Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Report: Rowley rips Tenet for torture conflict

FBI whistleblower Colleen Rowley yesterday accused former CIA chief George Tenet of a conflict of interest in his call to cancel a probe of stressful CIA interrogations, according to web reports.

Rowley joined a group of intelligence professionals who, in a letter to President Obama, backed Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to assign the interrogation investigation to Special Counsel John Durham, according to a document posted by Common Dreams. The letter was in response to a letter earlier this month from seven former CIA chiefs urging Obama to order Holder to drop the probe.

Yesterday's letter said that "some" of the former CIA chiefs "were cognizant of and involved in decisions" that led to abuses, singling out George Tenet as "the chief enabler of torture."

The writers said "personal accountability is vital to maintaining an effective intelligence service" and argued against focusing only on "bad apples at the bottom of the barrel."

See http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/28-7

Needles and pins
I decided to change subscription options to various State Dept., EPA, National Science Foundation and Pentagon freebies. I noticed that all but the Pentagon required my email address before they could process my request. Apparently, the Pentagon already knew who I was.

A few days ago, I copied some of my Angelfire pages to Google documents. When I tried to do so again, I got two different pages telling me it couldn't be done. One Google page said the pages I was attempting to move were corrupt or wrongly formatted. In another instance, a Google error came up saying no such page existed, even though I carefully checked the URL.

What pages was I attempting to shift? My 9/11 reports.

I just tried to transfer two of my Angelfire pages that did not concern 9/11. No problem!

[After I published this post, the problem seemed to correct itself. But when I tried to reproduce a major report, the same hassle occurred. I then tried altering the web address slightly -- deleting the "www." That worked, indicating that the usual address had code attached prohibiting transfer. Still, I don't know what's going on, but past experience tells me there will be continuing problems trying to disseminate pages that find fault with government security agencies.]

 I'll try to use copy and paste. But, funny things happen with that process, too.

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Top 9/11 lawyer: we heard a pack of lies

The 9/11 commission was handed a pack of lies by high-level government officials, the commission's former counsel says.

John Farmer, the panel's ex-counsel who is now dean of Rutgers University law school, said that "at some level of the government, at some point in time, there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened," according to a Rutgers press release announcing his new book "The Ground Truth: the story of America's defense of 9/11."

Farmer, one of the masterminds of the 9/11 account given by the commission in 2004, is quoted: "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described."

Specifically, he was referring to the discrepancy between NORAD tapes and what military officers told the commission.

The book is slated for release early next year.

One cannot come away thinking that Farmer has entirely retracted the government's essential story: that al Qaeda -- and not Pentagon or CIA puppet-masters -- arranged the attacks.

However, his concession in the law school press release and the fact that much of what the panel was told came from captives subjected to extreme duress should be enough to raise red flags.

It's certainly true that he joins a number of other 9/11 panel officials who have disavowed key parts of the report because of severe problems with government credibility that have surfaced since the 9/11 report was issued.

In a related matter, seven former CIA chiefs have signed a petition urging President Obama to block a criminal probe of CIA torture activity. Morale would be badly affected, they allege.

Conant comment: Of course, a real criminal probe would almost certainly turn up evidence of treason concerning 9/11. Maybe one or two of these spooks, such as James Schlesinger, are so doddering they don't see that. But the others should all be put on the short list of candidates for "persons of interest" in mole hunts.

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Veteran counterspy gets Obama green light

President Obama's top spook sent a message to the turncoat underground yesterday: We're coming after you.

But the question is, will the new chief counterspy have the resources needed to counteract the subversion of spies, moles and agents of influence? Certainly Robert Bryant, the new counterintelligence executive reporting to National Intelligence Director Dennis C. Blair, knows the ways of Washington and of spooks very well.

Bryant's counterspy credentials include the nabbing of CIA moles Aldrich Ames and Harold Nicholson and of FBI traitor Earl Pitts, according to Blair's office. As deputy FBI director, Bryant handled various matters, including national security, counterterrorism and counterintelligence.

Bryant, who returns from private life after serving some 40 years in the FBI, was named as part of the new national intelligence strategy, which elevates counterintelligence to a top mission priority, Blair's office said.

Previously, Blair's office has underscored national security threats from communist China and from Russia, which is in the grip of KGB veterans. It will be interesting to see whether Bryant's leadership results in a rolling up of networks of treason inside and outside of the federal government.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Bad medicine II: a house divided

9/11 truth is not welcome at the Obama White House. Gets in the way of health care reform.

Obama sent a very clear message: not interested in past treason.

White House adviser David Axelrod said Van Jones wasn't forced to resign after traitorous elements of the press made an issue of his signing of a 2004 petition calling for an invetsigation of the circumstances of 9/11, with the suspicion that an "inside job" had occurred. Van Jones, an environmental jobs adviser, simply didn't want to be an object of controversy, helping to cloud the health care debate.

Yes, but Obama did not step in and publicly support Jones for having a right to free speech and who was reflecting the thoughts of at least one third of the American public (as of a 2006 poll). Also, many in 2004 it was clear that many reporters were skeptical of the Bush bunch concerning 9/11.

The 9/11 commission was appointed in response to enormous public suspicion. A perverse panel was eventually appointed whereby the Bush bunch and the Clinton bunch agreed to a sham probe in exchange for not lifting each others skirts.

But, maybe Obama will yet see the light, as he did on the U.S. missile shield planned against Iran. Finally, it seems, he realized that the whole thing was basically a multi-billion hoax. See the old Ted Postol criticisms.

Maybe. But I won't hold my breath.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Bad medicine

A country as rich as ours surely should find a way to make certain everybody has access to health care.

There are a number of possible solutions, but what do we see as the favorite? Baucus has in mind an authoritarian approach that imposes fines on those who don't buy health coverage. Why do we see something that gives the federal government authority to punish Americans for personal choices that are not criminal?

At this point in history, the federal government forces people in general to do only one thing: pay taxes.  And the feds have the option of reviving military conscription. But forcing people to buy health insurance means forcing bondage to the insurance industry -- something New Jersey residents are very familiar with when it comes to onerous auto premiums.

Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. Once this federal curb on individual liberty is in place, more will follow.

So, my vote is definitely no to the Baucus plan. The fact that his plan has the Massachussetts plan as a precedent doesn't justify it; the Massachussetts law is, I think, unconstitutional.  In fact, the Baucus plan might easily be upended by the Supreme Court, bringing all that effort to nought.

It's a case of choosing the lesser evil. And the lesser evil is to put liberty first.

(Personal note: I have federal health coverage, but I would do without rather than see more encroachment of our freedom.)

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Shake-up in spookdom

New blends of intelligence activity are coming into play that bypass the old system, according to Dennis C. Blair, director of national intelligence.

Blair said such teams drew from various governmental agencies and were capable of rapid analysis and response. He did not deny a questioner's assertion that CIA officers are not automatically named to head these interdisciplinary teams. On the other hand, he agreed that the interdisciplinary approach faces strong resistance in Washington, where the CIA and Pentagon intelligence agencies have been strong rivals for decades.

In press briefing remarks posted on his office's web site, Blair said that a "muscular" intelligence strategy is necessary to counteract China's aggressive behavior, particularly its cyber-espionage. The National Intelligence Strategy that he unveiled says China, despite having common interests with the United States, is challenging America with its military modernization program and a diplomacy increasingly focused on natural resources.

The strategy document also noted that Russia, despite cooperation in curbing nuclear terror threats, may continue maneuvering to try to regain Soviet-era power in ways that complicate U.S. interests.

Another area of concern is counterintelligence. The strategy document carries a photo of CIA spy boss Aldrich Ames, whose treason for Russia left many bodies in its wake.

The CIA mastermind was eventually isolated by an interagency task force set up as a result of pressure from clandestine operatives in the field. It appears that Blair would like to use such interdisciplinary teams to smoke out spies and agents of influence in the CIA and Pentagon.

Yet, there is strong resistance to this sort of initiative, according to Blair.

Monday, September 14, 2009

Osama baloney

This "Osama tape" bunk looks a lot like an exercise in: "We'll show everybody who controls the media."

The video came through IntelCenter, a private group reportedly close to U.S. intelligence. (See the Wiki article.) We get a still photo of Osama, some old video footage of him and an audiotape purportedly made by him. I went to the IntelCenter site and that group did not feature the video plainly on its home page.

At any rate, the AP's Paul Schramm and many others were perfectly aware of this doubtful provenance, and yet began their stories with: "Osama bin Laden said..." or the equivalent, rather than with: "Osama bin Laden was quoted on an apparent al Qaeda tape..."

Clearly Schramm and others know better. So that makes Paul Schramm -- or an editor who rewrote his lead -- and many others in the press members of some hidden network that takes orders from a hidden cell.

(In the old days, Communists behaved that way. Come to think of it, that's still how they behave.)

Why would these "journalists" be so crass? Haven't they been exposed on this point more than once? Sure they have, and they keep it up. So the "hidden persuaders" are sending a message to true journalists: "We run the show. And we want propaganda, not reporting."

Under Bush, unnamed CIA people would sometimes make noises seeming to give these "Osama tapes" credibility. That isn't occurring under Obama. Still, it is fair to wonder whether a group inside the CIA favors promoting this propaganda. After all, when you work for the CIA, who calls the shots? You wouldn't release such a video without its quiet assent if you wanted to keep getting contracts.

And if that's so, what does it say about the press in America and globally? What does it say about the CIA? Who is calling the shots, really?

None dare call it treason.

Press denies bin Laden death reports

Many reporters have taken it upon themselves to deny the U.S. national security adviser's estimate that bin Laden may well be dead.

"We know he's alive, because we saw him on the internet," they say.

And that's the way it is.

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

America to Daily News: Drop Dead

It's really annoying that The New York Daily News is still in business, still peddling the insane conspiracy theory about 9/11 drawn up by the CIA and its stooges in the media to protect a band of horrendous traitors.

Zuckerman, hear this:

America to Daily News: Drop dead.

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Ted's sad state of denial

In his memoirs, Kennedy says he accepted the Warren commission's version of his brother's assassination and stuck with that belief, according to reports.

Assuming he wasn't being cagey and asking us to read between the lines, then we must conclude that the emotionally scarred survivor lived his life in a state of delusion. Had he not done so, family honor would have intruded and compelled him to fight the conspirators.

Three brothers were war casualties. Joe was killed in World War II and Jack and Bobby were killed in the Cold War.

It is impossible for an informed person to believe the Warren commission got it right. But Ted must have had a strong emotional need to believe the lie -- the better to survive and get on with his life.

Do you suppose Teddy would have lasted all these years in the Senate had he publicly voiced doubts about his brothers' murders? "The group" would have had him neutralized. As long as he ate doo-d00, he could play ball.

Sorry to be harsh. It's the truth.