Posted by: quiscus | July 10, 2009

July 10, 2009

1.  “A war of colonial conquest in Afghanistan

The ostensible legal basis on which American troops are in Afghanistan is the “Authorization for Use of Military Force”, the joint resolution passed by the US Congress on September 18, 2001—one week after 9/11. The resolution authorised military force for the purpose of capturing or destroying the Al Qaeda leadership, beginning with bin Laden, so as to prevent further terrorist attacks.

Nearly eight years later, there is barely the pretence that American troops are in Afghanistan to hunt down Al Qaeda. Instead, the war is declared to be against the “Taliban”—a label indiscriminately applied to any Afghan who resists the US-led occupation. At no time, however, was there an accusation that the Taliban had a role in 9/11. The Bush administration’s justification for targeting the Islamist government in Kabul was that it rejected an ultimatum to turn over the Al Qaeda leadership to the United States.

The dropping of the original pretext for the invasion poses the question: with what purported legal justification has the US government and its allies continued and escalated the war? The truth is they have none. Nothing remains but the reality of an imperialist war of plunder and domination.

The US-led occupation of Afghanistan and the terrible violence engulfing Pakistan is the culmination of 30 years of American imperialist intrigue in Central Asia to establish strategic and economic dominance over the resource-rich region.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/pers-j10.shtml

2.  “The FBI informant and the Bronx bomb plot

Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly held press conferences at the synagogues to reassure New Yorkers about their safety. During Kelly’s remarks, it was startling to hear the commissioner refer to al-Qaeda by name, if only to say that the four purported home-grown terrorists had no ties to Osama Bin Laden’s organization.

As more details emerged, however, the less the four defendants sounded like men with the skills to plan a sophisticated terror plot. They were small-time crooks, felons with long criminal records whose previous activities revolved around smoking marijuana and playing video games. One defendant, Laguerre Payen, was arrested in a crack house surrounded by bottles of his own urine; his lawyer describes him as “mildly retarded.”

It seemed fairly astounding that, for a full calendar year, such a group could remain interested in and plan anything more complex than a backyard barbecue, let alone a multipronged paramilitary assault, as the indictment against them alleged.

But what the indictment didn’t say, and what the initial news reports didn’t fill in, was the extent to which the fifth man in the plot, an unnamed FBI informant, had provided the glue to hold the Newburgh 4 together.

There have been no real domestic “terrorism” cases that have not been instigated by an FBI informant. What amazes me is that the writers of the Voice article don’t draw the logical conclusion that all of the so-called terrorism cases over the past 20 years have been sting type affairs, in which the FBI was heavily involved. The real question, of course, is why Moslems have been targeted..”

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20600

3.  “McNamaranism Alive and Well
Why Robert McNamara lived to age 93 is not for us to know. He did have second thoughts, but his decades-late utterances about the Pentagon and Washington’s lies and immorality only enraged those who hated the war, as well as those who believed in the empire.

But to mourn his passing is unnecessary. We haven’t learned a thing from his life and crimes. We continue to trust our overseas wars and our patriotic souls to soft-handed, finely dressed, wire-rimmed statist intellectuals and pansy-hearted politicians, beholden to the lobbies of democracy, of national industry, of foreign interests, of empire.


We trust them and we send our own unemployable and ill-educated children into the maw, for their own good. To make them strong and pure. To instill in them blind obedience to intellectuals in suits. To train them in the ways of professional and political bean counters who cannot count.


Until we the people completely turn our backs on the state, and its beloved empire, we are all McNamarans.”

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski233.html

4.  “Reporting on Iran by the numbers

Imagine the mayor of your city or town calls a live press conference to announce a costly program to exterminate all the sewer crocodiles that live in the cities sewer system as per that old urban legend.  With budgets running very tight in this tough economy, with vital services being drastically cut back all throughout city government, the Mayor announces that he is setting aside several million dollars to exterminate crocodiles in the city sewer system that don’t exist and never have.

Now imagine, that instead of running a headline the next day like “Unbalanced Mayor calls for war on crocs that don’t exist” the most trusted city newspaper of record runs one that reads “Mayor calls for war on sewer crocs” and not once in the whole story is it even hinted that this Mayor’s claims are baseless, absurd, and not to mention insane.

That, almost without exaggeration, describes nearly all reporting on Iran and the “nuclear” issue in the United States.  Our Federal government makes not only wholly unsubstantiated claims about Iran’s nuclear program but ones that are contradicted by ample available evidence (even some of it coming from the federal government itself!) and our press repeats these claims with nary a challenge as to their veracity.

Just about every single newspaper wire story on Iran and the nuclear issue is a veritable garden of lies of omission, purposeful misrepresentations, and unsubstantiated allegations ripe to be impeached but left unchallenged in any meaningful way.  These stories are so far removed from any sort of minimal journalistic ethics or standards that they may as well be written by the Pentagon.”

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-3665-Boston-Libertarian-Examiner~y2009m7d8-Reporting-on-Iran-by-the-numbers

5.  “Barack McNamara Obama

Why Can’t Obama See His Wars Are Unwinnable?

“We must try to put ourselves inside their skin and look at us through their eyes,” McNamara warned long after the fact, speaking of “America’s enemies” but really just about people–people who live in other countries. People whose countries possess reserves of natural gas (Vietnam) or oil (Iraq) or are situated between energy reserves and deep-sea ports where oil tankers dock (Afghanistan and Pakistan).


Why can’t President Obama imagine himself living in a poor village in Pakistan? Why can’t he feel the anger and contempt felt by Pakistanis who hear pilotless drone planes buzzing overhead, firing missiles willy-nilly at civilians and guerilla fighters alike, dispatched by a distant enemy too cowardly to put live soldiers and pilots in harm’s way?


“We burned to death 100,000 Japanese civilians in Tokyo–men, women and children,” McNamara said. “LeMay said, ‘If we’d lost the war, we’d all have been prosecuted as war criminals.’ And I think he’s right. He–and I’d say I–were behaving as war criminals.” 900,000 Japanese civilians died in all.


“Make no mistake, the international community is not winning in Afghanistan,” concluded the Atlantic Council in 2008. Things have only gotten worse as U.S. troop presence has increased: more violence, more drugs, less reconstruction.


Like McNamara, Obama doesn’t understand a basic truth: you can’t successfully manage an inherently doomed premise. Colonialism is dead. Occupiers will never enjoy peace. Neither the Afghans nor the Iraqis nor the Pakistanis will rest until we withdraw our forces. The only success we will find is in accepting defeat sooner rather than later.”


http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/?uc_full_date=20090707



Posted by: quiscus | July 9, 2009

July 9, 2009

1.  “Panetta Admits CIA Has “Misled” Congress

Central Intelligence Agency Director Leon Panetta has admitted the CIA has misled Congress on intelligence matters since at least 2001. On Wednesday, a group of seven Democratic lawmakers released a letter describing Panetta’s comments. House intelligence committee chair Silvestre Reyes said CIA officials “affirmatively lied” in a recent briefing on an unspecified matter.”

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/9/headlines#11

2.  Amazing.  A newspaper published a truthful op-ed peice:

“New 9-11 investigation needed to prove science doesn’t lie

When looking at all the evidence, nothing produces a “smoking gun” more than the collapse of both World Trade Center towers and World Trade Center Building 7.

All three buildings fell symmetrically at near free-fall speed into the path of most resistance. The National Institute for Standards and Technology investigated the collapse of both towers for the 9/11 Commission. They claimed that the collapse of both towers were due to the impact damage of the aircraft and the fires that weakened the steel columns, which in turn caused the floors to sag and collapse inward — bringing the upper floors down.

NIST can’t explain what caused the “global collapse” of both towers. Why didn’t the unaffected and undamaged floors below slow down or stop the collapse? How can 400,000 yards of concrete be pulverized into dust due to a gravitational collapse? NIST has no answers for these questions.

Steven Jones, a former BYU physics professor, has found active thermitic material in WTC dust samples. Thermite is an incendiary that can cut through steel like a hot knife through butter.

WTC 7, a 47-story building collapsed at free-fall acceleration into its own footprint at 5:20 p.m. This structure was not hit by a plane and, according to NIST, collapsed primarily due to fire — a first in the history of steel-framed buildings. Only small pockets of fire in isolated areas of the building occurred, somehow allowing it to collapse symmetrically. Oddly enough, its collapse was omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report.”

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/7/9/headlines#11

3.  “Accused of returning to terrorism, former Gitmo detainee a respected Afghan politician

A former Guantanamo Bay detainee who was named by the Pentagon as one of 74 former captives who returned to terrorism after being released has done no such thing.Instead, he has returned to doing what he was really doing before being picked up by US forces and shuttled off to Gitmo for six years: Working as a politician, a tribal elder representing Afghanistan’s Kunar province.

So says a new report from McClatchy Newspapers, which profiles Haji Sahib Rohullah Wakil, a tribal elder who regularly meets with Afghan President Hamid Karzai and other government officials on behalf of the people of Kunar province.

In May, an unreleased Pentagon document was leaked to the press, alleging that one in seven released Gitmo detainees — fully 74 individuals — had returned to terrorism once freed.

And while the veracity of that claim was questioned, the leaked Pentagon document was still considered important in changing the Washington establishment’s mind about President Obama’s plan to shut down the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Shortly after the report made it to the press, Congressional Democrats voted to oppose funding, requested by President Obama, to shut down Guantanamo Bay.

Now, with the apparent confirmation that at least one of the people accused of terrorist recidivism is actually a respected Afghan government official, questions will likely arise about the accuracy of that Pentagon report, as well as the motivations behind its being released to the press.”

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/07/accused-of-returning-to-terrorism-former-gitmo-detainee-a-respected-afghan-politician/

4.  “McNamara’s Evil Lives On

To not speak out fully because of respect for the deceased would be to mock the memory of the millions of innocent people McNamara caused to be maimed and killed in a war that he later freely admitted never made any sense. Much has been made of the fact that he recanted his support for the war, but that came 20 years after the holocaust he visited upon Vietnam was over.

Is holocaust too emotionally charged a word? How many millions of dead innocent civilians does it take to qualify labels like holocaust, genocide or terrorism? How many of the limbless victims of his fragmentation bombs and land mines whom I saw in Vietnam during and after the war? Or are America’s leaders always to be exempted from such questions? Perhaps if McNamara had been held legally accountable for his actions, the architects of the Iraq debacle might have paused.

Instead, McNamara was honored with the Medal of Freedom by President Lyndon Johnson, to whom he had written a private memo nine months earlier offering this assessment of their Vietnam carnage: “The picture of the world’s greatest superpower killing or seriously injuring 1,000 noncombatants a week, while trying to pound a tiny backward nation into submission on an issue whose merits are hotly disputed, is not a pretty one.”

He knew it then, and, give him this, the dimensions of that horror never left him. When I interviewed him for the Los Angeles Times in 1995, after the publication of his confessional memoir, his assessment of the madness he had unleashed was all too clear:

“Look, we dropped three to four times the tonnage on that tiny little area as were dropped by the Allies in all of the theaters in World War II over a period of five years. It was unbelievable. We killed—there were killed—3,200,000 Vietnamese, excluding the South Vietnamese military. My God! The killing, the tonnage—it was fantastic. The problem was that we were trying to do something that was militarily impossible—we were trying to break the will; I don’t think we can break the will by bombing short of genocide.”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090707_robert_scheer_july_8_column/

5.  “May He Rest in Darkness

McNamara: From the Tokyo Firestorm to the World Bank

In his later years, McNamara never offered any reflection on the social system that produced and promoted him, a perfectly nice, well- spoken war criminal.

the system that blessed him and mercilessly killed millions upon millions under FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon.

Like Albert Speer, he got away with it, never having to hang his head or drop through a trap door with a rope around his neck

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn07072009.html

6.  “California Dreamin’: How the State Can Beat Its Budget Woes”

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14270

7.  “Two Ways to Pay As You Go

A Campaign Proposal for Progressives

The day after ramming through nearly $100 billion more for wars and $100 billion in loans to European banks through the IMF, the majority leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, Steny Hoyer, introduced a “PayGo” bill, requiring that any spending be paid for with cuts in other spending.  But having this law on the books would not have stopped the previous day’s legislation.  War “supplemental” bills are deemed “emergencies” and an exception is made for them.  And lending money you don’t have and can’t be sure of getting back, through an unaccountable organization with a record of damaging those it claims to help, is not considered spending at all.

But the exceptions for wars and loans are serious exceptions.  They could both be addressed through amendments to the PayGo legislation.  I want to focus on the war supplementals, because I think they offer an opening for engagement that would leave Borosage and all progressives and a much larger section of the political spectrum happy.  My idea is this: we launch a campaign to amend the PayGo legislation to stipulate that no funding for any war that has been ongoing for over five years counts as an “emergency” or is excluded from PayGo requirements.  This would mean that the next war supplemental bill could not be passed without some explanation of where the money was going to come from. (Congressman John Murtha has promised another supplemental this year, having waited to do so until just after the passage of the last one, which was sold as being the final such bill.)  Such a campaign could simply target Hoyer to amend his bill to agree that wars that have been dragging on for over five years are not emergencies.  Or it could work with Congressional supporters to gather support for an amendment to that effect or a sign-on letter committing members to reject PayGo unless that change is made.

What would such a campaign produce?  For certain it would call out all the hypocrites in a very visible way.  All of those Republicans and Blue Dogs and everybody else who votes for war money, and does so extra-irresponsibly off-the-books, would have to put up or shut up about fiscal responsibility.  Every time they opened their mouths about fiscal responsibility they could be asked whether they thought wars over five years were emergencies.  Every time they said we should pay as we go they could be asked if we should pay as we kill as well.  Such a campaign would generate opposition to PayGo and allow Congress Members to oppose it as hypocritical and pro-war waste.  And such members need not commit to supporting PayGo if it is amended to include war supplementals.  They could still choose to oppose it.

But what if the amendment were made?  What if members had committed to supporting PayGo?  It would then be a PayGo that, in the minds of everyone, was about the military as well as human needs.  We would then have put on the table the question of Pentagon waste, while requiring fiscal discipline — which, yes, is a good thing.  This is the question progressives should consider: do we want money for human needs to be borrowed from our grandchildren or taken away from the war machine?  That shouldn’t be a difficult choice.”

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14274

8.  “McClatchy’s Nancy Youssef has an article today that is a consummate example of excellent journalism.  I don’t want to excerpt any of it or even summarize what it reports because I really want to encourage everyone to click the link and read it in its entirety (it’s not very long:  roughly 1,300 words).

As the McClatchy article reflects, what is and is not real “journalism” is not that complicated.  The government makes a claim.  The role of the “journalist” is not to repeat it or merely report that the government claims it, but instead, to investigate it with skepticism to determine whether it is true, and then report if it isn’t.  And journalists don’t have to wait for a member of the “opposition party” to call them and object before doing so.  That’s so basic that it’s staggering to believe that it is disputed, and yet not only is that proposition disputed, it is explicitly rejected by many — if not most — establishment journalists.  And in that fact lies much of the explanation for what has happened in the U.S. during this decade (at least).”

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Posted by: quiscus | July 8, 2009

July 8, 2009

1.  “No One Could Have Planted Bombs in the World Trade Center Without Being Detected, Could They?

As Raw Story notes:

A Government Accountability Office investigator smuggled live bomb components into a federal building in just 27 seconds, then assembled a bomb in a restroom and ventured throughout the building without being detected, a leaked tape revealed Wednesday.

In addition, congressional investigators were able to penetrate every single federal building they probed without any difficulty — 10 in all.

Indeed, as I wrote in 2005, there is substantial additional evidence that bombs could have been planted in the World Trade Center without anyone knowing:

These are just a few of the known, public examples of opportunities to plant bombs. There were undoubtedly many additional opportunities available to skilled operatives. See also this video.

As with all of the other arguments trying to debunk those who question the government’s version of 9/11, the argument that bombs couldn’t have been planted without people observing it is incorrect.

The people still defending the government’s version of 9/11 have simply not spent the time to look at the facts.”
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/07/how-could-they-have-planted-bombs-in.html

2.  “Obama in Russia

The same policies, albeit gift-wrapped

President Barack Obama’s trip to Russia – overshadowed in our air-headed media by the death and funeral of Michael Jackson – shows that the change we were all so eager to welcome is rather a bit less than anticipated. Indeed, if we take the text of the speech he gave at Moscow’s New Economic School as in any way definitive, one is forced to conclude it looks and sounds like the same old, same old – and possibly a bit worse.

After getting through the requisite flattery – praise of Russia’s artistic contributions, and a jokey reference to a Russian-born hockey player – our president described the Bad Old Days of the Cold War as “when hydrogen bombs were tested in the atmosphere, children drilled in fallout shelters, and we reached the brink of nuclear catastrophe.” Scary stuff, although he doesn’t say who was responsible. Suddenly, however, “within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Make no mistake: this change did not come from any one nation alone. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful.”

This is demonstrably false: the end of the Cold War had nothing to do with “the actions of many nations over many years.” Instead, it was a decision by the Soviet leadership not to resist the inevitable downfall of their system, which had been calcified and virtually moribund for many years. In short, U.S. foreign policy had zero to do with it: it was all about what was happening (and not happening) inside the Soviet bloc, including inside the USSR itself.”

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/07/07/obama-in-russia/

3.  “Israel Kept Palestinian Detainees in Ditches Without Food and Water”

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/07/07/israel-kept-palestinian-detainees-in-ditches-without-food-and-water/

4.  “Al Franken, Chickenhawk

Al Franken is a warmonger who turned against Bush only after it became politically correct to do so, and only turned against the war to score partisan points. He is, in principle, no less committed to U.S. imperialism and mass killing than are the neocons, even if his rhetoric isn’t nearly as offensively bloodthirsty as theirs is.

Am I being too harsh? I’d be happy to see Franken prove me wrong. Next chance he gets, he can refuse to finance Obama’s bloody exploits in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. He can stand by principle and resist the urge to vote with the hordes to continue to appropriate our tax dollars to slaughter abroad. If he turns out to be a consistent critic of the Obama administration on questions of war and peace, I will apologize and praise his principle to the skies. But if he does vote to continue sending Americans to die and kill, he is no better than the lying liars he has made a fortune criticizing. He is no better than the chickenhawks he lambastes, and certainly not nearly as good an opponent of jingoism and aggressive war as the much more thoughtful, if sometimes inconsistent, Pat Buchanan.”

http://www.independent.org/blog/?p=2656

5.  “While Talking About Keynesian Stimulus, Feds Are Really Just Giving Money to the Big Boys

Keynesians like Paul Krugman say that fiscal stimulus will get us out of this economic crash.

Austrian economists like Mish say that the Keynesians are wrong, and that they erroneously think that stimulus spending is a “free lunch”.

But – whether you agree with Keynesians or not – the fact is that what the government has actually been doing is spending our money on helping out the big boys, and spending next to nothing on even trying to stimulate the economy. The government is giving trillions to the big banks and financial giants, but almost zero to the working people.

Specifically, the stimulus bill was $787 billion, which is less than a tenth of the money thrown at the financial elites.

The lion’s share of the $787 billion was for pork, not for anything which could actually stimulate the economy.

Of the $787 billion, only about 10% has been spent so far.

The Government Accountability Office says that the $787 billion stimulus package is not being used for stimulus. Instead, the states are in such dire financial straights that the stimulus money is instead being used to “cushion” state budgets, prevent teacher layoffs, make more Medicaid payments and head off other fiscal problems. So even the money which is actually earmarked to help the states stimulate their economies is not being used for that purpose.

Stimulus? Where’s the stimulus?

So when Obama’s economic people say we need another stimulus program, they are pretending that the government has tried – in good faith – to stimulate the economy, but that they’ve underestimated how severe the economic problems are.

In fact, the government has simply undertaken a massive redistribution of wealth from the little guy to the big boys. That is not stimulus. That is robbery.

Don’t believe me?

Okay, but leading economist Dean Baker said the true purpose of the bank rescue plan is “a massive redistribution of wealth to the bank shareholders and their top executives”.

And Nobel economist Joe Stiglitz says the Geithner plan will rob US taxpayers.

And congressman Grayson puts it succinctly when he demands “Stop stealing our money!”

The fact that lobbyists from the financial industry have paid hundreds of millions to Congress and the Obama administration is clearly just a coincidence. See this, this, this, this and this.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/07/while-talking-about-keynesian-stimulus.html

6.  “Demand that the Government Reveal Injuries of Innocent but Indefinitely-Detained Prisoners

The Wall Street Journal writes:

The Obama administration said Tuesday it may continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely even if they have been acquitted of terrorism charges by a U.S. military commission.

Many writers have said the real reason that the government wishes to indefinitely detain certain prisoners is that they have suffered horrible, disfiguring torture, which the U.S. is trying to hide.

We must assume this is true unless the government lets independent doctors from the Red Cross examine all of the prisoners and publicly release their findings.”
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/07/demand-that-government-reveal-injuries.html

7.  “Bill Gives Attorney General Power To Designate Gun Owners, Tax Protesters As Terrorists

Amendments to the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, which has already been passed by the House, would empower the Attorney General Eric Holder to define gun owners, anti-abortion activists and tax protesters as domestic terrorists in light of recent federal reports that classify millions of Americans as “extremists”.

Former impeached Florida judge and now Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings has introduced amendments to H.R. 2647: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, which would give Holder dictator powers to demonize legitimate protest groups as being affiliated with violent race hate organizations.

The Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act would similarly criminalize free speech on the Internet if it can be deemed in any way to have been “harmful” to an individual. This represents the end of political blogging and free speech on the world wide web.

If both bills are not opposed and thrown out then the First Amendment will become nothing more than a relic of a bygone age.

All of these coordinated moves to demonize informed, armed and pissed off Americans as extremists, terrorists and hate criminals represents the federal government’s final push to brainwash the population into accepting the notion that some Americans are dangerous, that they are enemies of the state, and that they can be targeted in the same way that victims of the “war on terror” are now being targeted across the world – through misappropriation of guilt, torture and indefinite imprisonment.”

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14252

8.  “In today’s Wall St. Journal, which also reported that “the Obama administration said Tuesday it could continue to imprison non-U.S. citizens indefinitely even if they have been acquitted of terrorism charges,” Rep. Jerry Nadler was quoted as saying something quite similar about the Obama approach:

“What bothers me is that they seem to be saying, ‘Some people we have good enough evidence against, so we’ll give them a fair trial. Some people the evidence is not so good, so we’ll give them a less fair trial. We’ll give them just enough due process to ensure a conviction because we know they’re guilty. That’s not a fair trial, that’s a show trial,” Mr. Nadler said.

Exactly.  Show trials are exactly what the Obama administration is planning.  In its own twisted way, the Bush approach was actually more honest and transparent:  they made no secret of their belief that the President could imprison anyone he wanted without any process at all.  That’s clearly the Obama view as well, but he’s creating an elaborate, multi-layered, and purely discretionary “justice system” that accomplishes exactly the same thing while creating the false appearance that there is due process being accorded.   And for those who — to justify what Obama is doing — make the not unreasonable point that Bush left Obama with a difficult quandary at Guantanamo, how will that excuse apply when these new detention powers are applied not only to existing Guantanamo detainees but to future (i.e., not-yet-abducted) detainees as well?

Whatever else is true, even talking about imprisoning people based on accusations of which they have been exonerated is a truly grotesque perversion of everything that our justice system and Constitution are supposed to guarantee.  That’s one of those propositions that ought to be too self-evident to need stating.”

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Posted by: quiscus | July 7, 2009

July 7, 2009

1.  “How the FBI and 9/11 Commission Suppressed Key Evidence about Hani Hanjour, alleged hijack pilot of AAL 77

So, Who is Eddie Shalev?

The record compiled by the FBI for the purpose of to authenticating Hani Hanjour‘s flight skills fails to provide convincing substantiation. Notice, for this reason it also fails to support the testimony of the other flight instructor, Eddie Shalev, who certified Hanjour to rent a Cessna 172 from Congressional Air Charters just three days after Marcel Bernard, the chief instructor at Freeway, refused to rent Hanjour the very same plane. The 9/11 Commission Report makes no mention of the incident at Freeway airport, nor does it discuss Eddie Shalev, other than alluding to Hanjour’s certification flight in a brief endnote. All of which is curious, since it now appears that Shalev’s testimony was crucial. By telling the commission what it was predisposed to hear, Shalev gave the official investigation an excuse to ignore the preponderance of evidence, which pointed to the unthinkable.

But the shocker is the revelation that Eddie Shalev is an Israeli and served in the Israeli army. The file states that “Mr. Shalev served in the Israeli Defense Forces in a paratroop regiment. He was a jumpmaster on a Boeing C-130. Mr. Shalev moved to the Gaithersburg area in April 2001 and was sponsored for employment by Congressional Air Charters…[which] has subsequently gone out of business.”

The memorandum raises disturbing questions. Consider the staffer’s strange choice of words in describing Shalev’s employment. What did Quinn John Tamm mean when he wrote that Shalev “was sponsored for employment”? Did the commission bother to investigate Congressional Air Charters? It is curious that the charter service subsequently went out of business. But the most important question is: just how thoroughly, if at all, did the commission vet Eddie Shalev? Does his military record include service in the Israeli intelligence community?

Real people have known addresses. But Eddie Shalev’s whereabouts has been unknown for years. As reported by David Griffin, a 2007 search of the national telephone directory, plus Google searches by research librarian Elizabeth Woodworth, turned up no trace of him. A LexisNexis search by Matthew Everett also came up dry.[35] Not satisfied, I conducted my own search and did turn up two possible addresses for an “Eddy Shalev” in the Gaithersburg-Rockville, Maryland area. But the lead went nowhere. The phone number had been disconnected. The 9/11 memorandum indicates that Shalev’s US visa was about to expire in July 2004, suggesting that Shalev may have returned to Israel. Clearly, the man needs to be found, subpoenaed and made to testify under oath before a new investigation, even if this requires extradition. Quinn John Tamm and the two Freeway instructors, Sheri Baxter and Ben Conner, should also be subpoenaed. All are key witnesses and obvious starting points for a new investigation.”

http://www.the911mysteryplane.com/

2.  “Robert McNamara is dead.

So are two to three million people in Vietnam and Laos whom he outlived by three decades.

And so are tens of thousands of U.S. troops whom he outlived also.

McNamara wasn’t solely responsible for their deaths. Kennedy and Johnson bear the biggest burden—and Nixon after McNamara sought asylum at the World Bank.

But McNamara did more than his share, as Defense Secretary, to map out the U.S. war strategy in Vietnam and to stress body counts, as if that were any decent yardstick for winning—either morally or militarily. He also authorized the widespread use of napalm and carpet-bombing, which wreaked widespread horror.

One of the best and the brightest, he led one of the sorriest and most brutal and most foolish wars the United States has ever waged.

To his credit, he finally grasped some of the hideousness of it all.

But he never did anything significant, when he was in power, to try to extricate the United States from that war, even when he understood it might be unwinnable.”

http://www.progressive.org/wx070609.html

3.  “McNamara: A War Criminal, a Liar, and a Director of the Washington Post company

In its obituary article on Robert McNamara today, the Washington Post mentions that McNamara was a director of the Washington Post company.

Was that honor bestowed because of McNamara’s lies or because of his war crimes?

Or maybe he was just a really really great dinner guest at the homes of Post editors and owners.

And people wonder why the Washington Post grovels and helps cover up Leviathan’s worst abuses….”

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/07/06/mcnamara-a-war-criminal-a-liar-and-a-director-of-the-washington-post-company/

4.  “UK weapons inspector who was found dead was writing expose: paper”

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/06/uk-weapons-inspector-dead-expose/

5.  “Case of autistic Marine brings recruiting problems to the forefront

Recruiters sometimes take ethical shortcuts to make their quotas at a time when Americans have tired of the nation’s wars and finding recruits is difficult.

According to court documents, Fry’s recruiter knew he was autistic.

“He’s on psychotropic drugs. He’s been diagnosed as bipolar and is having trouble holding it together.”

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-marine-autism6-2009jul06,0,7706948.story

6.  “Ousted President Manuel Zelaya to smuggle himself across Honduran border”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/centralamericaandthecaribbean/honduras/5762396/Ousted-President-Manuel-Zelaya-to-smuggle-himself-across-Honduran-border-aide-says.html

7.  Why 9/11 Truth should NEVER give up:

“What made G.Washington a great leader was his persistence.

Setbacks, defeat, betrayal, and failure did not deter Washington. He kept hope alive against all odds. Even when it seemed like all was lost, he persisted.

As I have frequently written, we never know when our efforts will bear fruit. Even when it seems like our years of struggle our futile and that our enemies have overwhelming power and resources, something we have done may suddenly and unexpectedly win the battle.”

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/07/what-made-george-washington-great.html

8.  Good news:

“Dan Froomkin hired by The Huffington Post


In yet another sign of how online media outlets are strengthening as their older establishment predecessors are struggling to survive, The Huffington Post has hired Dan Froomkin to be its Washington Bureau Chief and regular columnist/blogger.  Froomkin will oversee a staff of four five reporters and an Assistant Editor, guide The Huffington Post’s Washington reporting, and write at least two posts per week to be featured on its main page and Politics page.  I learned last night of the hiring and spoke to both Arianna Huffington and Froomkin this morning.

Under still-unclear circumstances, which executives refuse to discuss even with their own Ombudsman, Froomkin was fired by The Washington Post a little more than two weeks ago after writing an online column for almost six years that was one of that newspaper’s most popular.  Almost immediately upon the reporting of Froomkin’s firing, screenwriter Nora Ephron, an Editor-at-Large for The Huffington Post, emailed Huffington with a one-line note:  ”I hope we’re hiring him.”  Within hours, Huffington called Froomkin, met with him in Washington last week, and a deal was finalized this week.  That was just one of numerous overtures Froomkin received from various media outlets interested in hiring him (Salon was one such outlet expressing preliminary interest, but both Froomkin and Salon believed that much of what I do here already overlaps with much of the work he does).

Clearly, journalism itself is not dying.  What is dying — and rightfully so — is the staid, establishment-serving, passion-free, access-desperate, mindless stenographic model to which establishment journalism rigidly adheres.  As The Post’s Ombudsman reported from personal experience, Froomkin’s firing left ”an army of angry followers” and “an outcry from a loyal audience.”  People are obviously hungry for the type of real journalism Froomkin practices.  The Huffington Post immediately capitalized on the Post’s short-sighted and myopic decision to fire one of their most (and one of their very few) vibrant, passionate and innovative journalists.  In this episode lies many insights about the real reasons establishment journalism is struggling severely.”

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Posted by: quiscus | July 6, 2009

July 6, 2009

1.  “DEMOLISHED vs. COLLAPSED – The Language of Deception

The language of deception is used against us every day and most of us don’t even realize it has been done to us or realize the devastating effect it has on us. My task here is to expose some of the subtle deceptions hidden within the terminology we in the 9/11 truth movement use every day. My goal is to shine a light on the subtle deceptions that pass under our radar every day and to counter those deceptions with the language of truth.

First we have to consider how we in the 9/11 truth movement describe what happened to the World Trade Center (WTC)? The question is, should we say that WTC 1, 2, and 7 “collapsed” or should we say they were “demolished” and does it really matter all that much? At first glance it may not seem to be a particularly important question as to which word we use. I will expose however that it is, in fact, very important which word we use. Furthermore I want to reveal how and why the debate has been framed from the beginning by our opponents with the endlessly repeated use of just one simple word, “collapsed”.

To illustrate the problem let’s take a brief look at the definition for each of the two words that are commonly used to describe what happened to the WTC on 9/11. Using the dictionary found at http://www.refdesk.com/ we can compare the definition for collapse to the definition of demolish. Take a close look at the two definitions and note the subtle but important differences between them.

Col-lapse
1. To fall down or inward suddenly; cave in.

De-mol-ish
1. To tear down completely; raze.

Consider for a moment the difference between something that has “fallen down” (collapsed) and something that has been “torn down” (demolished). It is obvious, once we look closely, that the two words really mean two completely different things. We should take note that the word “collapsed” was not chosen by the US Propaganda Ministry by accident. When applied to what happened to the WTC buildings, collapsed means the WTC buildings fell down, while demolished means they were torn down. One term implies the buildings “fell” or “caved in” as a result of weakening from fire and damage while the other term implies the towers were “torn down” or “razed” with pre-positioned explosives. Obviously the word you use to describe the demise of the WTC buildings will depend on your perspective of what happened right? Not necessarily if the debate has been framed in advance and we have been carefully conditioned through endless repetition in the corporate media. If we have been “framed” we will see both ourselves and our adversaries using the term “collapsed” on a regular basis.

NEW AMERICAN 9/11 DICTIONARY

Collapsed
1. Demolished
2. Exploded
3. Blown up
4. Brought down with explosives.

Conspiracy theorist
1. 9/11 Researcher
2. 9/11 Investigator
3. 9/11 Truther

Debunker
1. Denier
2. Deceiver

Mainstream media
1. Corporate media
2. Propaganda Ministry
3. Disinformation Ministry

Spin
1. Distort
2. Falsify
3. Lie

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20566

2.  And I would totally unnecessary:

“Attack on Iran would be ‘very destabilizing’ — US military chief”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090705/pl_afp/usiranmilitarynuclear

3.  “The Powers-That-Be Don’t Have Enough Money to Keep the Matrix Running

As I previously noted:

Stalin said that dictatorships only last so long as the dictators keep their people well-fed. Americans have been strongly motivated not to question the government because they have been led to believe that if they just follow the party line, they’ll get nice jobs, make a bundle of dough, buy into “the American dream”. A crash has the possibility to awaken Americans from their dangerously cozy nap. It has the potential to get Americans to open their eyes and start questioning the lies they have been told ….

The revelations that Goldman Sachs is manipulating the market and that the Federal Reserve banks are private – not government - institutions are coming out now because the U.S. is going broke, and doesn’t have enough money to keep distracting people with “bread and circuses”.

Indeed, Goldman is probably the key player on the plunge protection team and similar government schemes to manipulate the markets. So the fact that Goldman’s shenanigans are starting to leak out – despite the government’s best efforts to keep the whole enchilada secret – is dramatic.

The American Treasury has been looted (the big banks and financial institutions got the loot), the dollar is losing its status as the world’s reserve currency, and the mountain of debt overhanging our economy threatens to bury any hope of recovery.

Dictatorships only last so long as the dictators keep their people well-fed and distracted, but the current financial “dictators” don’t have enough spare cash to keep the matrix running.

So the truth is starting to leak out in a big way.”

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/07/powers-that-be-dont-have-enough-money.html

4.  ““If You Go Back To The CIA’s Origins … He Explained, ‘The Whole OSS Was Really Nothing But Wall Street Bankers …’”

You’ve probably heard that the CIA is looking to hire laid-off bankers.

This is nothing new.

The long-time former executive director of the CIA – Buzzy Krongard – is a former investment banker.

As Krongard told the Washington Post in March 2001:

If you go back to the CIA’s origins during World War II in the Office of Strategic Services, he explained, “the whole OSS was really nothing but Wall Street bankers and lawyers.”

The CIA sometimes funds certain groups or political parties. For example, former CIA director William Colby (a lawyer, not a banker) helped to arrange the secret subsidization of political parties in Rome in the 1950’s to prevent communist electoral victoriess.

And the CIA has certainly funded various projects (like this one).

And people have made allegations about the CIA funding of the Contras with cocaine sales , involvement in BCCI, and other unsavory deals.

Personally, I don’t know much about much about it. But I do know that the CIA has had a continuous connection with bankers from day one.”

http://washingtonsblog.com/2009/07/if-you-go-back-to-cias-origins-in.html

5.  “Bill banning forced identity-chip implants clears House”

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14246

6.  “What if the Uighurs were Christian rather than Muslim?

According to The New York Times this morning, violent clashes between Chinese government forces and Muslim Uighurs — that country’s long-oppressed minority — have left at least 140 people dead and close to 1,000 injured.  This incident in Western China highlights an important fact about America’s “War on Terror.”

Just imagine if the Uighurs were a Christian — rather than Muslim — minority, battling against the tyrannical Communist regime in Beijing, resisting various types of persecution, and demanding religious freedom.  They would be lionized by America’s Right, as similar Christian minorities, oppressed by tyrannical regimes, automatically are.  Episodes like these — where a declared Tyranny like China violently acts against citizens with whom we empathize — are ones about which, in general, the American political class loves to sermonize.

But the Uighurs are Muslim, not Christian, and hostility towards them thus easily outweighs the opportunity they present to undermine the Chinese Government.  Rather than support and venerate them, we instead spent this decade declaring them to be “enemy combatants” and locking them up in Guantanamo — despite the fact that they have never evinced any interest in doing anything other than resisting Chinese persecution, and have certainly never taken actions against the U.S. (as even the Bush administration ultimately admitted).  Yet even now, both Congress and the administration actively block release into the U.S. even of those Uighurs we wrongfully imprisoned for years, while the Right screams with outrageand fear — over the administration’s commendable efforts to find a home for them elsewhere.

For all the Serious analysis about the War on Terror, so much of it has been driven by nothing more complex or noble than sheer hostility towards Muslims.  Muslims generally — not just Al Qaeda — replaced Communists as our New Enemy and became the new enabling force for our endless state of War and never-ending expansions of executive power.  Rather obviously, the Uighurs were swept into the Enemy category solely by virtue of their status as Muslims.  What more compelling evidence of that could be imagined than the fact that we imprisoned — and continue to imprison — people at Guantanamo whose only political interest is in resisting oppression by the Chinese government?

So predictable:  ordinarily, on the Right, there would be nothing more Satanic than a tyrannical Communist regime suppressing the religious freedom of its citizens — except when the minority in question is Muslim, in which case they side with and adopt the propaganda of the Communist regime and disgustingly depict the regime as the victim.  The Muslims resisting persecution are — needless to say — “terrorists.”

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

7.  “A Few Facts About the Honduran Military Coup

  1. President Manuel Zelaya is no radical. He approved a big minimum wage increase, which was desperately needed in a country where so many workers are poor, but he otherwise has been a very cautious, ineffectual reformer. The intensity of the reaction against him by the Honduran elite — as seen in the coup — reflects the feuadal mentality of the traditional economic and political leadership, not Zelaya’s politics.”

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22989.htm

Older Posts »

Categories