1. OF COURSE they never made the effort – they were planning 9/11 themselves. And since the NSA reports directly to the White House, the whole allegation that “turf wars” between the different intelligence agencies caused 9/11 holds no water. In reality, the NSA and other intelligence services conveyed sufficient information to the White House to stop 9/11, but the White House ignored it and shut down further investigation:
“In a review of Bamford’s book, former senator and 9/11 Commission member Bob Kerrey wrote, “As the 9/11 Commission later established, U.S. intelligence officials knew that al-Qaeda had held a planning meeting in Malaysia, found out the names of two recruits who had been present — Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi — and suspected that one and maybe both of them had flown to Los Angeles. Bamford reveals that the NSA had been eavesdropping for months on their calls to Yemen, yet the agency ‘never made the effort‘ to trace where the calls originated. ‘At any time, had the FBI been notified, they could have found Hazmi in a matter of seconds.’”
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19232
2. Is it really surprising the US is also censoring the BBC?
“The BBC’s refusal to broadcast a humanitarian appeal for Gaza on behalf of a group of charities is motivated by a desire to appease US advertisers for its commercial TV channel and website, and by Mark Thompson’s own political proclivities.
…
According to our sources, there are two fundamental reasons for this. The first is the need to boost advertising revenue for the debt-ridden BBC World News television channel, which cannot be seen in the UK. This channel relies heavily on advertisers from the United States who we understand have told the BBC in no uncertain terms that they would advertise with it only if the corporation changed its editorial line on the Arab-Israeli conflict in favour of Israel.“
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19219
3. Unexpected consequences:
“Beirut’s Daily Star wrote of the negative effects U.S. interrogation practices have had on the observance of human rights by Arab governments. “With public knowledge of the American use of waterboarding in Guantanamo and elsewhere, why would Arab leaders promote human rights and political reforms?”
http://www.antiwar.com/ips/fisher.php?articleid=14146
4. “[M]y analysis might give comfort to the Right insofar as it offers a critique of an Obama policy. She wrote “Talk about your wingnut New Years gift, presented on the wings of hyperbole.” And ended, “Sean Hannity says thanks. Or who knows, maybe it’s a gift.” She said that such figures on the right have been talking about Obama being criticized by the antiwar Left and suggests that my column gave support to their talking point.
The notion that we should not say something critical of the policy of a Democratic president because it might give aid and comfort to the rightwing enemy is completely unacceptable. It is a form of regimentation, and equivalent to making dissent a sort of treason. We had enough of that the last 8 years (it used to be from different quarters that I was accused of traitorously succoring the enemy).
…
I don’t care what people like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh say or think, and I certainly am not going to self-censor so as to avoid giving them ammunition. Hannity was put there by crackpot rightwing billionaire Rupert Murdoch for a purpose, and he will serve that purpose regardless of what we analysts say.
In a democratic republic, open dissent is valued.”
http://www.juancole.com/
5. The ludicrousness and absurdity surrounding Obama:
“Obama and the Drug of Hope
On January 20, 2009, during a frigid and fiercely cold day, hundreds of thousands of allegedly sane American patriots had traversed land, air, and sea to attend a majestic spectacle: the inauguration of President Barack Obama, 44th behaloed president of the United States of America.
CNN, the mainstream news network for lemmings that spearheaded the event, bore witness to a jubilant and expectant audience of men, women, and children, sweeping across Washington like a sea, nay, a tsunami that prophets would be reluctant to part. Within the cold thunderous mishmash, old war veterans and baby boomers, the young and hip hopefuls, and trendites, socialites, and new-agey feel-goods attended this spiritually vivifying event. Flag-wavers, nationalists, newly-born patriots and born-again patriots reveled in song, dance, and poetry, patting one another, eyes shut and smiling wryly in disbelief, congratulating each other as comrades with the look of a mission finally accomplished. Roland Martin reminded us that, in the name of change, pop-culture iconoclasts Oprah, Puff Daddy, and Smokey Robinson were present. Hilarity ensues – as if Americans just had to know. As if the Washingtons, Paines, Lincolns, and squirrels gave a flying acorn whether they attended or not. The monolithic gears of the corporate media machine were well-oiled, running, and ready to embellish a princely procession estimated to cost a baffling $150 million.
Talking female heads glossed over excitedly the philosophy behind the new charismatic leader, pontificating the resemblance to the struggles of Nelson Mandela and Martin Luther King, Jr. As Obama began to utter his prescribed words, televised montages were intricately slabbed across American screens: pictures of starry-eyed commoners from Memphis, New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Pasadena, a perfect portrayal of people so enraptured by Obama’s rhetoric that they were cerebrally neutralized and rendered speechless. In one scene, a woman with clasped, prayerful hands and chin atremble is choked in tears. Opposite that, men nod their heads agreeably to the tune of the same war agenda. The rest continued to listen and watch with mouths agape. Hilary Rosen admitted to crying after witnessing the chain reaction of scenes of other teary-eyed people. The audience, unable to contain their joy, horned in their hollers of approval when the speech got really good. Proceeding to the paperwork, Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper commented on the panache of Obama’s penmarkship and the sexiness of his signature’s flourish, in case viewers were slow to appreciate the way a man signs his papers. Everything segues into the fluttering backdrop of a silent American flag.
It’s impossible to class Obama amongst the ranks of men who did uphold virtue in the stately quarters of Washington, where the storms of corruption always struck. Before they fancied thoughts of presidency, where was the hero Obama as Dennis Kucinich spoke against and voted against Iraq war funding and the rising tide of unconstitutional laws such as the Patriot Act, which Obama had both supported? Where was the absent Obama as Ron Paul lambasted the bailouts and the illegal Federal Reserve, both again which Obama either stood quiet or supported? Ex post facto remorse doesn’t count. In the depth of winter, when the city and country were finally met with that one common danger: Where was the man during the decisive battle, not after!
Obama’s cheerleaders and corps of provocateurs can only admit that they have foolishly divined a man who has masterfully altered his image and aura to where people have mistaken him as someone spiritual, magical – seductive. Stout and reactionary, many have become forever loyal and refuse any Obama criticism. In turn they brand their opposites as querulous, fault-finding haters who trumpet paranoia over hope and change. However, the real freedom-fighters had always embraced the blood-stained ideals of common sense, the same tired sons and daughters of liberty who would fight in chains rather than swallow sweet acid and die by the sword of a politician’s scripture. They are indeed the same brothers and sisters who, on another frigid and fiercely cold day, stood together with Obama’s supporters against Bush, Cheney, and the Zionists, long before Obama was deified. Now our armies have been split: by altering the realities of the ignorant. Divide and conquer.“
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12052
6. “There is no longer room for debate that the prime function of our national media is to urge that wrongdoing on the part of our highest government officials be concealed rather than exposed (“it is often best to keep the lights off”), and, when that doesn’t work, to demand that high-level government lawbreakers be protected (“Cap, my Safeway buddy, walks and that’s all right with me”). What’s most amazing about that is that it’s the exact opposite function of the one they long pretended (and still claim) to perform: to expose government secrets and hold government officials accountable for wrongdoing.
Instead — with some important, isolated exceptions — they’re now more akin to defense lawyers and PR representatives for the government officials they serve. Hence: keep the lights off; these are good people who don’t deserve to be punished; leave them alone. Indeed, Russert’s approach — “I only disclose what they give me permission to disclose” — is exactly, literally, the rules which govern how a lawyer deals with a client, or how a P.R. hack deals with companies whose image he is hired to glorify.
Today’s Cohen column features virtually every corrupt and intellectually manipulative pundit trick: the assertions about what Americans wanted without reference to any polls (“Americans” were open to torture and the proof is that Jon Alter and Alan Dershowitz were); the claim that our Leaders broke the law with good motives (to protect us); the bizarre argument that we want our government officials to err on the side of breaking some laws (and some bones) rather than being all effete and soft (i.e., abiding by the laws the American people enact through their Congress).
As always, is there a single syllable of these justifications that doesn’t also apply to, say, the Serbian leaders and other Serbian military officials who were prosecuted as war criminals (to wit: Serbian nationalists wanted aggressive action from their leaders, they were doing it to protect Serbs, they were following orders, they were in the middle of a brutal civil war and had to err on the side of self-defense, etc. etc)?“
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/
