration. In his 1999 memoir All Too Human, George Stephanopoulos detailed the fallout from Woodward's 1994 best-seller, The Agenda, which helped to define the Clinton presidency as freewheeling and dysfunctional. "His books invariably created embarrassing headlines for their subjects, but his sources were assumed to be the most important, connected, and knowledgeable people in Washington. I was wary of Woodward, but flattered and curious too," the former Clinton spokesman wrote about his decision to meet Woodward and grant an interview.
Stephanopoulos explains Woodward's reporting style: "He flashes a glimpse of what he knows, shaded in a largely negative light, with the hint of more to come, setting up a series of prisoner's dilemmas in which each prospective source faces a choice: Do you cooperate and elaborate in return (you hope) for learning more and earning a better portrayal--for your boss and yourself? Or do you call his bluff by walking away in the hope that your reticence will make the final product less authoritative and therefore less damaging? If no one talks, there is no book. But someone--then everyone--always talks."
Not only did Stephanopoulos end up talking, he also passed along a letter from Woodward to President Clinton, who himself sat for an interview. It was a decision the president came to regret. Stephanopoulos writes that the "repercussions were immediate" when Woodward's book was released. (Clinton fired his chief of staff, Mack McLarty, and brought on Leon Panetta.) The president was said to be furious at Woodward's portrayal of his administration.
From the outset, the Bush White House decided to cooperate with Woodward. "It was a different era when the first Woodward book came out," recalls former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. "President Bush was riding high, and events were going well." Fleischer says that Bush himself urged staffers to cooperate with Woodward, especially then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who was reluctant to grant an interview (he did). "The message got down to everybody: 'Talk to him,'" Fleischer says. Bush sat for interviews for Woodward's first two installments, and, even though the president didn't personally cooperate with Woodward's third book, State of Denial, Fleischer says that "the White House tried to be helpful."
This time around, Woodward told me that, while he had heard about the Obama White House's effort to manage access for writers, he was not worried. "People make their individual choices about what they're going to do, even in the White House and in the government," he said. "Over my four decades of working on books, you find that some people will help, some people won't help, some will help at certain stages and not at others, some people won't help at the beginning but will help later on. That's reporting."
"What he does," one Woodward friend told me, "is he just turns on the vacuum cleaner and goes around Washington scooping up information until he gets a focus." That focus, of course, is subject to change. For his first book on Bush, Woodward told me he initially reported on the Bush tax cut, which dominated headlines in the languid summer of 2001, before September 11 jolted the White House onto its war footing. "In the case of Bush, after he was elected, I decided the center of gravity was his tax cut," Woodward said. "So I worked for nine months on his tax cut. I was doing the last interviews on the Hill on 9/11, and, of course, the center of gravity shifted to national security, so I shifted. I still have those boxes sitting in my office. It's a book about the Bush tax cut that was never written and probably never will be written."
One possibility, and a potentially worrisome one for this administration, is that Woodward will choose to focus on national security--the area where Obama has always seemed hypersensitive about being portrayed as weak and directionless. If he does, a likely source could be Obama's national security adviser, Jim Jones. A couple of years ago, Jones was a guest of Woodward at his wife Elsa Walsh's fiftieth birthday party held at Sally Quinn and Ben Bradlee's house. "He and Elsa were glued to Jones at the cocktail party before the dinner started," one attendee told me. Another source could be David Petraeus. A favorite Washington parlor game consists of trying to figure out whether various officials talk to Woodward based on how generously he depicts them. If that method is accurate, then it suggests that Petraeus, who was portrayed glowingly in The War Within, was a Woodward source--and perhaps will be again.
Of course, Woodward is not the only well-known author the White House has to worry about. Journalists writing books on Obama's presidency include Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter, New Yorker Washington correspondent (and former TNR staffer) Ryan Lizza, and TNR's Noam Scheiber; two campaign books--one by Haynes Johnson and Washington Post reporter Dan Balz, the other by New York magazine's John Heilemann and Time's Mark Halperin--are also in the works.
But Woodward isn't fazed. "As they say in the book business, you can't judge a book by the proposal," he told me. "There are a lot of people doing books with angles that may or may not pan out." Woodward, it seems, not only plays head games with his sources, but also with the competition.
Gabriel Sherman is a special correspondant for The New Republic.
Obama Deception: Fascism is now on Steroids in Obama Regime
Thursday, May 28 2009 - 9/11 Consequences
Obama's Torture State
Four Things You Need to Know About Barack Obama and U.S. Torture & Detention May 27, 2009 by the writing team at World Can't Wait.org
1. Barack Obama did NOT end torture.
Many people think that, upon taking office, Barack Obama ended torture. This is just not true. Under Obama, the U.S has continued to torture prisoners at Guantanamo, where more than 200 detainees are still being held without charge or trial.
According to a February 2009 report by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), Guantanamo guards routinely subject detainees to vicious beatings, solitary confinement, sleep deprivation, suffocation, repeated use of tear gas, and the force-feeding of tubes through the nasal passages of hunger strikers. Much of this torture is committed by Guantanamo's Immediate Reaction Force (IRF) teams, which CCR president Michael Ratner has described as the "black shirts of Guantanamo."
Quoting from the CCR report: "Detainees are subjected to brutal physical assaults by the Immediate Reaction Force (IRF), a team of military guards comparable to a riot squad, who are trained to respond to alleged 'disciplinary infractions' with overwhelming force." And later in the report: "In Camps 5, 6 and Echo, detainees live in constant fear of physical violence. Frequent attacks by IRF teams heighten this anxiety and reinforce that violence can be inflicted by the guards at any moment for any perceived infraction, or sometimes without provocation or explanation."
In fact, conditions at Guantanamo have gotten even worse since Obama became president. "Certainly in my experience there have been many, many more reported incidents of abuse since the inauguration," Ahmed Ghappour, a lawyer representing several Guantanamo detainees, told Reuters in February.1
And, contrary to popular belief and to his own statements, Obama's executive orders do not ban torture either; they contain several loopholes that allow it to continue. For instance, the order states that interrogation techniques must conform to the Army Field Manual, but Annex M of that manual allows for prolonged solitary confinement and sleep deprivation.The order also established a task force that includes Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Attorney General Eric Holder that is charged with determining whether to implement techniques that go beyond the Army Field Manual. Finally, the order states that prisoners shall be treated humanely, "whenever such individuals are in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States."
This raises the obvious question: What about the many instances when the U.S. hands detainees over to other countries--or to prisons run by its puppet governments in Afghanistan and Iraq?
2. Obama's detention program is even more fascist than Bush's program.
During the campaign Obama declared habeas corpus to be "the foundation of Anglo-American law." Habeas corpus is your right to challenge your detention; it's a right that goes back almost 900 years. Its absence marks a tyranny because without it there are no restraints on a government's powers to detain and punish. In March 2008, Obama claimed that: "We ultimately provide anybody that we're detaining an opportunity through habeas corpus to answer to charges."
Obama's actions since assuming office, however, have made a mockery of his campaign rhetoric, to say the least. Even before his major speech on May 21, Obama made clear that he was continuing the fundamental aspects of the Bush Regime's detention program, including: Indefinitely detaining anybody his administration chooses to, without charge or trial; denying habeas corpus to hundreds of prisoners at the Bagram prison in Afghanistan, which is currently undergoing a $60 million expansion; denying habeas corpus to Guantanamo prisoners detained before June 2008; and reinstituting Bush's military commissions. Obama claimed to be "reforming" the military commissions by preventing the admission of evidence gained through torture, limiting hearsay evidence, and allowing detainees to choose which military lawyer would represent them. This caused Vincent Warren, CCR's executive director, to comment:
"You know, putting a few due process protections on an old George Bush policy is like rehabbing a house on a toxic waste site. You know, it really didn't make a whole lot of difference. And you can't make the military commissions better."
But in his May 21 speech, Obama went further than even Bush ever did: He announced his intent to implement indefinite preventive detention. In other words, Obama announced that in addition to sending detainees before military commissions, sending still other prisoners off for continued detention in other countries, releasing some detainees, and moving to prosecute others who have already been subjected to a living hell for the past several years, the U.S. will detain people indefinitely, without charge or trial, whom the government claims might commit a crime. Not just people whom the government claims have committed a crime, mind you, but those whom the administration says might commit a crime.
Here is what Obama himself said in his speech, followed by former constitutional lawyer and renowned blogger Glenn Greenwald's analysis of the speech...
Obama: Now, finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. And I have to be honest here -- this is the toughest single issue that we will face. We're going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States. Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people."Greenwald: "It's important to be clear about what 'preventive detention' authorizes. It does not merely allow the U.S. Government to imprison people alleged to have committed Terrorist acts yet who are unable to be convicted in a civilian court proceeding. That class is merely a subset, perhaps a small subset, of who the Government can detain. Far more significant, 'preventive detention' allows indefinite imprisonment not based on proven crimes or past violations of law, but of those deemed generally 'dangerous' by the Government for various reasons (such as, as Obama put it yesterday, they 'expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden' or 'otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans') That's what 'preventive' means: imprisoning people because the Government claims they are likely to engage in violent acts in the future because they are alleged to be 'combatants.' Once known, the details of the proposal could -- and likely will -- make this even more extreme by extending the 'preventive detention' power beyond a handful of Guantanamo detainees to anyone, anywhere in the world, alleged to be a 'combatant.'" (Emphasis in original)
By comparison, as Greenwald goes on to point out, the maximum amount of time that people can be held without charge is 24 hours in Canada;48 hours in South Africa, Germany, New Zealand and the U.S.;five days in Russia; and 7 ½ days in Turkey.
And yet, Obama announced he will seek to hold people indefinitely without charge on the basis that they might commit a crime.You could not find a more totalitarian measure in the pages of George Orwell's "1984."
Many people breathed a sigh of relief after the president's speech because Obama promised to consult Congress on his detention policies, and to establish a "legitimate legal framework" for indefinite preventive detention. But establishing a "legitimate legal framework" for an escalation of the Bush Regime's fascist detention program should not be comforting at all--by seeking to normalize that program, it only makes it all the more dangerous!
People of conscience must once again ask themselves: "Will I accept something under Obama that I never would have accepted under Bush?"
3. Barack Obama is covering-up war crimes and crimes against humanity.
This process has several components to it:
REFUSING TO PROSECUTE WAR CRIMINALS
Let's put a few simple facts together:A) Barack Obama has acknowledged on several occasions that the Bush Regime authorized torture. For instance, in January 2009, he told ABC's George Stephanophoulous, "[Former] Vice President Cheney I think continues to defend what he calls extraordinary measures or procedures when it comes to interrogations and from my view waterboarding is torture."
B) Bush officials have admitted that the administration, all the way up to George W. Bush himself, authorized torture (they do not call it torture, they call it "enhanced interrogation techniques"). In May 2009, Cheney appeared on "Face the Nation" with Bob Schieffer and said, "This was a presidential-level decision. And the decision went to the president. He signed off on it."
C) The four torture memos that Obama released in April 2009 prove, in a graphic and incredibly detailed manner, that Bush Regime lawyers Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury authorized forms of torture including waterboarding, slamming into walls, confinement in boxes, shackling and sleep deprivation for days at a time, and forced nudity.2
D) Under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, all state parties are required to investigate and prosecute torturers. Article 12 states: "Each state party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction."
Add all this up, and here's what you get: Obama is morally and legally required, under international law, to commence investigations and prosecutions of Bush officials for torture. And yet he refuses to do so. This means Obama himself is in violation of international law, and is complicit with the Bush Regime's crimes against humanity. Furthermore, unless and until Obama enforces laws against torture, he is ensuring it will continue; he is sending a message that those who violate these laws in the future will not be punished.
Imagine a serial killer murders in broad daylight. And imagine if, instead of arresting the killer, the local police department issued a statement saying, "From this day forward, we will not allow murder. But we are not going to prosecute the murderer." This is what Obama has done by refusing to prosecute the Bush Regime. If the Bush regime can get away with openly violating the law then there is no "rule of law." Any president can henceforth break the law without any consequences.
BLOCKING ROUGHLY 2000 U.S. TORTURE PHOTOS
As if his refusal to prosecute Bush officials who authorized and carried out torture weren't bad enough, Obama took another huge step towards covering up the crimes of our government when he announced in May 2009 that he will try to block roughly 2000 photos of U.S. torture from being released. Obama justified this decision by claiming that releasing the photos would only increase anti-American sentiment, and added, "Publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals."
This is a lie! What actually increases "anti-American sentiment" is not photos of torture; it's torture itself! Furthermore, Obama knows full well that torture was not carried out by "a small number of individuals," but rather was applied systematically, on a huge scale, and with approval from the highest levels of the U.S. government. Just to give one example of this fact: In his recent book, "George W. Bush, War Criminal?" Professor Michael Haas reveals3 that the Bush Regime imprisoned thousands of children in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo, and subjected them to rape, severe physical beatings, solitary confinement, denial of contact with parents for years at a time, and use of dogs.
The 2000 photos would serve as powerful and irrefutable further proof of the fact that U.S. torture is systematic and widespread, and they would show the true essence of the U.S. wars for empire in the Middle East. It is exactly for these reasons that Obama is trying so hard to block the photos from coming out!
Obama's decision to block the photos also goes hand in hand with his refusal to prosecute Bush Regime war criminals: Releasing the photos would undoubtedly unleash an even louder demand for prosecutions.
BLOCKING LAWSUITS OF TORTURE VICTIMS
Finally, Obama has continued Bush's use of the "state secrets" argument to prevent victims of U.S. torture from suing the government. Perhaps most infamously, in February, the Obama administration applied the state secrets argument in the case of Mohamed et al vs. Jeppesen Dataplan Inc. In 2002, Binyam Mohamed--a citizen of Ethiopia and British resident--was arrested in Pakistan, and then sent by the U.S. to Morocco, and then Afghanistan, and then finally to Guantanamo. Mohamed was not released until 2009. During his seven years of detention, he was horrifically tortured.
This torture included having his penis repeatedly cut with a scalpel: "One of them took my penis in his hand and began to make cuts," Mohamed said, recounting his treatment. "He did it once, and then stood still for maybe a minute, watching my reaction. I was in agony. They must have done this 20 to 30 times, in maybe two hours. There was blood all over. 'I told you I was going to teach you who's the man," [one] eventually said."4
Mohamed and four other detainees sued Jeppesen Dataplan, a subsidiary of Boeing, for arranging the flights used to transfer them to the various countries in which they were tortured. But in February, the Obama administration continued to argue the same position as the Bush Regime in seeking to block Mohamed's lawsuit from proceeding: That allowing the case to go forward jeopardized U.S. national security.
In April, an appeals court ruled against the Obama administration and reinstated Mohamed et al vs. Jeppesen Dataplan Inc. But the fact that Obama would seek to protect torturers at the expense of torture victims is both very revealing, and very much in line with his overall continuation and escalation of the Bush Regime's torture and detention program.
4. Obama is continuing rendition.
During his confirmation hearing, CIA director Leon Panetta made it clear the Obama administration will continue rendition: "Using renditions, we may very well direct individuals to third countries," Panetta said.
Rendition is the practice of kidnapping somebody in one country and shipping them to another country for detention. On February 5, Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), pointed out: "Rendition is a violation of sovereignty. It's a kidnapping. It's force and violence ... Once you open the door to rendition, you're opening the door, essentially, to a lawless world."
Obama supporters have attempted to draw the distinction between this practice and "extraordinary rendition," defined as the practice of transferring somebody to another country knowing that they will be tortured.
But who does Panetta view as a source of inspiration when it comes to making sure that people are not tortured? The Bush Regime! During his confirmation hearing, Leon Panetta said that under the Bush administration, "There were efforts by the CIA to seek and to receive assurances that those individuals would not be mistreated."
Panetta then added, "I will seek the same kind of assurances that those individuals will not be mistreated."
Hmm. That's comforting.
The New York Times reported on March 7, 2009:
"Mr. Obama also left open the option for American operatives to capture terrorism suspects abroad even without the cooperation of a country where they were found. 'There could be situations -- and I emphasize 'could be' because we haven't made a determination yet -- where, let's say that we have a well-known Al Qaeda operative that doesn't surface very often, appears in a third country with whom we don't have an extradition relationship or would not be willing to prosecute, but we think is a very dangerous person,' he said."
The above facts should make abundantly clear that Barack Obama is not only continuing, but seeking to legitimize and consolidate, the Bush Regime's torture and detention state. If we do not want to live in a country whose government can kidnap anyone they please, imprison them without charge or trial, and torture them--all with impunity--we must immediately and visibly resist torture and the crimes of our government. We must demand prosecutions of all who authorized and carried out torture; release of the torture photos; and an immediate (and actual) end to our government's fascistic torture and detention program.
NOTES
1 "Exclusive: Lawyer says Guantanamo abuse worse since Obama," February 25, 2009, Reuters.com: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE51O3TB20090225?sp=true
2 "RELEASED: The Bush Administration's Secret Legal Memos," April, 2009, http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/olc_memos.html.
3 CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html
4 http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/aug/02/terrorism.humanrights1
The Trauma of 9/11 Is No Excuse
The Trauma of 9/11 Is No Excuse
By Richard A. Clarke Sunday, May 31, 2009
Top officials from the Bush administration have hit upon a revealing new theme as they retrospectively justify their national security policies. Call it the White House 9/11 trauma defense.
"Unless you were there, in a position of responsibility after September 11, you cannot possibly imagine the dilemmas that you faced in trying to protect Americans," Condoleezza Rice said last month as she admonished a Stanford University student who questioned the Bush-era interrogation program. And in his May 21 speech on national security, Dick Cheney called the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, a "defining" experience that "caused everyone to take a serious second look" at the threats to America. Critics of the administration have become more intense as memories of the attacks have faded, he argued. "Part of our responsibility, as we saw it," Cheney said, "was not to forget the terrible harm that had been done to America."
I remember that morning, too. Shortly after the second World Trade Center tower was hit, I burst in on Rice (then the president's national security adviser) and Cheney in the vice president's office and remember glimpsing horror on his face. Once in the bomb shelter, Cheney assembled his team while the crisis managers on the National Security Council staff coordinated the government response by video conference from the Situation Room. Many of us thought that we might not leave the White House alive. I remember the next day, too, when smoke still rose from the Pentagon as I sat in my office in the White House compound, a gas mask on my desk. The streets of Washington were empty, except for the armored vehicles, and the skies were clear, except for the F-15s on patrol. Every scene from those days is seared into my memory. I understand how it was a defining moment for Cheney, as it was for so many Americans.
Yet listening to Cheney and Rice, it seems that they want to be excused for the measures they authorized after the attacks on the grounds that 9/11 was traumatic. "If you were there in a position of authority and watched Americans drop out of eighty-story buildings because these murderous tyrants went after innocent people," Rice said in her recent comments, "then you were determined to do anything that you could that was legal to prevent that from happening again."
I have little sympathy for this argument. Yes, we went for days with little sleep, and we all assumed that more attacks were coming. But the decisions that Bush officials made in the following months and years -- on Iraq, on detentions, on interrogations, on wiretapping -- were not appropriate. Careful analysis could have replaced the impulse to break all the rules, even more so because the Sept. 11 attacks, though horrifying, should not have surprised senior officials. Cheney's admission that 9/11 caused him to reassess the threats to the nation only underscores how, for months, top officials had ignored warnings from the CIA and the NSC staff that urgent action was needed to preempt a major al-Qaeda attack.
Thus, when Bush's inner circle first really came to grips with the threat of terrorism, they did so in a state of shock -- a bad state in which to develop a coherent response. Fearful of new attacks, they authorized the most extreme measures available, without assessing whether they were really a good idea.
I believe this zeal stemmed in part from concerns about the 2004 presidential election. Many in the White House feared that their inaction prior to the attacks would be publicly detailed before the next vote -- which is why they resisted the 9/11 commission -- and that a second attack would eliminate any chance of a second Bush term. So they decided to leave no doubt that they had done everything imaginable.
The first response they discussed was invading Iraq. While the Pentagon was still burning, Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld was in the White House suggesting an attack against Baghdad. Somehow the administration's leaders could not believe that al-Qaeda could have mounted such a devastating operation, so Iraqi involvement became the convenient explanation. Despite being told repeatedly that Iraq was not involved in 9/11, some, like Cheney, could not abandon the idea. Charles Duelfer of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group recently revealed in his book, "Hide and Seek: The Search for Truth in Iraq," that high-level U.S. officials urged him to consider waterboarding specific Iraqi prisoners of war so that they could provide evidence of an Iraqi role in the terrorist attacks -- a request Duelfer refused. (A recent report indicates that the suggestion came from the vice president's office.) Nevertheless, the lack of evidence did not deter the administration from eventually invading Iraq -- a move many senior Bush officials had wanted to make before 9/11.
On detention, the Bush team leaped to the assumption that U.S. courts and prisons would not work. Before the terrorist attacks, the U.S. counterterrorism program of the 1990s had arrested al-Qaeda terrorists and others around the world and had a 100 percent conviction rate in the U.S. justice system. Yet the American system was abandoned, again as part of a pattern of immediately adopting the most extreme response available. Camps were established around the world, notably in Guantanamo Bay, where prisoners were held without being charged or tried. They became symbols of American overreach, held up as proof that al-Qaeda's anti-American propaganda was right.
Similarly, with regard to interrogation, administration officials conducted no meaningful professional analysis of which techniques worked and which did not. The FBI, which had successfully questioned al-Qaeda terrorists, was effectively excluded from interrogations. Instead, there was the immediate and unwarranted assumption that extreme measures -- such as waterboarding one detainee 183 times -- would be the most effective.
Finally, on wiretapping, rather than beef up the procedures available under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), the administration again moved to the extreme, listening in on communications here at home without legal process. FISA did need some modification, but it also allowed for the quick issuance of court orders, as when President Clinton took stepped-up defensive measures in late 1999 under the heightened threat of the new millennium.
Yes, Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice may have been surprised by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- but it was because they had not listened. And their surprise led them to adopt extreme counterterrorism techniques -- but it was because they rejected, without analysis, the tactics the Clinton administration had used. The measures they uncritically adopted, which they simply assumed were the best available, were in fact unnecessary and counterproductive.
"I'll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities," Cheney said in his recent speech. But this defense does not stand up. The Bush administration's response actually undermined the principles and values America has always stood for in the world, values that should have survived this traumatic event. The White House thought that 9/11 changed everything. It may have changed many things, but it did not change the Constitution, which the vice president, the national security adviser and all of us who were in the White House that tragic day had pledged to protect and preserve.
Richard A. Clarke, the national coordinator for security and counterterrorism under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, is the author of "Against All Enemies" and "Your Government Failed You."
DENVER PBS Station Airs "9/11: PRESS FOR TRUTH"
KBDI, DENVER, CO.
Wednesday, June 3 at 7:00 pm on Channel 12 / 12.1
Following the attacks of September 11th, a small group of grieving families waged a tenacious battle against those who sought to bury the truth about the event -- including, to their amazement, President Bush. In this documentary, six of them -- including three of the famous 9/11 widows known as the "Jersey Girls" -- tell the powerful story of how they took on the greatest powers in Washington, compelling lawmakers to launch an investigation that ultimately failed to answer most of their questions.
The filmmakers collaborated with the media group Globalvision (WMD: Weapons of Mass Deception, Beyond JFK) to stitch together overlooked news clips, buried stories, and government press conferences, revealing a pattern of official lies, deception, and spin.
As a result, a very different picture of 9/11 emerges -- one that raises new, and more pressing, questions.
# # # #
SHOW SUPPORT for A REAL PBS STATION
Senior memberships are only $25.00 or donate any amount you can afford.
Contact the station with a "thank-you" message: CLICK HERE
# # # #
‘9/11 Press for Truth’ U.S. Television Premiere will be June 3 on KBDI-Channel 12
The film’s producer and a victim’s father will be in KBDI’s studio for the premiere.
DENVER – (May 26, 2009) – 9/11 Press for Truth, an independent documentary that claims a 9/11 cover-up, has been shown in theatres and broadcast overseas, but it hasn’t been aired on a U.S. broadcast station.
That will change next week when KBDI-Channel 12 premiers the controversial documentary Wednesday, June 3 at 7 p.m with a repeat broadcast on June 4th at 12:30 AM (Just past midnight, local time)
During Channel 12’s premiere, Bob McIlvaine, who lost his son Bobby at the World Trade Center, and 9/11Press for Truth producer Kyle Hence will join KBDI-Channel 12’s Shari Bernson in KBDI’s studio.
9/ll Press for Truth emerged from a group of grieving activist families that joined together to demand a press for truth. Five of the families – including McIlvaine and three of the famous “Jersey Girls” – tell their story in the documentary, providing argument for why 9/11 still needs investigation.
The families found an ally in Paul Thompson, who wrote a definitive 9/11 timeline, and also found allies in the filmmakers who stitch together rare, overlooked news clips, buried stories and government press conferences, revealing what is portrayed as a pattern of lies, deception and spin.
The documentary asserts that although independent investigations began within weeks of both Pearl Harbor and the Kennedy assassination, the same was not true of the attacks of September 11, and the formation of the 9/11 Commission was strongly opposed by many in Washington, including the Bush Administration. It was only due to pressure from the 9/11 families, led by twelve calling themselves the Family Steering Committee, that, 14 months after the attacks, the first hearing began.
“Channel 12 zeroed in on this documentary to further our exploration of the movement toward truth and accountability in the country,” Bernson said. The station is already receiving inquiry calls and emails, she said. “We are pleased to see interest in the subject matter that shouldn’t be shunned, and deserves to be discussed more widely.”
The documentary premiered theatrically in New York City in 2006 and has been shown in cities across the United States and throughout the world.
Wednesday’s airing represents its first on a U.S. broadcast station, and the first time a PBS affiliate has given voice to documentary filmmakers who have credibly challenged the official narrative of what happened on 9/11 and why.
The program will repeat on Channel 12. A full schedule of air times for all of the programs can be found at http://www.KBDI.org.
DENVER – (May 26, 2009) – 9/11 Press for Truth, an independent documentary that claims a 9/11 cover-up, has been shown in theatres and broadcast overseas, but it hasn’t been aired on a U.S. broadcast station.
That will change next week when KBDI-Channel 12 premiers the controversial documentary Wednesday, June 3 at 7 p.m with a repeat broadcast on June 4th at 12:30 AM (Just past midnight, local time)
During Channel 12’s premiere, Bob McIlvaine, who lost his son Bobby at the World Trade Center, and 9/11Press for Truth producer Kyle Hence will join KBDI-Channel 12’s Shari Bernson in KBDI’s studio.
9/ll Press for Truth emerged from a group of grieving activist families that joined together to demand a press for truth. Five of the families – including McIlvaine and three of the famous “Jersey Girls” – tell their story in the documentary, providing argument for why 9/11 still needs investigation.
The families found an ally in Paul Thompson, who wrote a definitive 9/11 timeline, and also found allies in the filmmakers who stitch together rare, overlooked news clips, buried stories and government press conferences, revealing what is portrayed as a pattern of lies, deception and spin.
The documentary asserts that although independent investigations began within weeks of both Pearl Harbor and the Kennedy assassination, the same was not true of the attacks of September 11, and the formation of the 9/11 Commission was strongly opposed by many in Washington, including the Bush Administration. It was only due to pressure from the 9/11 families, led by twelve calling themselves the Family Steering Committee, that, 14 months after the attacks, the first hearing began.
“Channel 12 zeroed in on this documentary to further our exploration of the movement toward truth and accountability in the country,” Bernson said. The station is already receiving inquiry calls and emails, she said. “We are pleased to see interest in the subject matter that shouldn’t be shunned, and deserves to be discussed more widely.”
The documentary premiered theatrically in New York City in 2006 and has been shown in cities across the United States and throughout the world.
Wednesday’s airing represents its first on a U.S. broadcast station, and the first time a PBS affiliate has given voice to documentary filmmakers who have credibly challenged the official narrative of what happened on 9/11 and why.
The program will repeat on Channel 12. A full schedule of air times for all of the programs can be found at http://www.KBDI.org.
2009/05/30
BOOK: REAL ENEMIES - Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy
Editorial Reviews Review
"...exquisitely researched and annotated new book...her compilation presents a startling read of public history."--Chicago Tribune.
"...energetic narrative shows an increasingly complex national security apparatus both prompting conspiracy theories and promulgating its own. Convincing study of how alternative histories develop."--Kirkus Reviews
"Real Enemies is a study of paranoia in American politics, and of course, as Kathryn Olmsted shows, the paranoia begins far too often in the Oval Office. Olmsted makes it clear, however, that it didn't start with Richard Nixon or George W. Bush. Political paranoia, it turns out, is as American as political demagoguery. "--Seymour M. Hersh, author of Chain of Command.
"Kathryn Olmsted has written a brave, provocative, and audacious book. Her willingness to subject the systemic effects of consistent patterns of official government deception--together with the popular conspiracist 'blowback' this deception inspires and empowers--to scholarly scrutiny invites us to ask troubling but necessary questions about the nature of our political leadership."--Eric Alterman, author of When Presidents Lie: A History of Official Deception and Its Consequences.
"Once in a while, a talented historian writes a book about a neglected topic that millions of Americans think about all the time. Real Enemies is one of those rare and indispensable studies. With grace and impeccable judgment, Kathryn Olmsted illuminates one of the darker regions of the nation's political history. Richard Hofstadter would be pleased."--Michael Kazin, author of A Godly Hero: The Life of William Jennings Bryan.
Amazon Link
Product Description
Many Americans believe that their own government is guilty of shocking crimes. Government agents shot the president. They faked the moon landing. They stood by and allowed the murders of 2,400 servicemen in Hawaii--or 3,000 civilians in New York. In their zeal to cover up their crimes, they killed witnesses, faked evidence, and stole into secure offices to snatch incriminating documents from the files.
Although the paranoid style has been a feature of the American scene since the birth of the Republic, in Real Enemies Kathryn Olmsted shows that it is only in the twentieth century that strange and unlikely conspiracy theories have become central to American politics. While Americans had worried about bankers, Jews, and Catholics for decades, Olmsted sees World War I as a critical turning point for conspiracy theories. As the federal government expanded, Americans grew more fearful of the government itself--the military, the intelligence community, and even the President.
Perhaps more important, Olmsted examines why so many Americans believe that their government conspires against them, why more people believe these theories over time, and how real conspiracies by government officials--such as the infamous Northwoods plan--have fueled our paranoia about the government. She analyzes Pearl Harbor, Cold War and anticommunist plots, the JFK assassination, Watergate, and 9/11. Along the way, she introduces readers to a lively cast of characters, from the Nobel prize-winning scientist who became a leading conspiracist to a housewife who believed she could unlock the secrets of the JFK assassination.
Polls show that thirty-six percent of Americans think that George W. Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Real Enemies, an engaging work on a timely, important topic, sheds light on such theories, revealing how the rampant fear of conspiracy at once invigorates and undermines American democracy.
Product Details
- Hardcover: 336 pages
- Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA (January 2, 2009)
- Language: English
- ISBN-10: 0195183533
- ISBN-13: 978-0195183535
- Product Dimensions: 9.3 x 6.2 x 1.2 inches
NYC gets required Signatures in Ballot Initiative for 9/11 Investigation
Dear Friends!
The purpose of this email is to provide the first of many weekly updates to come on the progress of the campaign for a new 9/11 investigation, being sponsored by the New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN). This is a newly compiled, centralized email list gathered from several lists of supporters who have followed this historic campaign over the past year, as well as others who have advocated for a new 9/11 investigation over the past several years. If you wish not to receive NYC CAN's weekly update, feel free to click on the unsubscribe link at the end of this message.
EXPOSE the 9/11 COVER-UP -- SUPPORT NYCCAN! CLICK HERE
Today, NYC CAN released its first promotional video featuring 9/11 Family Members Jean Canavan, Bob McIlvaine and Manny Badillo. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzC3QI8JenU&fmt=18
It's only 50 seconds long. Please forward it to everyone you know to help us reach 1oo,ooo hits in the next week.
On Thursday, May 28, we will break 45,000 signatures! With our team of 30+ petitioners collecting 1,000 signatures each day, we are now on the fast track to reaching 75,000 by the July 3 deadline and shattering the requirement of 45,000 needed to ensure its placement on the ballot!
Thank you for your ongoing support.
Sincerely,
Ted Walter
Obama/Waxman Fast Track Carbon Tax Before Public Can React
Obama/Waxman Fast Track Carbon Tax
Here is the pertinent data from pages 24-25 which reports $366 billion it carbon tax revenues. The GOP is using this number, divided by 111 million households, to derive the roughly $3,100 cost per family.)
Dems -- especially the Blue Dog Dems -- are getting very squeamish. Many are particularly annoyed that Waxman is considering skipping the subcommittee hearing in order to rush the bill to the full committee and get his vote by the Memorial Day break. The New York Times reports that Waxman will produce a new version of the bill this week to appease the concerns of moderates.
+ +Americans Oppose this new Tax
Democrats and the White House try to claim that cap and trade is not a tax. But Warren Buffett recently admitted that cap and trade is a "regressive" tax that the utilities will "pass through" to consumers. And even Democrat John Dingell admitted recently that "Cap and Trade is a tax, and a great big one."
How big is this tax? Obama's shows "only" $600 billion for carbon tax revenues -- that alone would be the largest single tax increase in history. But the real, hidden number is closer to $2 trillion
If the cap-and-trade scheme passes, it will initiate the most radical restructuring of our economy toward socialism in American history. And don’t be fooled… Al Gore and “Big Environment” will get filthy rich in the process. In fact, as Timothy Carney of the Washington Examiner explains, companies like GE are lining up to profit from the global warming scheme. Carney points out that GE has invested millions in lobbying in favor of carbon tax related schemes. And GE's Chairman Jeffrey Immelt actually sees a global "reset" of capitalism under way:
"I believe we are going through more than a cycle. The global economy, and capitalism, will be “reset” in several important ways. The interaction between government and business will change forever. In a reset economy, the government will be a regulator; and also an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner."
Waxman wants to fly under the radar and push the Carbon Tax Scheme before the American people realize what is happening. As a result, the most crucial vote on the Carbon Tax cap-and-trade scheme may be taking place before Memorial Day. over 8 years. And the American people overwhelmingly do NOT want the Carbon Tax (by a 2-to-1 margin according to Pew Research).
Source
2009/05/29
FALSE TERROR : THE HOAX for WAR and DICTATORSHIP
FAKE TERROR - THE ROAD TO WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
Michael Rivero
| It's the oldest trick in the book, dating back to Roman times; creating the enemies you need. |
| In 70 BC, an ambitious minor politician and extremely wealthy man, Marcus Licinius Crassus, wanted to rule Rome. Just to give you an idea of what sort of man Crassus really was, he is credited with invention of the fire brigade. But in Crassus' version, his fire-fighting slaves would race to the scene of a burning building whereupon Crassus would offer to buy it on the spot for a tiny fraction of it's worth. If the owner sold, Crassus' slaves would put out the fire. If the owner refused to sell, Crassus allowed the building to burn to the ground. By means of this device, Crassus eventually came to be the largest single private land holder in Rome, and used some of his wealth to help back Julius Caesar against Cicero. |  |
| In 70 BC Rome was still a Republic, which placed very strict limits on what Rulers could do, and more importantly NOT do. But Crassus had no intentions of enduring such limits to his personal power, and contrived a plan. Crassus seized upon the slave revolt led by Spartacus in order to strike terror into the hearts of Rome, whose garrison Spartacus had already defeated in battle. But Spartacus had no intention of marching on Rome itself, a move he knew to be suicidal. Spartacus and his band wanted nothing to do with the Roman empire and had planned from the start merely to loot enough money from their former owners in the Italian countryside to hire a mercenary fleet in which to sail to freedom. |
| Sailing away was the last thing Crassus wanted Spartacus to do. He needed a convenient enemy with which to terrorize Rome itself for his personal political gain. So Crassus bribed the mercenary fleet to sail without Spartacus, then positioned two Roman legions in such a way that Spartacus had no choice but to march on Rome. Terrified of the impending arrival of the much-feared army of gladiators, Rome declared Crassus Praetor. Crassus then crushed Spartacus' army and even though Pompey took the credit, Crassus was elected Consul of Rome the following year. |
| With this maneuver, the Romans surrendered their Republican form of government. Soon would follow the first Triumvirate, consisting of Crassus, Pompeii, and Julius Caesar, followed by the reign of the god-like Emperors of Rome. The Romans were hoaxed into surrendering their Republic, and accepting the rule of Emperors. |
 | Julius Caesar's political opponent, Cicero, for all his literary accomplishments, played the same games in his campaign against Julius Caesar, claiming that Rome was falling victim to an internal "vast right wing" conspiracy in which any expressed desire for legislative limits on government was treated as suspicious behavior. Cicero, in order to demonstrate to the Romans just how unsafe Rome has become hired thugs to cause as much disturbance as possible, and campaigned on a promise to end the internal strife if elected and granted extraordinary powers. |
| What Cicero only dreamed of, Adolph Hitler succeeded in doing. Elected Chancellor of Germany, Hitler, like Crassus, had no intention of living with the strict limits to his power imposed by German law. Unlike Cicero, Hitler's thugs were easy to recognize; they all wore the same brown shirts. But their actions were no different than those of their Roman predecessors. They staged beatings, set fires, caused as much trouble as they could, while Hitler made speeches promising that he could end the crime wave of subversives and terrorism if he was granted extraordinary powers. Then the Reichstag burned down; a staged terrorist attack. The Germans were hoaxed into surrendering their Republic, and accepting the total rule of Der Fuehrer. Hitler had German troops dressed in Polish uniforms attack the radio station at Gleiwitz, then lied to the Germans, telling them Poland had invaded, and marched Germany off into World War Two |  |
| The state-sponsored schools will never tell you this, but governments routinely rely on hoaxes to sell their agendas to an otherwise reluctant public. The Romans accepted the Emperors and the Germans accepted Hitler not because they wanted to, but because the carefully crafted illusions of threat appeared to leave no other choice. Our government too uses hoaxes to create the illusion that We The People have no choice but the direction the government wishes us to go in. |
| In 1898, Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal were arguing for American intervention in Cuba. Hearst is reported to have dispatched a photographer to Cuba to photograph the coming war with Spain. When the photographer asked just what war that might be, Hearst is reported to have replied, "You take the photographs, and I will provide the war". Hearst was true to his word, as his newspaper published stories of great atrocities being committed against the Cuban people, most of which turned out to be complete fabrications. On the night of February 15, 1898, the USS Maine, lying in Havana harbor in a show of US resolve to protect her interests, exploded violently. Captain Sigsbee, the commander of the Maine, urged that no assumptions of enemy attack be made until there was a full investigation of the cause of the explosion. For this, Captain Sigsbee was excoriated in the press for "refusing to see the obvious". The Atlantic Monthly declared flat out that to suppose the explosion to be anything other than a deliberate act by Spain was "completely at defiance of the laws of probability". Under the slogan "Remember the Maine", Americans went to war with Spain, eventually winning the Philippines (and annexing Hawaii along the way). In 1975, an investigation led by Admiral Hyman Rickover examined the data recovered from a 1911 examination of the wreck and concluded that there had been no evidence of an external explosion. The most likely cause of the sinking was a coal dust explosion in a coal bunker imprudently located next to the ship's magazines. Captain Sigsbee's caution had been well founded. |
 | President Franklin Delano Roosevelt needed a war. He needed the fever of a major war to mask the symptoms of a still deathly ill economy struggling back from the Great Depression (and mutating towards Socialism at the same time). Roosevelt wanted a war with Germany to stop Hitler, but despite several provocations in the Atlantic, the American people, still struggling with that troublesome economy, were opposed to any wars. Roosevelt violated neutrality with lend lease, and even ordered the sinking of several German ships in the Atlantic, but Hitler refused to be provoked. Roosevelt needed an enemy, and if America would not willingly attack that enemy, then one would have to be maneuvered into attacking America, much as Marcus Licinius Crassus has maneuvered Spartacus into attacking Rome. |
| The way open to war was created when Japan signed the tripartite agreement with Italy and Germany, with all parties pledging mutual defense to each other. Whereas Hitler would never declare war on the United States no matter the provocation, the means to force Japan to do so were readily at hand. The first step was to place oil and steel embargoes on Japan, using Japan's wars on the Asian mainland as a reason. This forced Japan to consider seizing the oil and mineral rich regions in Indonesia. With the European powers militarily exhausted by the war in Europe, the United States was the only power in the Pacific able to stop Japan from invading the Dutch East Indies, and by moving the Pacific fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, Roosevelt made a pre-emptive strike on that fleet the mandatory first step in any Japanese plan to extend it's empire into the "southern resource area". Roosevelt boxed in Japan just as completely as Crassus had boxed in Spartacus. Japan needed oil. They had to invade Indonesia to get it, and to do that they first had to remove the threat of the American fleet at Pearl Harbor. There never really was any other course open to them. |
| To enrage the American people as much as possible, Roosevelt needed the first overt attack by Japan to be as bloody as possible, appearing as a sneak attack much as the Japanese had done to the Russians. From that moment up until the attack on Pearl Harbor itself, Roosevelt and his associates made sure that the commanders in Hawaii, General Short and Admiral Kimmel, were kept in the dark as much as possible about the location of the Japanese fleet and it's intentions, then later scapegoated for the attack. (Congress recently exonerated both Short and Kimmel, posthumously restoring them to their former ranks). |  |
| But as the Army board had concluded at the time, and subsequent de-classified documents confirmed, Washington DC knew the attack was coming, knew exactly where the Japanese fleet was, and knew where it was headed. On November 29th, Secretary of State Hull showed United Press reporter Joe Leib a message with the time and place of the attack, and the New York Times in it's special 12/8/41 Pearl Harbor edition, on page 13, reported that the time and place of the attack had been known in advance! The much repeated claim that the Japanese fleet maintained radio silence on it's way to Hawaii was a lie. Among other intercepts still held in the Archives of the NSA is the UNCODED message sent by the Japanese tanker Shirya stating, "proceeding to a position 30.00 N, 154.20 E. Expect to arrive at that point on 3 December." (near HI) |
 | President Lyndon Johnson wanted a war in Vietnam. He wanted it to help his friends who owned defense companies to do a little business. He needed it to get the Pentagon and CIA to quit trying to invade Cuba. And most of all, he needed a provocation to convince the American people that there was really "no other choice". On August 5, 1964, newspapers across America reported "renewed attacks" against American destroyers operating in Vietnamese waters, specifically the Gulf of Tonkin. The official story was that North Vietnamese torpedo boats launched an "unprovoked attack" on the USS Maddox while it was on "routine patrol". The truth is that USS Maddox was involved in aggressive intelligence gathering in coordination with actual attacks by South Vietnam and the Laotian Air Force against targets in North Vietnam. The truth is also that there was no attack by torpedo boats against the USS Maddox. Captain John J. Herrick, the task force commander in the Gulf, cabled Washington DC that the report was the result of an "over-eager" sonar man who had picked up the sounds of his own ship's screws and panicked. But even with this knowledge that the report was false, Lyndon Johnson went on national TV that night to announce the commencement of air strikes against North Vietnam, "retaliation" for an attack that had never occurred. |
 | President George H. W. Bush wanted a war in Iraq. Like Crassus, George Bush is motivated by money. Specifically oil money. But with the OPEC alliance failing to keep limits on oil production in the Mideast, the market was being glutted with oil pumped from underneath Iraq, which sat over roughly 1/3 of the oil reserves of the entire region. |
| George wanted a war to stop that flow of oil, to keep prices (and profits) from falling any further than they already had. But like Roosevelt, he needed the "other side" to make the first move. Iraq had long been trying to acquire greater access to the Persian Gulf, and felt limited confined a narrow strip of land along Kuwait's northern border, which placed Iraqi interests in close proximity with hostile Iran. George Bush, who had been covertly arming Iraq during its war with Iran, sent word via April Glaspie that the United States would not intervene if Saddam Hussein grabbed a larger part of Kuwait. Saddam fell for the bait and invaded. Of course, Americans were not about to send their sons and daughters to risk their lives for petroleum products. So George Bush arranged a hoax, using a public relations firm which has grown rich on taxpayer money by being most industrious and creative liars! The PR firm concocted a monumental fraud in which the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States, went on TV pretending to be a nurse, and related a horror story in which Iraqi troops looted the incubators from a Kuwaiti hospital, leaving the premature babies on the cold floor to die. The media, part of the swindle from the start, never bothered asking why the "nurse" didn't just pick the babies up and wrap them in blankets or something. Enraged by the incubator story, Americans supported operation Desert Storm, which never removed Saddam Hussein from power but which did take Kuwait's oil off of the market for almost 2 years and limited Iraq's oil exports to this very day. That our sons and daughters came home with serious and lingering medical illnesses was apparently not too great a price to pay for increased oil profits. |
| Following the victory in Iraq, yet another war appeared to be in the offering in the mineral rich regions of Bosnia. Yet again, a hoax was used to create support for military action. The photo (right) of Fikret Alic staring through a barbed wire fence, was used to "prove" the existence of modern day "Concentration Camps". As the headline of "Belsen 92" indicates, all possible associations with the Nazi horrors were made to sell the necessity of sending yet more American troops into someone else's nation. |  |
| But when German Journalists went to Trnopolje, the site of the supposed Concentration Camp. to film a documentary, they discovered that the photo was a fake! The camp at Trnopolje was not a concentration camp but a refugee center. Nor was it surrounded by barbed wire. Careful examination of the original photo revealed that the photographer had shot the photo through a broken section of fence surrounding a tool shed. It was the photographer who was on the inside, shooting out at the refugees. Once again, Americans had been hoaxed into support of actions they might otherwise not have agreed with. |
| While several American Presidents have willingly started wars for personal purposes, perhaps no President has ever carried it to the extreme that Bill Clinton has. Coincident with the expected public statement of Monica Lewinsky following her testimony, Bill Clinton ordered a cruise missile attack on Sudan and Afghanistan, claiming to have had irrefutable proof that bogeyman extraordinaire (and former Afghani ally) Osama Bin Ladin was creating terrorist chemical weapons there. |  |
 | Examination of the photos of the debris revealed none of the expected structures one would find in a laboratory that handled lethal weapons-grade materials. Assurances from the CIA that they had a positive soil test for biological weapons fell on their face when it was revealed that there had been no open soil anywhere near the pre-bombed facility. Sudan requested that international observers come test the remains of the factory for any signs of the nerve gas Clinton had insisted was there. None was found. The Sudanese plant was a harmless aspirin factory, and the owner has sued for damages. |
Later examination of the site hit in Afghanistan revealed it to be a mosque.
| Meanwhile, back in Kosovo, stories about genocide and atrocities were flooding the media (in time to distract from the Sudanese embarrassments), just as lurid and sensational and as it turns out often just as fictional as most of William Randolph Hearst's stories of atrocities against the Cubans. Again, the government and the media were hoaxing Americans. The above photo was shown on all the American networks, claiming to be one of Slobodan Milosovic's Migs, shot down while attacking civilians. Closer examination (click on the photo) shows it to be stenciled in English! Like Germany under Chancellor Hitler, there have been events in our nation which strike fear into the hearts of the citizens, such as the New York World Trade Tower bombing, the OK City Federal Building, and the Olympic Park bomb (nicely timed to divert the media from witnesses to the TWA 800 shoot down). The media has been very quick to blame such events on "radicals", "subversives", "vast right wing conspiracies", and other "enemies in our midst", no different than the lies used by Cicero and Hitler. But on closer examination, such "domestic terrorist" events do not appear to be what they are made out to be. The FBI had an informant inside the World Trade Tower bombers, Emad Salam, who offered to sabotage the bomb. The FBI told him "no". The so-called "hot bed" of white separatism at Elohim City, occasional home to Tim McVeigh in the weeks prior to the OK City bombing, was founded and is being run by an FBI informant! |
So, here we are today. Like the Romans of Crassus' and Cicero's time, or the Germans under a newly elected Hitler, we are being warned that a dangerous enemy threatens us, implacable, invisible, omnipresent, and invulnerable as long as our government is hamstrung by that silly old Bill of Rights. Already there have appeared articles debating whether or not "extraordinary measures" (i.e. torture) are not fully justified under certain circumstances such as those we are purported to face.
As was the case in Rome and Germany, the government continues to plead with the public for an expansion of its power and authority, to "deal with the crisis".
However, as Casio watch timers are paraded before the cameras, to the stentorian tones of the talking heads' constant dire warnings, it is legitimate to question just how real the crises is, and how much is the result of political machinations by our own leaders.
Are the terrorists really a threat, or just hired actors with bombs and Casio watches, paid for by Cicero and given brown shirts to wear by Hitler?
Is terrorism inside the United States really from outside, or is it a stage managed production, designed to cause Americans to believe they have no choice but to surrender the Republic and accept the totalitarian rule of a new emperor, or a new Fuhrer?
Once lost, the Romans never got their Republic back. Once lost, the Germans never got their Republic back. In both cases, the nation had to totally collapse before freedom was restored to the people.
Remember that when Crassus tells you that Spartacus approaches.
Remember that when thugs in the streets act in a manner clearly designed to provoke the public fear.
Remember that when the Reichstag burns down.
Remember that when the President lies to you about weapons of mass destruction.
Remember that when you remember that 9/11 Terror was the pretext for War and Dictatorship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)