I have just gotten around to posting online a short report of my impressions as the twin tower wreckage smoldered in the background.
In death's borderland
http://angelfire.com/az3/nfold/912.html
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Friday, April 16, 2010
The conspiricist Daily Telegraph
A former bin Laden bodyguard is saying things that would tend to help those interested in covering up the truth about 9/11, as we learn from a recent Daily Telegraph report.
Nasser al Bahri claimed that bin Laden ordered a satellite dish so he could watch the attack on the twin towers, but that the TV signal failed. This of course implies foreknowledge by bin Laden.
The Telegraph made no effort to put the claim in context. Al Bahri was captured in Yemen in 2002 and held under house arrest, giving the CIA details of al Qaeda's inner workings... and apparently becoming a CIA disinformation operative. Much of what he said fits right in with the U.S. government's improbable conspiracy theory.
Nasser al Bahri claimed that bin Laden ordered a satellite dish so he could watch the attack on the twin towers, but that the TV signal failed. This of course implies foreknowledge by bin Laden.
The Telegraph made no effort to put the claim in context. Al Bahri was captured in Yemen in 2002 and held under house arrest, giving the CIA details of al Qaeda's inner workings... and apparently becoming a CIA disinformation operative. Much of what he said fits right in with the U.S. government's improbable conspiracy theory.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Contra censorship
Check out my new blog Lifting the veil (see link in sidebar), which is devoted to counteracting press censorship. Plenty of useful links.
As with that blog, I plan to run Google ads on this blog (if Google permits), in order to estimate the degree of censorship of this blog. Also, it should be noted, my expenses are non-zero.
From time to time I will publish items on how the experiment is going.
As with that blog, I plan to run Google ads on this blog (if Google permits), in order to estimate the degree of censorship of this blog. Also, it should be noted, my expenses are non-zero.
From time to time I will publish items on how the experiment is going.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Gates aided fight to save Soviet
Interesting that war controller Dr. Robert M. Gates, a career CIA professional, was a top national security aide to George H.W. Bush, himself a former CIA chief, at the time the Bush White House and Jim Baker's State Department were scrambling in a vain effort to forestall the collapse of the Soviet Union. Interesting that Gates wasn't repulsed and didn't feel a need to step down.
In that period, Gates, who had been nominated to head the CIA in May 1991, was confirmed by the Senate in November 1991, about the time that Boris Yeltsin banned the Communist Party in Russia. Bush administration efforts may have helped in the premature restoration of that party, supposedly in the name of democracy.
Gates headed the CIA into the first Clinton administration at a time the CIA was obstructing implementation of a law passed during the late days of the presidential campaign requiring the CIA to release JFK assassination records.
As CIA chief, Gates apparently was unaware of top-level communist penetration of the agency until a mole-hunting task force eventually bagged Aldrich Ames and his wife. However, the warnings of Soviet moles went back to the days of President Reagan's first CIA head, William Casey (who once worked for a Marxist socialist think tank).
In that period, Gates, who had been nominated to head the CIA in May 1991, was confirmed by the Senate in November 1991, about the time that Boris Yeltsin banned the Communist Party in Russia. Bush administration efforts may have helped in the premature restoration of that party, supposedly in the name of democracy.
Gates headed the CIA into the first Clinton administration at a time the CIA was obstructing implementation of a law passed during the late days of the presidential campaign requiring the CIA to release JFK assassination records.
As CIA chief, Gates apparently was unaware of top-level communist penetration of the agency until a mole-hunting task force eventually bagged Aldrich Ames and his wife. However, the warnings of Soviet moles went back to the days of President Reagan's first CIA head, William Casey (who once worked for a Marxist socialist think tank).
Monday, April 5, 2010
Novak's dark observations
The late Robert D. Novak's memoir is filled with fascinating bits of political and journalistic history.
In "The Prince of Darkness," a sobriquet given him decades ago in part because of his saturnine visage, he tells of earning the wrath of neocon Norman Podhoretz for his column of Sept. 11, 2001, in which he quoted an intelligence outfit that said the state of Israel, whether by design or not, had gained the most that day.
Neocon David Frum later wrote an attack on him, Novak relates, for his opposition to the planned invasion of Iraq. Once the neocons consolidated their takeover of Bill Buckley's National Review, Novak's long association with the conservative journal went dead, he says. In fact, the Israelophiles did everything they could to marginalize him, a tactic that has been used -- not only by neocons and Bushites but by the neocons' strange allies on the hard left -- against all U.S. journalists who have not kowtowed to the official line about 9/11.
Novak also says that neocon Richard Perle made it clear shortly after 9/11 that he saw the attacks as an opportunity to push his hawkish Middle East agenda, with Congress hankering for a strike at any terror-tainted target, guilty of 9/11 or not. Interestingly, Novak relates, Bill Clinton got on famously with now jailed neocon media mogul Conrad Black. Clinton of course has been a major force in 9/11 coverup.
Novak is one of the few American journalists to point out that George H.W. Bush and his secretary of state, Jim Baker, frantically maneuvered to save Soviet communism, arguing that a Russia under Yeltsin would be incapable of safeguarding the Red nuclear arsenal.
(All my comments here should be read in light of the fact that I was compelled to use a doctored copy planted by some peculiar group. See post below.)
In "The Prince of Darkness," a sobriquet given him decades ago in part because of his saturnine visage, he tells of earning the wrath of neocon Norman Podhoretz for his column of Sept. 11, 2001, in which he quoted an intelligence outfit that said the state of Israel, whether by design or not, had gained the most that day.
Neocon David Frum later wrote an attack on him, Novak relates, for his opposition to the planned invasion of Iraq. Once the neocons consolidated their takeover of Bill Buckley's National Review, Novak's long association with the conservative journal went dead, he says. In fact, the Israelophiles did everything they could to marginalize him, a tactic that has been used -- not only by neocons and Bushites but by the neocons' strange allies on the hard left -- against all U.S. journalists who have not kowtowed to the official line about 9/11.
Novak also says that neocon Richard Perle made it clear shortly after 9/11 that he saw the attacks as an opportunity to push his hawkish Middle East agenda, with Congress hankering for a strike at any terror-tainted target, guilty of 9/11 or not. Interestingly, Novak relates, Bill Clinton got on famously with now jailed neocon media mogul Conrad Black. Clinton of course has been a major force in 9/11 coverup.
Novak is one of the few American journalists to point out that George H.W. Bush and his secretary of state, Jim Baker, frantically maneuvered to save Soviet communism, arguing that a Russia under Yeltsin would be incapable of safeguarding the Red nuclear arsenal.
(All my comments here should be read in light of the fact that I was compelled to use a doctored copy planted by some peculiar group. See post below.)
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Cyberattacks on journalists
For quite some time now, I have felt like a voice crying in the wilderness with my public complaints about numerous cyberattacks on my Yahoo and Google accounts, along with virus bombs directed to my computers.
But now Andrew Jacobs of the New York Times http://nytimes.com/ reports that hackers have attacked his account and the accounts of other reporters, along with activists, whose writings don't conform to China's Communist Party line. Yahoo, which has servers in China, wouldn't tell the Times what was going on.
Jacobs added that increasingly virus bombs are being used to target specific persons in order to thwart their views or reports from dissemination. (Recently I have thrown out yet another computer hampered by such a malware bomb, despite my efforts to avoid such trickery.)
Jacobs notes that the attacks could stem from somewhere other than China.
The cyberattacks on the Times and others may be more pervasive than Jacobs' story indicates. In a remarkable situation, I have a copy of Arthur Gelbs' memoir "City Room" borrowed from a public library in the New York region. It has been extensively tampered with by someone clearly intent on snubbing the Times and its professionalism.
Gelb, a onetime Times rewriteman who went on to rebuild a crack rewrite bank, has his copy mangled in ways that are simply impossible. For example, the word "transpired" is used at one point to mean "happened," which all New York newspaperpeople know is a journalistic no-no of the first order. And, the book is littered with the word "since" to mean "because" not a few times, but extensively. It is evident that, in many cases, the leading clause is mangled; that is, "Having done so and so..." is changed to read "Since so and so was done..."
Gelb, a former top Times editor, had access to the best copyreaders anywhere. So it is apparent that this book is a counterfeit, intended to make the Times look defenseless. It is easy enough, with modern computer technology, to "instant publish" such a travesty.
I plan to alert Jacobs to this matter, but I don't expect much response.
From the same library I have a copy of Robert Novak's memoir, "The Prince of Darkness." I haven't examined it closely yet, but I intend to do so.
APRIL 1, 2010.
I realize that some may consider the report above to be an April fool hoax, but it is not. I haven't time for such trivia.
I sent out an email to all relevant NY Times addresses and got one robo-response. Otherwise, nothing. Neither has a call been received from anyone at the Times.
BTW, some months back, someone entered one of my (now defunct) Yahoo accounts and deleted my copy of a New York Times list of reporter and editor email addresses. The Times had ceased to publish that list.
APRIL 5, 2010
On page 397 of "City Room" is found: "I agreed it was quite possible, aware that--like most reporters who had covered the police beat--of what often transpired behind the closed doors of a precinct interrogation room." No New York newspaperman would have written that.
As for "The Prince of Darkness," we have:
Page 173: "What transpired in Pittsburgh after the LeMay announcement produced one of the most bizarre moments in my half century of covering politics."
Page 282: "But with Chris half a foot taller than me, my feeble punch landed on his chest and fellow journalists grabbed us before anything more serious transpired."
Page 541: "I said I did not either, and I did not envision CNN as a possible bidder considering what had transpired so far."
Surely Novak in his early years as an AP reporter learned to avoid that word, once a favorite of police officers trying to sound educated. Surely his editor, a longtime editor for Readers Digest, would have stricken it had he seen it.
Novak of course was detested by the super-neocon Israelophiles and the ultra-left, but I am uncertain as to the motive for these childish alterations.
++++++++++++
To report cyberattacks of this sort, either post a comment, or phone me on my cell at
!+a8+b6+c5+++d2+e3+f5+++g2+h9+i7+j4+! (Ignore non-numerals.)
But now Andrew Jacobs of the New York Times http://nytimes.com/ reports that hackers have attacked his account and the accounts of other reporters, along with activists, whose writings don't conform to China's Communist Party line. Yahoo, which has servers in China, wouldn't tell the Times what was going on.
Jacobs added that increasingly virus bombs are being used to target specific persons in order to thwart their views or reports from dissemination. (Recently I have thrown out yet another computer hampered by such a malware bomb, despite my efforts to avoid such trickery.)
Jacobs notes that the attacks could stem from somewhere other than China.
The cyberattacks on the Times and others may be more pervasive than Jacobs' story indicates. In a remarkable situation, I have a copy of Arthur Gelbs' memoir "City Room" borrowed from a public library in the New York region. It has been extensively tampered with by someone clearly intent on snubbing the Times and its professionalism.
Gelb, a onetime Times rewriteman who went on to rebuild a crack rewrite bank, has his copy mangled in ways that are simply impossible. For example, the word "transpired" is used at one point to mean "happened," which all New York newspaperpeople know is a journalistic no-no of the first order. And, the book is littered with the word "since" to mean "because" not a few times, but extensively. It is evident that, in many cases, the leading clause is mangled; that is, "Having done so and so..." is changed to read "Since so and so was done..."
Gelb, a former top Times editor, had access to the best copyreaders anywhere. So it is apparent that this book is a counterfeit, intended to make the Times look defenseless. It is easy enough, with modern computer technology, to "instant publish" such a travesty.
I plan to alert Jacobs to this matter, but I don't expect much response.
From the same library I have a copy of Robert Novak's memoir, "The Prince of Darkness." I haven't examined it closely yet, but I intend to do so.
APRIL 1, 2010.
I realize that some may consider the report above to be an April fool hoax, but it is not. I haven't time for such trivia.
I sent out an email to all relevant NY Times addresses and got one robo-response. Otherwise, nothing. Neither has a call been received from anyone at the Times.
BTW, some months back, someone entered one of my (now defunct) Yahoo accounts and deleted my copy of a New York Times list of reporter and editor email addresses. The Times had ceased to publish that list.
APRIL 5, 2010
On page 397 of "City Room" is found: "I agreed it was quite possible, aware that--like most reporters who had covered the police beat--of what often transpired behind the closed doors of a precinct interrogation room." No New York newspaperman would have written that.
As for "The Prince of Darkness," we have:
Page 173: "What transpired in Pittsburgh after the LeMay announcement produced one of the most bizarre moments in my half century of covering politics."
Page 282: "But with Chris half a foot taller than me, my feeble punch landed on his chest and fellow journalists grabbed us before anything more serious transpired."
Page 541: "I said I did not either, and I did not envision CNN as a possible bidder considering what had transpired so far."
Surely Novak in his early years as an AP reporter learned to avoid that word, once a favorite of police officers trying to sound educated. Surely his editor, a longtime editor for Readers Digest, would have stricken it had he seen it.
Novak of course was detested by the super-neocon Israelophiles and the ultra-left, but I am uncertain as to the motive for these childish alterations.
++++++++++++
To report cyberattacks of this sort, either post a comment, or phone me on my cell at
!+a8+b6+c5+++d2+e3+f5+++g2+h9+i7+j4+! (Ignore non-numerals.)
Spook wars: Is CIA up or down?
It seems as though some clandestine unit with reach inside media is determined to make the CIA look bad. Otherwise, how to explain the repeated stories claiming "bin Laden said" thus and such.
If bin Laden is really dead, as has been widely reported by counterterrorism experts, then why the need to resurrect him? Well, if you're a top spook, in, say, the Pentagon, who wants more of Panetta's pie, you have a reason to embarrass the CIA and manipulate cooperative reporters and editors. How could the CIA be doing such a bad job with bin Laden when it has been allegedly capturing other terrorist chiefs with abandon?
The CIA however isn't taking this affront to its dignity lying down. The world has just learned (was Panetta ABC's source?) that a top Iranian nuclear scientist is living in Mecca and working for the CIA.
Keep posted.
If bin Laden is really dead, as has been widely reported by counterterrorism experts, then why the need to resurrect him? Well, if you're a top spook, in, say, the Pentagon, who wants more of Panetta's pie, you have a reason to embarrass the CIA and manipulate cooperative reporters and editors. How could the CIA be doing such a bad job with bin Laden when it has been allegedly capturing other terrorist chiefs with abandon?
The CIA however isn't taking this affront to its dignity lying down. The world has just learned (was Panetta ABC's source?) that a top Iranian nuclear scientist is living in Mecca and working for the CIA.
Keep posted.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Mirrors for backup
I've been having troubles with my computing for some time. Some of the problems are my doing, and some aren't.
I'd suggest that others make mirrors of my 9/11 report pages. Backups can't hurt. I've found myself locked out of my accounts more than once. In fact, under Atty Gen Gonzalez one of my Google blogs was frozen because, I suspect, it discussed an encryption technique that I had devised.
I'd suggest that others make mirrors of my 9/11 report pages. Backups can't hurt. I've found myself locked out of my accounts more than once. In fact, under Atty Gen Gonzalez one of my Google blogs was frozen because, I suspect, it discussed an encryption technique that I had devised.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Time for political action on 9/11 coverup
What is to be done about the silence of reporters and the jeering of commentators concerning 9/11 coverup?
Neither major political party is interested in bringing the 9/11 traitors to justice because the issue is seen as a career death warrant. Politicians respond to what the press legitimizes as issues; lawmakers also respond to the big influxes of money from 9/11 coverup interests, such as AIPAC and its allies.
Without profound political changes, in the unlikely event Congress backs a new investigation of 9/11, the result would simply be more coverup.
This blog has already called for a panel of scientists to review the NIST investigations to see whether scientific fraud or deception occurred and for a citizens' commission to review the entire matter.
Beyond that, we need committed and talented people to back candidates willing to stand up and chastise government 9/11 inquiries, candidates who are prepared to take the heat or cope with the lack of coverage from big media.
Use the internet fundraising skills that went into Obama's campaign (and before that, into Ron Paul's campaign) to build a war chest for backing such candidates.
Our strategy is not to win most races, or even any race, but to SPOIL chances of either Democrat or Republican, by insisting on promoting the 9/11 coverup issue via the candidates we back. Congress and the White House will hear us, no matter how the media ducks. We want to begin to force meaningful congressional and-or White House action. We want to nudge scaredy-cat main party candidates to start speaking up.
It's a strategy well worth trying. We won't get anything done if we don't try. Congress only respects political power. This is something we must channel and create.
Don't give in to defeatism. Back in the late nineties, the term limits movement had made enormous gains amidst a virtual national media blackout. It was only when the snowball got too big to ignore that coverage broke into the "establishment media." The same happened with the adoption by many states of "right to pack" laws. We are not talking about the merits of those issues, of course, but making the point that media blackouts can and do fail.
I'm not in a position to undertake such a campaign. But some of you are. Go for it.
Recently the House implicitly reprimanded the FBI, suggesting it covered up the facts about the anthrax attacks. But the House was too weak to do anything more than ask the intelligence chief to have another look, to see whether there was foreign involvement. This is a far cry from a real congressional investigation and unlikely to lead to much. But it shows that Congress has no faith in the security system, despite its inability to do much about it.
Neither major political party is interested in bringing the 9/11 traitors to justice because the issue is seen as a career death warrant. Politicians respond to what the press legitimizes as issues; lawmakers also respond to the big influxes of money from 9/11 coverup interests, such as AIPAC and its allies.
Without profound political changes, in the unlikely event Congress backs a new investigation of 9/11, the result would simply be more coverup.
This blog has already called for a panel of scientists to review the NIST investigations to see whether scientific fraud or deception occurred and for a citizens' commission to review the entire matter.
Beyond that, we need committed and talented people to back candidates willing to stand up and chastise government 9/11 inquiries, candidates who are prepared to take the heat or cope with the lack of coverage from big media.
Use the internet fundraising skills that went into Obama's campaign (and before that, into Ron Paul's campaign) to build a war chest for backing such candidates.
Our strategy is not to win most races, or even any race, but to SPOIL chances of either Democrat or Republican, by insisting on promoting the 9/11 coverup issue via the candidates we back. Congress and the White House will hear us, no matter how the media ducks. We want to begin to force meaningful congressional and-or White House action. We want to nudge scaredy-cat main party candidates to start speaking up.
It's a strategy well worth trying. We won't get anything done if we don't try. Congress only respects political power. This is something we must channel and create.
Don't give in to defeatism. Back in the late nineties, the term limits movement had made enormous gains amidst a virtual national media blackout. It was only when the snowball got too big to ignore that coverage broke into the "establishment media." The same happened with the adoption by many states of "right to pack" laws. We are not talking about the merits of those issues, of course, but making the point that media blackouts can and do fail.
I'm not in a position to undertake such a campaign. But some of you are. Go for it.
Recently the House implicitly reprimanded the FBI, suggesting it covered up the facts about the anthrax attacks. But the House was too weak to do anything more than ask the intelligence chief to have another look, to see whether there was foreign involvement. This is a far cry from a real congressional investigation and unlikely to lead to much. But it shows that Congress has no faith in the security system, despite its inability to do much about it.
Friday, March 12, 2010
W.H. Israelophile scrambles to keep lid on
White House ramrod Rahm Emanuel is the White House force behind the deal to deny civilian trial to the al Qaeda prisoners accused of 9/11 crimes, reports
Jason Leopold of Consortium News.
It is rather disconcerting that yet another fervent supporter of Israel is involved in maneuvering to keep the lid on the 9/11 facts. It has been clear that a number of prominent Israelophiles have attacked 9/11 skeptics as generally anti-Semitic. This particularly holds for the AIPAC crowd, though that position is publicly muted.
While it is true that a military tribunal would not accept advance guilty pleas, it is clear that such a tribunal would be much easier to control with different standards of evidence and career judge advocates who, despite best efforts, are going to feel Pentagon pressure for pro-forma show trials.
Once it became apparent that it was quite possible that a federal judge, considering the problem of enhanced interrogation, would forbid the planned advance guilty pleas, the pressure began to block such trials. Imagine a tough defense team challenging the government's 9/11 fairy tale at point after point. Even if the AIPAC-fearing press failed to cover the trials objectively, the public record would be available to many in alternative media.
MARCH 15, 2010. White House honcho David Axelrod yesterday said that no decision had been made on the trial venue for the 9/11 accused. Axelrod, who is Jewish, also blasted the Israeli govt. for its housing decision in the midst of Biden's visiit. Axelrod said Obama was right behind him. Clinton had taken the decision's timing as a calaculated insult of the Obama administration, which is trying to broker a peace deal.
OK, we can accept that the White House is not dominated by AIPAC allies. Nevertheless, Rahm's maneuvering on the trial venue is disturbing.
Jason Leopold of Consortium News.
It is rather disconcerting that yet another fervent supporter of Israel is involved in maneuvering to keep the lid on the 9/11 facts. It has been clear that a number of prominent Israelophiles have attacked 9/11 skeptics as generally anti-Semitic. This particularly holds for the AIPAC crowd, though that position is publicly muted.
While it is true that a military tribunal would not accept advance guilty pleas, it is clear that such a tribunal would be much easier to control with different standards of evidence and career judge advocates who, despite best efforts, are going to feel Pentagon pressure for pro-forma show trials.
Once it became apparent that it was quite possible that a federal judge, considering the problem of enhanced interrogation, would forbid the planned advance guilty pleas, the pressure began to block such trials. Imagine a tough defense team challenging the government's 9/11 fairy tale at point after point. Even if the AIPAC-fearing press failed to cover the trials objectively, the public record would be available to many in alternative media.
MARCH 15, 2010. White House honcho David Axelrod yesterday said that no decision had been made on the trial venue for the 9/11 accused. Axelrod, who is Jewish, also blasted the Israeli govt. for its housing decision in the midst of Biden's visiit. Axelrod said Obama was right behind him. Clinton had taken the decision's timing as a calaculated insult of the Obama administration, which is trying to broker a peace deal.
OK, we can accept that the White House is not dominated by AIPAC allies. Nevertheless, Rahm's maneuvering on the trial venue is disturbing.
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Obama reported to OK civilian trial
UPI reports that Obama has decided on civilian trial for the men accused of being part of the 9/11 attacks.
The news agency quoted an official who spoke on condition of anonymity. However Veep Biden told a TV audience today that the White house hadn't ruled out a military tribunal.
Biden was responding to a charge by Cheney that Obama is soft on terrorists, a charge that is being used to smear the right of fair trial by the 9/11 suspects. It's the old "guilty people don't deserve fair trials" ploy.
Responding to political pressure against holding the trial at the federal courthouse next to the demolished trade center site, the White House is considering where the trial might be held, the agency said.
If UPI's report is accurate, there would be at least a fair chance of the defense lawyers ripping apart the government's fairy tales (and Cheney's crazed claims), and we could not in this instance properly accuse Obama of meddling in the truth-finding. Obviously, we don't expect the organs of propaganda to report anything that troubles the government hocus pocus. But we can hope that others will report the trial objectively.
The news agency quoted an official who spoke on condition of anonymity. However Veep Biden told a TV audience today that the White house hadn't ruled out a military tribunal.
Biden was responding to a charge by Cheney that Obama is soft on terrorists, a charge that is being used to smear the right of fair trial by the 9/11 suspects. It's the old "guilty people don't deserve fair trials" ploy.
Responding to political pressure against holding the trial at the federal courthouse next to the demolished trade center site, the White House is considering where the trial might be held, the agency said.
If UPI's report is accurate, there would be at least a fair chance of the defense lawyers ripping apart the government's fairy tales (and Cheney's crazed claims), and we could not in this instance properly accuse Obama of meddling in the truth-finding. Obviously, we don't expect the organs of propaganda to report anything that troubles the government hocus pocus. But we can hope that others will report the trial objectively.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
President O'Coverup
Obama is seriously considering overruling the attorney general and ordering military tribunal trials for the al Qaeda suspects accused of participating in the 9/11 attacks, according to Robert Gibbs, White House spokesman.
This is a predictable outcome. The organs of propaganda have been promoting this idea relentlessly, and various ruthless politicians have made an issue of the "danger" of permitting suspects to have regular trials.
It's quite interesting that when the Pentagon-intelligence system wants or doesn't want something, the White House nearly always caves in. What that clique doesn't want is to permit defense lawyers to tear the government's conspiracy theories to shreds in open court. They want a slam dunk show trial, with all the show on the government's side.
Again, we need to begin to try to persuade people to bypass the organs of propaganda, or to at least learn to take their messages with quite a few grains of salt.
News flashes to cell phones might be arranged that aren't too pricey. That is, we need alternative media to find ways to exploit the new technologies and bypass the organs of propaganda.
This is a predictable outcome. The organs of propaganda have been promoting this idea relentlessly, and various ruthless politicians have made an issue of the "danger" of permitting suspects to have regular trials.
It's quite interesting that when the Pentagon-intelligence system wants or doesn't want something, the White House nearly always caves in. What that clique doesn't want is to permit defense lawyers to tear the government's conspiracy theories to shreds in open court. They want a slam dunk show trial, with all the show on the government's side.
Again, we need to begin to try to persuade people to bypass the organs of propaganda, or to at least learn to take their messages with quite a few grains of salt.
News flashes to cell phones might be arranged that aren't too pricey. That is, we need alternative media to find ways to exploit the new technologies and bypass the organs of propaganda.
Friday, February 12, 2010
Counterattack
The organs of propaganda were used effectively to frighten a Texas political candidate, Debra Medina, into effectively eating crow about 9/11 skepticism. The organs of propaganda demand that all politicians kowtow to the official line or be (allegedly) discredited.
Politicians need media coverage and so they fear being held up to public ridicule. But, we need "new politicians" -- perhaps young people -- who scorn the establishment media and operate through various forms of internet networking, following the example set by Iranian dissidents.
We need a new breed of politician who see ridicule by the organs of propaganda as a badge of honor, who laugh derisively at these phonies.
It may seem impossible to bypass the press bottlenecks. But it isn't. We need people to start thinking in new ways.
For example, it is now possible to receive videos by cell-phone. Advertisers are already eager to exploit this capability and provide "free" videos. New politicians, who scorn the system's media, might make use of this application also.
It's kind of fun to take note of the fact that this Medina hoohah erupted immediately after my post below, which appeared on OpEd News and which also went out to a number of professional journalists. Was the whole thing whipped up to show media mastery over political life and to nip our suggestions in the bud? Wow, if true, that would be cool because it would mean the control freaks are scared stiff.
Fight to win!
Politicians need media coverage and so they fear being held up to public ridicule. But, we need "new politicians" -- perhaps young people -- who scorn the establishment media and operate through various forms of internet networking, following the example set by Iranian dissidents.
We need a new breed of politician who see ridicule by the organs of propaganda as a badge of honor, who laugh derisively at these phonies.
It may seem impossible to bypass the press bottlenecks. But it isn't. We need people to start thinking in new ways.
For example, it is now possible to receive videos by cell-phone. Advertisers are already eager to exploit this capability and provide "free" videos. New politicians, who scorn the system's media, might make use of this application also.
It's kind of fun to take note of the fact that this Medina hoohah erupted immediately after my post below, which appeared on OpEd News and which also went out to a number of professional journalists. Was the whole thing whipped up to show media mastery over political life and to nip our suggestions in the bud? Wow, if true, that would be cool because it would mean the control freaks are scared stiff.
Fight to win!
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Whither 9/11 truth and justice?
New matter appended Feb 8, 2010 concerning press bottlenecks
A CALL TO ACTION
Who stands to gain from forcing the administration to try the 9/11 suspects in a military tribunal, where standards of evidence are lower? A vigorous defense in civilian court would put the true conspirators to shame, as the Moussoui trial showed.
Rather than worry about pesky inconsistencies getting before the public, why not hold quick show trials under tight Pentagon control?
Some of the pressure to block the trials is mere opportunistic fear-mongering by amoral politicians, but we can be sure that some of the flack has its source in Control Central, which seeks to keep America blind and dumb.
So what's the next move for those of us who remain outraged at the high-handed misconduct -- treason -- of the covert control freaks.
Two ideas:
* A citizens commission -- not appointed by a government entity -- to reinvestigate the facts of the 9/11 attacks. The panel should be composed of several people, from the left, right and center, with substantial credentials for such an inquiry. They should review all published evidence, interview witnesses and carry out experiments, as needed. They should publish a final report.
* A board of scientific inquiry -- again, not appointed by a government entity -- to thoroughly review the investigations of the collapses of the twin towers and Building 7 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The aim would be to determine whether scientific fraud has been committed. If outright fraud is not determined, the experts should still assess whether the conclusions were warranted and honestly presented.
I would suggest that well-known 9/11 activists should not be appointed to such panels, though we should have no hard-and-fast ban and consider appointments on a case by case basis. We may need to exploit emeritus professors who are no longer worried about career obstacles and also because we want our panelists to be volunteers, beholden to no one.
The matter of organizing such inquiries should be handled carefully in order to guard against infiltration and takeover by adversaries, and this brings us to the matter of funding. I favor funding by small individual contributions in order to try to limit the impact of excessively egotistical personalities who might involve themselves in such endeavors.
But, you say, talk is cheap. What about making it happen? Yes, about all I can do is offer ideas. But surely there are others far more gifted than am I who are able to organize such actions effectively. Well, please do.
And don't think that it must be left to Americans. Citizens of every country that has felt the impact of the "war on terror" have an interest in conducting such inquiries. Then, the various indpendent inquiries will help to form a global voice in favor of 9/11 truth and justice, and reprimanding cowardly, controlled media.
That sounds as though I have prejudged the outcomes of the inquiries. True, I am very confident that reasonable investigators will find nothing but garbage in the official claims concerning 9/11.
Feb 8, 2010:
Bypassing the press bottlenecks
I have noticed that a number of 9/11 activists think that they can reach their objectives if only they could convince the mass media to cover the relevant facts in an objective way.
What they don't seem to fully grasp is that the mass media are the "organs of propaganda" of an invisible or semi-visible system composed of the super-powerful, whether they be business titans, national security officers, political action types, mobsters, communists or whomever has heavy duty clout.
The honest people in the media are for the most part intimidated into averting their gaze while the system encourages intellectual perverts and shills of every sort to wage propaganda war against 9/11 truth.
Yes, once the Powers that Be are in disarray, or once there is a major chink in the armor of one or the other of them, the press will go into a feeding frenzy. But, the 9/11 masterminds were relatively sure they could control the media, and, indeed, after a period of tension, they were able to use damage containment techniques to wall off problems.
And they will stop at nothing to keep the mass media muzzled. Their whole theory of power requires control of media, enhanced by all sorts of psy-op funny business to keep the public confused and off their scent.
On the other hand, we must admit that, from time to time, responsible journalists will see to it that 9/11 critics get a fair say. But, once that say appears, it's back to playing dumb.
These occasional efforts of honest journalists mean there is yet hope that the 9/11 masterminds will slip up and be unable to contain the firestorm that erupts.
BUT, in the meantime, we must also work to bypass the politico-media system.
Some ideas:
* Use alternative media, such as Op-Ed News and IndyMedia, that are open to 9/11 criticism.
* Be on the lookout for interactive new media sites that blend print and video and that are hungry for content.
* If you are able, do your best to cover the 9/11 trials and post your reports on the internet. Perhaps this will help keep "establishment" reporting honest (and maybe not).
* Whenever possible, try to obtain good relationships with professional reporters -- even if they can write relatively little about 9/11 truth -- whether they work for alternative or system media. The upcoming al Qaeda trials provide a good opportunity for this. That is, a reporter might be able to call you for background concerning matters that are raised (probably by the defense) during the trial.
Please copy this post and pass it around
A CALL TO ACTION
Who stands to gain from forcing the administration to try the 9/11 suspects in a military tribunal, where standards of evidence are lower? A vigorous defense in civilian court would put the true conspirators to shame, as the Moussoui trial showed.
Rather than worry about pesky inconsistencies getting before the public, why not hold quick show trials under tight Pentagon control?
Some of the pressure to block the trials is mere opportunistic fear-mongering by amoral politicians, but we can be sure that some of the flack has its source in Control Central, which seeks to keep America blind and dumb.
So what's the next move for those of us who remain outraged at the high-handed misconduct -- treason -- of the covert control freaks.
Two ideas:
* A citizens commission -- not appointed by a government entity -- to reinvestigate the facts of the 9/11 attacks. The panel should be composed of several people, from the left, right and center, with substantial credentials for such an inquiry. They should review all published evidence, interview witnesses and carry out experiments, as needed. They should publish a final report.
* A board of scientific inquiry -- again, not appointed by a government entity -- to thoroughly review the investigations of the collapses of the twin towers and Building 7 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The aim would be to determine whether scientific fraud has been committed. If outright fraud is not determined, the experts should still assess whether the conclusions were warranted and honestly presented.
I would suggest that well-known 9/11 activists should not be appointed to such panels, though we should have no hard-and-fast ban and consider appointments on a case by case basis. We may need to exploit emeritus professors who are no longer worried about career obstacles and also because we want our panelists to be volunteers, beholden to no one.
The matter of organizing such inquiries should be handled carefully in order to guard against infiltration and takeover by adversaries, and this brings us to the matter of funding. I favor funding by small individual contributions in order to try to limit the impact of excessively egotistical personalities who might involve themselves in such endeavors.
But, you say, talk is cheap. What about making it happen? Yes, about all I can do is offer ideas. But surely there are others far more gifted than am I who are able to organize such actions effectively. Well, please do.
And don't think that it must be left to Americans. Citizens of every country that has felt the impact of the "war on terror" have an interest in conducting such inquiries. Then, the various indpendent inquiries will help to form a global voice in favor of 9/11 truth and justice, and reprimanding cowardly, controlled media.
That sounds as though I have prejudged the outcomes of the inquiries. True, I am very confident that reasonable investigators will find nothing but garbage in the official claims concerning 9/11.
Feb 8, 2010:
Bypassing the press bottlenecks
I have noticed that a number of 9/11 activists think that they can reach their objectives if only they could convince the mass media to cover the relevant facts in an objective way.
What they don't seem to fully grasp is that the mass media are the "organs of propaganda" of an invisible or semi-visible system composed of the super-powerful, whether they be business titans, national security officers, political action types, mobsters, communists or whomever has heavy duty clout.
The honest people in the media are for the most part intimidated into averting their gaze while the system encourages intellectual perverts and shills of every sort to wage propaganda war against 9/11 truth.
Yes, once the Powers that Be are in disarray, or once there is a major chink in the armor of one or the other of them, the press will go into a feeding frenzy. But, the 9/11 masterminds were relatively sure they could control the media, and, indeed, after a period of tension, they were able to use damage containment techniques to wall off problems.
And they will stop at nothing to keep the mass media muzzled. Their whole theory of power requires control of media, enhanced by all sorts of psy-op funny business to keep the public confused and off their scent.
On the other hand, we must admit that, from time to time, responsible journalists will see to it that 9/11 critics get a fair say. But, once that say appears, it's back to playing dumb.
These occasional efforts of honest journalists mean there is yet hope that the 9/11 masterminds will slip up and be unable to contain the firestorm that erupts.
BUT, in the meantime, we must also work to bypass the politico-media system.
Some ideas:
* Use alternative media, such as Op-Ed News and IndyMedia, that are open to 9/11 criticism.
* Be on the lookout for interactive new media sites that blend print and video and that are hungry for content.
* If you are able, do your best to cover the 9/11 trials and post your reports on the internet. Perhaps this will help keep "establishment" reporting honest (and maybe not).
* Whenever possible, try to obtain good relationships with professional reporters -- even if they can write relatively little about 9/11 truth -- whether they work for alternative or system media. The upcoming al Qaeda trials provide a good opportunity for this. That is, a reporter might be able to call you for background concerning matters that are raised (probably by the defense) during the trial.
Please copy this post and pass it around
Thursday, December 31, 2009
A prof's strong words on 9/11 coverup
Academics are far from unanimous that only kooks and misguided ideologues suspect the government is covering up the truth about 9/11.
One example of a professional who doubts the government story is Richard A. Falk, a UN human rights official.
"Any close student of 9/11 is aware of the many serious discrepancies between the official version of what took place and the actual happenings of that fateful day in 2001," wrote Falk, the UN's human rights rapporteur in Israeli-occupied territories.
The recently retired Princeton University international law professor argued that it is "not paranoid" to "assume that established elites of the American government structure have something to hide, and much to explain."
Falk's article, which appeared Nov. 9, 2008 in a British journal, took aim at the fact that the presidential candidates avoided discussion of these matters. Please see http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/5056-911-more-than-meets-the-eye. Or Google: Richard Falk, 9/11.
Falk, who is a member of the editorial board of the left-leaning Nation, was, however, somewhat critical of government antagonists, saying that "what has not been established by the '9/11 Truth Movement' is a convincing counter-narrative -- that is, an alternate version of the events that clears up to what degree, if at all, the attacks resulted from incompetence, deliberate inaction and outright complicity."
Comment: There is ample evidence of "outright complicity." However, it is quite difficult for honest observers, lacking the power of subpoena, to shake out a truthful account of all covert actions related to the attacks.
Christmas jet attack's 9/11 echoes
There are many chilling echoes of the attacks of 9/11 in the Yuletide terror attempt.
Recriminations are flying, and we have the same failure to connect dots. Now consider, suppose the jet downing had succeeded? The hysteria would have been so great that Obama would have been forced into draconian measures that enhanced the control of those secret cliques Falk was talking about.
Yes, the CIA is taking a lot of heat right now. But, had the attack succeeded, perhaps the heat would have been worthwhile. After all, the CIA managed very well with political damage control following the 9/11 attacks (and also following John Kennedy's assassination).
Though I can't at this point say that we have grounds to suspect an inside job, I would say that there are disconcerting similarities with a previous inside job.
One example of a professional who doubts the government story is Richard A. Falk, a UN human rights official.
"Any close student of 9/11 is aware of the many serious discrepancies between the official version of what took place and the actual happenings of that fateful day in 2001," wrote Falk, the UN's human rights rapporteur in Israeli-occupied territories.
The recently retired Princeton University international law professor argued that it is "not paranoid" to "assume that established elites of the American government structure have something to hide, and much to explain."
Falk's article, which appeared Nov. 9, 2008 in a British journal, took aim at the fact that the presidential candidates avoided discussion of these matters. Please see http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/5056-911-more-than-meets-the-eye. Or Google: Richard Falk, 9/11.
Falk, who is a member of the editorial board of the left-leaning Nation, was, however, somewhat critical of government antagonists, saying that "what has not been established by the '9/11 Truth Movement' is a convincing counter-narrative -- that is, an alternate version of the events that clears up to what degree, if at all, the attacks resulted from incompetence, deliberate inaction and outright complicity."
Comment: There is ample evidence of "outright complicity." However, it is quite difficult for honest observers, lacking the power of subpoena, to shake out a truthful account of all covert actions related to the attacks.
Christmas jet attack's 9/11 echoes
There are many chilling echoes of the attacks of 9/11 in the Yuletide terror attempt.
Recriminations are flying, and we have the same failure to connect dots. Now consider, suppose the jet downing had succeeded? The hysteria would have been so great that Obama would have been forced into draconian measures that enhanced the control of those secret cliques Falk was talking about.
Yes, the CIA is taking a lot of heat right now. But, had the attack succeeded, perhaps the heat would have been worthwhile. After all, the CIA managed very well with political damage control following the 9/11 attacks (and also following John Kennedy's assassination).
Though I can't at this point say that we have grounds to suspect an inside job, I would say that there are disconcerting similarities with a previous inside job.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Why does Shermer believe weird things?
Because al Qaeda claimed credit for the Christmas airline bombing attempt, therefore the U.S. government is innocent of involvement in orchestrating the events of 9/11.
This is the reasoning of Skeptic Michael Shermer, according to a Dec. 28 post at TrueSlant.
Evidently the Skeptic missed his basic logic class at university.
Well, actually, he didn't quite use strict logic. He deployed the implication arrow rather loosely, in the manner typical of a professional propagandist. Maybe he should write a column for the New York Post, or appear as a commentator on Fox News.
There are very few critics of the official 9/11 tale who claim that al Qaeda is not a terrorist group anxious to inflict spectacular casualties on Americans. The point is that the scientific evidence fails to corroborate the government story about what occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.
Nevertheless, we can anticipate that there will be a barrage of this sort of junk reasoning aimed at drowning out the inconvenient truths about what happened, and did not happen, on 9/11.
And note the contrast between this most recent al Qaeda attack -- if that's what it really was -- and the attacks of 9/11. In the first case, we have a highly coordinated, professional paramilitary operation; in the latter case, we have an attack at about the level of sophistication al Qaeda demonstrated before and after 9/11.
If Shermer is not a professional disinformation agent, then, alas, he is a scientist whose reasoning powers have been clouded by hysterical, irrational thinking.
This is the reasoning of Skeptic Michael Shermer, according to a Dec. 28 post at TrueSlant.
Evidently the Skeptic missed his basic logic class at university.
Well, actually, he didn't quite use strict logic. He deployed the implication arrow rather loosely, in the manner typical of a professional propagandist. Maybe he should write a column for the New York Post, or appear as a commentator on Fox News.
There are very few critics of the official 9/11 tale who claim that al Qaeda is not a terrorist group anxious to inflict spectacular casualties on Americans. The point is that the scientific evidence fails to corroborate the government story about what occurred on Sept. 11, 2001.
Nevertheless, we can anticipate that there will be a barrage of this sort of junk reasoning aimed at drowning out the inconvenient truths about what happened, and did not happen, on 9/11.
And note the contrast between this most recent al Qaeda attack -- if that's what it really was -- and the attacks of 9/11. In the first case, we have a highly coordinated, professional paramilitary operation; in the latter case, we have an attack at about the level of sophistication al Qaeda demonstrated before and after 9/11.
If Shermer is not a professional disinformation agent, then, alas, he is a scientist whose reasoning powers have been clouded by hysterical, irrational thinking.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
What Bush 'knew' and when he 'knew' it
Within hours of the 9/11 attacks, the White House "knew" without a doubt that al Qaeda had carried them out, the former British envoy to the United States has testified.
Christopher Meyer, the former ambassador, told of a conversation with National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice. "She said, well, there's no doubt it's -- this has been an al Qaeda operation."
The disclosure to Britain's Iraq war inquiry makes one wonder how the White House could have been so certain so rapidly. Perhaps the FBI had by then found the luggage left on a connecting flight that, at first sight, seemed to implicate al Qaeda, but that, on further reflection, looked planted. (See my article The worst of Hearst which can be reached via the links in the sidebar.)
It seems quite suspicious that the White House was dead certain that al Qaeda had pulled off the attacks so soon after they occurred. How were top officials already so sure that there was no chicanery going on? After all, it's a given that cloak-and-dagger units are proficient at throwing suspicion onto others.
And to compound things, Meyer added that the White House was already seeing a link between the attacks and Saddam Hussein. "But at the end of the conversation, it's: we are just looking to see whether there could possibly be any connection with Saddam Hussein. And that was the very first time -- on the day itself -- that I heard the name of the Iraqi leader mentioned in the context of -- of 9/11."
(Gleaned from a Judy Woodruff report on PBS's Newshour.)
A top aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair then confirmed that the White House was pushing to link the attacks to Hussein very soon after Sept. 11.
David Manning, Blair's foreign policy adviser in 2001, testified that, in a Sept. 14 conversation with Blair, President Bush "said that there might be evidence that there was some connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda."
Manning added, "The prime minister's response to this was that the evidence would have to be very compelling to justify taking any action against Iraq."
(Gleaned from an Agence France Presse report.)
A "link" of sorts eventually surfaced when military anthrax was mailed to journalists and politicians. The White House seized on the anthrax attack to imply a link to Saddam, who was suspected of developing military grade anthrax. That pattern of inuendo was sustained even after it was learned that the anthrax was linked to the Pentagon.
We see that:
1. The White House was immediately interested in exploiting the attacks of 9/11 to further its agenda against Hussein, but that the British were not persuaded there was much to the suspicion. Others have also disclosed that the in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the White House decided to "get" Saddam. If the White House wasn't overly concerned with the truth at that point, does this not suggest that the White House was behaving as if it had advance knowledge?
2. Blair knew that the White House favored military action against Iraq based on unsubstantiated inferences. Yet, supposedly he accepted the White House's eventual theory that Iraq was sitting on a dangerous complex of WMD horror weapons. In other words, didn't Blair realize that the White House was determined to launch a war no matter what and that, perhaps, he should have been chary of being dragged along?
Christopher Meyer, the former ambassador, told of a conversation with National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice. "She said, well, there's no doubt it's -- this has been an al Qaeda operation."
The disclosure to Britain's Iraq war inquiry makes one wonder how the White House could have been so certain so rapidly. Perhaps the FBI had by then found the luggage left on a connecting flight that, at first sight, seemed to implicate al Qaeda, but that, on further reflection, looked planted. (See my article The worst of Hearst which can be reached via the links in the sidebar.)
It seems quite suspicious that the White House was dead certain that al Qaeda had pulled off the attacks so soon after they occurred. How were top officials already so sure that there was no chicanery going on? After all, it's a given that cloak-and-dagger units are proficient at throwing suspicion onto others.
And to compound things, Meyer added that the White House was already seeing a link between the attacks and Saddam Hussein. "But at the end of the conversation, it's: we are just looking to see whether there could possibly be any connection with Saddam Hussein. And that was the very first time -- on the day itself -- that I heard the name of the Iraqi leader mentioned in the context of -- of 9/11."
(Gleaned from a Judy Woodruff report on PBS's Newshour.)
A top aide to Prime Minister Tony Blair then confirmed that the White House was pushing to link the attacks to Hussein very soon after Sept. 11.
David Manning, Blair's foreign policy adviser in 2001, testified that, in a Sept. 14 conversation with Blair, President Bush "said that there might be evidence that there was some connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda."
Manning added, "The prime minister's response to this was that the evidence would have to be very compelling to justify taking any action against Iraq."
(Gleaned from an Agence France Presse report.)
A "link" of sorts eventually surfaced when military anthrax was mailed to journalists and politicians. The White House seized on the anthrax attack to imply a link to Saddam, who was suspected of developing military grade anthrax. That pattern of inuendo was sustained even after it was learned that the anthrax was linked to the Pentagon.
We see that:
1. The White House was immediately interested in exploiting the attacks of 9/11 to further its agenda against Hussein, but that the British were not persuaded there was much to the suspicion. Others have also disclosed that the in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the White House decided to "get" Saddam. If the White House wasn't overly concerned with the truth at that point, does this not suggest that the White House was behaving as if it had advance knowledge?
2. Blair knew that the White House favored military action against Iraq based on unsubstantiated inferences. Yet, supposedly he accepted the White House's eventual theory that Iraq was sitting on a dangerous complex of WMD horror weapons. In other words, didn't Blair realize that the White House was determined to launch a war no matter what and that, perhaps, he should have been chary of being dragged along?
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Tiptoeing past conspiracy disclosures
The UK Iraq war inquiry got off to a hot start as leaked documents implied conspiracy between Blair and Bush to bring about war hell or high water.
One special forces general was quoted as saying he had been preparing for an Iraq war since 2002, well ahead of the timetable given in official history.
One internet reporter, Dave Lindorff, noted that most of the U.S. media ignored these disclosures, though the Philadelphia Inquirer ran an AP story and the New York Times ran a story that, he said, cruised past the conspiracy angle.
True, it's the holiday season, and many journalists assume Americans are uninterested in "foreign" news. But there is also the fact that controlled reporters and editors are fearful of being labeled as "conspiracists" for exposing conspiracies.
And clearly, the control freaks fear too much awareness of high-level conspiracy because where there's one conspiracy, there may be another -- such as to cover up the facts about 9/11.
9/11 fair trial problems
It has been reported that at least one 9/11 defendant, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, plans to plead guilty, thus sparing the government of the need to prove his guilt. However, KSM was extensively tortured. The FBI's way out is to say that he confessed to being the 9/11 ringleader before the torture by the CIA. Mmmhmm.
There are times when a judge can refuse to accept a defendant's guilty plea and force the government to prove its case. One would think that the extensive use of torture is grounds for such a decision.
However, there's a bit of a hang-up. Anyone who goes to trial should be entitled to bring in evidence concerning torture, but the special prosecutor assigned to investigate the CIA's torture of captives appears to be far from ready to prosecute anyone or issue a report. Still, the political pressure to try these people is so strong that it is unlikely defense lawyers will have access to the special prosecutor's material prior to trial.
Well, we all know these are intended as show trials meant to obtain "closure" concerning 9/11. There is no effort to bring the real 9/11 masterminds to trial.
One special forces general was quoted as saying he had been preparing for an Iraq war since 2002, well ahead of the timetable given in official history.
One internet reporter, Dave Lindorff, noted that most of the U.S. media ignored these disclosures, though the Philadelphia Inquirer ran an AP story and the New York Times ran a story that, he said, cruised past the conspiracy angle.
True, it's the holiday season, and many journalists assume Americans are uninterested in "foreign" news. But there is also the fact that controlled reporters and editors are fearful of being labeled as "conspiracists" for exposing conspiracies.
And clearly, the control freaks fear too much awareness of high-level conspiracy because where there's one conspiracy, there may be another -- such as to cover up the facts about 9/11.
9/11 fair trial problems
It has been reported that at least one 9/11 defendant, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, plans to plead guilty, thus sparing the government of the need to prove his guilt. However, KSM was extensively tortured. The FBI's way out is to say that he confessed to being the 9/11 ringleader before the torture by the CIA. Mmmhmm.
There are times when a judge can refuse to accept a defendant's guilty plea and force the government to prove its case. One would think that the extensive use of torture is grounds for such a decision.
However, there's a bit of a hang-up. Anyone who goes to trial should be entitled to bring in evidence concerning torture, but the special prosecutor assigned to investigate the CIA's torture of captives appears to be far from ready to prosecute anyone or issue a report. Still, the political pressure to try these people is so strong that it is unlikely defense lawyers will have access to the special prosecutor's material prior to trial.
Well, we all know these are intended as show trials meant to obtain "closure" concerning 9/11. There is no effort to bring the real 9/11 masterminds to trial.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Greenspan's 9/11 skepticism
I posted an item on this when Greenspan's memoir, The Age of Turbulence, was published in 2007. He didn't alter his words for the updated version that discussed the first phase of last year's financial crises.
In the days following Sept. 11, 2001, said former Fed chief Alan Greenspan, "There was no bigger question in Washington than, Why no second attack?" (Page 227)
He wrote:
"If al Qaeda's intent was to disrupt the U.S. economy, as bin Laden had declared, the attacks had to continue. Our society was open, our borders porous, and our ability to detect weapons and bombs was weak. I asked this question of a lot of people at the highest levels of government, and no one seemed to have a convincing response." (Emphasis added.)
In other words, Greenspan thought there was something fishy about the attacks and the war on terror. Greenspan, who describes himself as a libertarian Republican, makes it clear that he was disturbed by the threats to individual liberty that arose after the attacks. And, Greenspan was candid about having little respect for Bush and a number of his aides.
We should add that Greenspan does not challenge the authenticity of the purported bin Laden statement, but then, he doesn't need to. If the statement is authentic, his question follows. If it isn't, then why did the Bush bunch vouch for it?
Neither does he question the FBI's decision to treat the anthrax attacks as unrelated to the events of 9/11. Once a Pentagon role was discovered in the anthrax case, the FBI quickly nixed the theory that it was part of a single terrorist campaign. But, because that position became the official stance, Greenspan's question stands.
You won't find information like this on Fox news -- though it was widely reported that Greenspan had little use for the official tale of what was behind the Iraq war.
Greenspan argued that regional instability posed a threat to oil supplies, spurring U.S. and British action, "whatever their publicized angst about 'weapons of mass destruction'."
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
We also learn that Greenspan, a market fundamentalist, was surprised that the market's "counter-party surveillance" provided insufficient self-regulation to avert the subprime crash.
He expressed alarm at global warming and said he was concerned that political dithering would prevent realistic countermeasures. Nevertheless, he backed a tax on gasoline in order to force America to wean itself from dependence on oil. He argued that the economy could well handle a tax that pushed gas up to $5 a gallon. Of course, this was written before the wild financial meltdown of last autumn.
++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: Holy cow! A post from this blog showed up in the Google blog alerts under "Znewz1" -- a first. Now, the thing will be to see if blogs that mention Znewz1 show up in Google alerts.
FOLLOW-UP NOTE: Well, an alert arrived with an old Znewz1 post linked on someone else's old blog. Interesting.
In the days following Sept. 11, 2001, said former Fed chief Alan Greenspan, "There was no bigger question in Washington than, Why no second attack?" (Page 227)
He wrote:
"If al Qaeda's intent was to disrupt the U.S. economy, as bin Laden had declared, the attacks had to continue. Our society was open, our borders porous, and our ability to detect weapons and bombs was weak. I asked this question of a lot of people at the highest levels of government, and no one seemed to have a convincing response." (Emphasis added.)
In other words, Greenspan thought there was something fishy about the attacks and the war on terror. Greenspan, who describes himself as a libertarian Republican, makes it clear that he was disturbed by the threats to individual liberty that arose after the attacks. And, Greenspan was candid about having little respect for Bush and a number of his aides.
We should add that Greenspan does not challenge the authenticity of the purported bin Laden statement, but then, he doesn't need to. If the statement is authentic, his question follows. If it isn't, then why did the Bush bunch vouch for it?
Neither does he question the FBI's decision to treat the anthrax attacks as unrelated to the events of 9/11. Once a Pentagon role was discovered in the anthrax case, the FBI quickly nixed the theory that it was part of a single terrorist campaign. But, because that position became the official stance, Greenspan's question stands.
You won't find information like this on Fox news -- though it was widely reported that Greenspan had little use for the official tale of what was behind the Iraq war.
Greenspan argued that regional instability posed a threat to oil supplies, spurring U.S. and British action, "whatever their publicized angst about 'weapons of mass destruction'."
"I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."
We also learn that Greenspan, a market fundamentalist, was surprised that the market's "counter-party surveillance" provided insufficient self-regulation to avert the subprime crash.
He expressed alarm at global warming and said he was concerned that political dithering would prevent realistic countermeasures. Nevertheless, he backed a tax on gasoline in order to force America to wean itself from dependence on oil. He argued that the economy could well handle a tax that pushed gas up to $5 a gallon. Of course, this was written before the wild financial meltdown of last autumn.
++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: Holy cow! A post from this blog showed up in the Google blog alerts under "Znewz1" -- a first. Now, the thing will be to see if blogs that mention Znewz1 show up in Google alerts.
FOLLOW-UP NOTE: Well, an alert arrived with an old Znewz1 post linked on someone else's old blog. Interesting.
Obama-Murdoch battle widens
A media battle royal between President Obama and mogul Rupert Murdoch is rapidly escalating.
The fracas took another turn when a media watchdog urged progessives to join an all-out campaign to delegitimize Fox News as a real news organization. This followed an effort by Republican partisans Karl Rove and Lamar Alexander to characterize Obama as a Nixon-like figure.
David Brock, who runs Media Matters, sent out a call to action to others on the left to counter "lethal" Fox, as Politico reports in its latest editions.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/
Brock at one time was a conservative journalist who indulged in many of the tactics used by Fox and most Murdoch media. He later wrote a book "Blinded by the Right," which marked his change of conviction.
It is very likely that Fox's Glenn Beck and others at Fox will jump on Brock's call to action as evidence that the left-wing is out to get Fox. However, it should be noted that other left-oriented groups have only touched on the controversy tepidly, if at all, and that the conservative Accuracy in the Media, while running some commentary on the brawl, has largely been unenthusiastic about backing Fox.
In another development, Newsweek published Slate chief Jacob Weisberg's piece upholding the White House view and urging reputable journalists to shun Fox, with a headline denouncing Fox -- and by implication Murdoch -- as "un-American." Considering Glenn Beck's attacks on White House aide Anita Dunn as a Mao-loving radical, Newsweek's head was no doubt thoughtfully chosen.
"Whether the White House engages with Fox is a tactical political question," wrote Weisberg. "Whether journalists continue to do so is an ethical one. By appearing on Fox, reporters validate its propaganda values and help to undermine the role of legitimate news organizations. Responsible journalists -- I'm talking to you, Mara Liasson -- should stop appearing on its programs."
A memorable dart tossed by Weisberg: "If you were watching Fox News Channel, you saw a familiar roster of platinum pundettes and anchor androids reciting the same soundbites: this was Obama's version of Nixon's enemies list."
See http://www.newsweek.com/id/218192
Clearly, non-Fox journalists have been getting a kick out of covering this feud. At least that's the sense one gets when reading the latest wrap-up in the New York Times, where it was reported that Obama himself had vented his displeasure at Fox in a closed meeting, which included the liberal opinion molders Rachel Madow, Keith Olberman, Frank Rich and Bob Herbert.
Reflecting Obama's pique, White House aide David Pfeiffer kept up the attack on Fox. "We simply decided to stop abiding by the fiction, which is aided and abetted by the mainstream press, that Fox is a traditional press organization," Pfeiffer said.
Latest salvoes: Dan Froomkin writes in the liberal Huffington Post about "why journalists shouldn't defend Fox" and Murdoch's Wall Street Journal has a right-spin piece by James Taranto suggesting that the White House is behaving like left-wing radicals when it criticizes Fox.
Some question the political wisdom of the White House drive to marginalize Fox as a serious news organization. However, one might recall that Hillary Clinton kicked off a counter-offensive in the Monica Lewinsky scandal with her famous "vast, right-wing conspiracy" theory. That counter-offensive did not save her husband from impeachment, but it very likely influenced the Senate's decision to let him off with a reprimand.
The fracas took another turn when a media watchdog urged progessives to join an all-out campaign to delegitimize Fox News as a real news organization. This followed an effort by Republican partisans Karl Rove and Lamar Alexander to characterize Obama as a Nixon-like figure.
David Brock, who runs Media Matters, sent out a call to action to others on the left to counter "lethal" Fox, as Politico reports in its latest editions.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/
Brock at one time was a conservative journalist who indulged in many of the tactics used by Fox and most Murdoch media. He later wrote a book "Blinded by the Right," which marked his change of conviction.
It is very likely that Fox's Glenn Beck and others at Fox will jump on Brock's call to action as evidence that the left-wing is out to get Fox. However, it should be noted that other left-oriented groups have only touched on the controversy tepidly, if at all, and that the conservative Accuracy in the Media, while running some commentary on the brawl, has largely been unenthusiastic about backing Fox.
In another development, Newsweek published Slate chief Jacob Weisberg's piece upholding the White House view and urging reputable journalists to shun Fox, with a headline denouncing Fox -- and by implication Murdoch -- as "un-American." Considering Glenn Beck's attacks on White House aide Anita Dunn as a Mao-loving radical, Newsweek's head was no doubt thoughtfully chosen.
"Whether the White House engages with Fox is a tactical political question," wrote Weisberg. "Whether journalists continue to do so is an ethical one. By appearing on Fox, reporters validate its propaganda values and help to undermine the role of legitimate news organizations. Responsible journalists -- I'm talking to you, Mara Liasson -- should stop appearing on its programs."
A memorable dart tossed by Weisberg: "If you were watching Fox News Channel, you saw a familiar roster of platinum pundettes and anchor androids reciting the same soundbites: this was Obama's version of Nixon's enemies list."
See http://www.newsweek.com/id/218192
Clearly, non-Fox journalists have been getting a kick out of covering this feud. At least that's the sense one gets when reading the latest wrap-up in the New York Times, where it was reported that Obama himself had vented his displeasure at Fox in a closed meeting, which included the liberal opinion molders Rachel Madow, Keith Olberman, Frank Rich and Bob Herbert.
Reflecting Obama's pique, White House aide David Pfeiffer kept up the attack on Fox. "We simply decided to stop abiding by the fiction, which is aided and abetted by the mainstream press, that Fox is a traditional press organization," Pfeiffer said.
Latest salvoes: Dan Froomkin writes in the liberal Huffington Post about "why journalists shouldn't defend Fox" and Murdoch's Wall Street Journal has a right-spin piece by James Taranto suggesting that the White House is behaving like left-wing radicals when it criticizes Fox.
Some question the political wisdom of the White House drive to marginalize Fox as a serious news organization. However, one might recall that Hillary Clinton kicked off a counter-offensive in the Monica Lewinsky scandal with her famous "vast, right-wing conspiracy" theory. That counter-offensive did not save her husband from impeachment, but it very likely influenced the Senate's decision to let him off with a reprimand.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)