1. Specter – pots and black kettles? Stones and glass houses?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/specter-now-i-can-say-it_b_192492.html
2. Hilarious. We may actually be cracking open some doors:
“Editor in chief of Open Chemical Physics Journal resigns after controversial article on 9/11
The editor in chief of the journal where recently the paper: “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe” was published, resigned, claiming she wasn’t informed of the publication. She proceeds to provide not a single solid scientific rebuttal, only administrative bickering and personal political bias against, well.. inconvenient science. One particularly notable comment attributed to Ms. Pileni is this one: “Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.”.
Strangely, her areas of research seem to contradict that. I’ll quote you an excerpt of her resume:
1990-1992: Chairperson on workshops related to the French Defense research.
1989-1992: Consultant at the Minister of Recherche concerning the National Defense 1989: Member of the “Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Européenne”.
1987-1988: Member of the ’“Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense Nationale” (IHEDN)1984-1986: Member of National exam in Chemistry EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERSHIP
2006: Accounts of Chemical Research, American Chemical Society.
Journal of experimental nanosciences, Publisher Taylor&Francis.
2002: Journal of Physical Chemistry, Board member, American Chemical Society.
CONSULTING EXPERIENCE
1990-1994: Société Nationale des Poudres et Explosifs, SNPE, France (Literally translated: National Society of Powders and Explosives)
LABORATORY MANAGEMENT
2001: Laboratoire des matériaux mésoscopiques et nanomètriques, LM2N.
1992-2000: Structure et réactivité des systèmes interfaciaux, SRI. (Literally translated: Structure and reactivity of interfacial systems)
Interesting. Firm ties with the French/European military industrial complex. Experience with (powdered) explosives and nanotechnology. It’s reasonable to assume Ms. Pileni is familiar with nano-explosives. So Ms. Pileni’s contention that “the topic lies outside my field of expertise” is false. Why would a nanotechnology expert and former ‘powdered explosives consultant’ not want to comment on a paper discussing nano-thermitic explosives? A paper which caused her to resign? Puzzling.
…
And the sun orbits the Earth, Ms. Pileni? Read the work, and comment on the science behind it- not the hurt feelings.
…
Now we have the (former) editor-in-chief calling her journal a ‘bad journal’. Maybe she is worried for her own safety.
…
She says the paper has: “nothing to do with physical chemistry or chemical physics.” With chemists and physicists as authors, and the subject being the physical study of chemical content and reactions in a sample, what the hell is the article about?
…
“Professor Pileni’s research has been highly interdisciplinary in over all of her scientific career. Her accomplishments have impacted the broad areas of photochemistry, photobiology, solar energy conversion, nanomaterials, colloidal assembly and self-assembly. Most significantly, she has demonstrated an unprecedented control of chemical reactivity in colloidal systems and established novel physical principles, which govern the assembly of nanocrystals into supramolecular structures of great potential applicability. Professor Pileni’s accomplishments have been recognized by the increasing frequency of invitations to be a plenary lecturer at American, Japanese and other international scientific meetings, symposia and congresses.”
Oh my.
…
There is no doubt in my mind that she knows something that she is not saying.
When an individual responds in a drama-style, raving tirade to a calm appropriate mention of a subject, it is an indication that she is withholding some ‘bad’ secret or a hidden crime. Something grave got triggered mentally. I compare her reaction to the cheating husband who suddenly flares into a raging temper when the wife asks a simple question…the response is way out of line with the circumstance.“
3. Leahy:
“Truth commission to proceed despite Obama’s wishes
“When I first proposed establishing a nonpartisan commission of inquiry in February, I thought then, as I do now, that it was the best approach to conducting a thorough review of national security policies on detention, interrogation and rendition since Sept. 11,” Leahy said in a statement to Bresnahan. “Whether such a comprehensive review happens immediately or in the weeks and months ahead, the evidence that our country committed torture demands a review of the process by which these flawed policies were developed and implemented. President Obama was correct when he said that any review should be done outside of politics. A nonpartisan commission will accomplish just that.”
…
“There are some who resist any effort to investigate the misdeeds of the recent past,” he said. “Indeed, during the nomination hearing of Eric Holder, some of my fellow Senators on the other side of the aisle tried to extract a devil’s bargain from him in exchange for the votes — a commitment that he would not make… That is a pledge no prosecutor should give and Eric Holder did not give it. But because he did not it accounts for some of the votes against him.”
Some liberals have critiqued the proposal, asserting that Bush officials shouldn’t be granted immunity from prosecution even if they’re forthcoming in a congressional investigation. Conservatives have attacked the proposed commission as a political witchhunt.
…
I’m one of the minority who thinks a Truth Commission is a possible route for 9/11 crimes — but I smell a rat with Leahy’s proposal. Something like this could end up sweeping too much under the carpet. And if we have one “Truth Commission” that doesn’t include 9/11, there will NEVER be another, and that might be exactly what “they” want. If Leahy won’t include crimes of 9/11 in his proposed “commission,” we should work to stop it. I think the conservatives opposing this are right, it would be a political witch hunt, though I doubt they would agree it should be expanded to include the Dems, too.
Whether it’s Leahy’s “commission” or something similar, the entire Congress (with a few exceptions) is petrified of any real truth since they are ALL culpable for something.
This is a wolf in sheep’s clothing if you ask me.
…
The 9-11 community is rife with unrealistic expectations, just as were those skeptics at the time of the Warren Commission. We need to come to terms with some harsh realities. Foremost, all evidence suggests that it wasn’t simply a right-wing, neo-con cabal in the Executive Branch that pulled off the attacks of 9-11. It was at the very least sanctioned by the most powerful forces in the country, whatever those forces are. And those forces would not have allowed it if there was a chance of the truth being uncovered, and they will not permit an inquiry to now go forward that would expose the 9-11 truth. Think about it; the truth of 9-11 would reveal a vast, sinister cabal of the most powerful forces on the planet. There is no way those with such power would permit all their decades of devious planning to come unraveled. No doubt they have contingencies to prevent such disclosure.
But a Truth Commission without the full truth would not be meaningless, and would possibly present us with many, many opportunities to exploit. Once there is a Truth Commission, we can legitimately ask why they aren’t interested in the truth of Sibel Edmonds, or of Indira Singh, or any of the dozens of 9-11 whistleblowers. By expanding 9-11 truth to encompass other hidden truths, we can assemble a ‘big tent’ and draw attention to any failings of a so-called Truth Commission, and likely get sympathetic coverage in the alternative press, and maybe even on MSNBC.
…
A key point to keep in mind is that not everyone keeping the secrets of 9-11 necessarily wants that secret to remain hidden. Let us not forget that in testimony during the Watergate hearings, Haldeman mentioned the Republican fears that “all the Cuban stuff might come out.” What he was actually referring to was the Kennedy assassination, but none in the hearings followed up his comment. So, in any Truth Commission, there will be unrehearsed moments where some unexpected truth may just spill out.
Also, we should not waste too much time hoping and waiting for the Obama administration to prosecute any of the higher ups in the Bush White House. It can never happen. Yes, Republicans stole the 2000 election and 2004. And yes, they told Iran to hold the US hostages longer so that Carter would lose the election to Reagan. And yes, candidate Nixon told South Vietnam not to sign a peace treaty with the North because if they held out, he would be elected and get them a better deal (another six years of war). And yes, Prescott Bush was a principal organizer of a coup against FDR. And yes, it seems someone in the Bush administration tried to poison two Democrats with anthrax in order to get quick passage of the Patriot Act. But in none of these instances did the Dems blow the cover on the Repubs. Each administration keeps the secrets of those previous. The Democrats and Republicans do have different agendas, but both their geo-political agendas are directed by the Powers That Be. So, because folks like Cheney and Rove are carrying out PTB agendas while pursuing their own political plots, they have effectively cloaked themselves in PTB protection. They cannot take the fall because they know too much and would talk. Unless they cut out their ability to speak as they did to Bill Casey before he was to testify about Iran-Contra. So let us not waste our hopes on impossible federal prosecutions. Besides, immunity will allow much more truth to spill forth, and I think Leahy (go f—– yourself) knows it.“
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19959
4. Harman:
“The exposure of the Jane Harman-AIPAC axis of treason has exploded the illusion of the Israel Lobby’s invulnerability.
…
They think they can – and will – get away with it, but we’ll see. The Harman affair is pushback from those whose job it is to protect this nation’s security from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. The problem with AIPAC, from their perspective – and mine – is that it is both foreign and domestic, as the leaked conversation with Harman underscores: here was an Israeli agent promising to mobilize AIPAC just as if it were a division of the IDF – which, in fact, it is.
If Rosen and Weissman are ever brought to trial – and we have no word yet on the “review” that is supposedly taking place within the Justice Department, which is deciding whether to succumb to pressure to drop the case – the massive extent of Israel’s penetration of our security defenses will become all too apparent. Regardless of its outcome, the trial will be just the beginning of the Lobby’s problems – which is why they’re fighting so furiously, and viciously, to prevent the court in the eastern district of Virginia from ever convening.
Which is why I’m glad to see that someone in the Justice Department (where the Harman leak originated, I’m told) is fighting just as furiously and viciously to make sure that doesn’t happen – at least, not without inflicting some damage on those who are protecting and enabling a spy nest in the heart of our nation’s capital.“
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/04/28/calamity-jane-harman-shoots-herself-in-the-foot/
5. Even better than Leahy:
“Conyers, Nadler request special prosecutor on torture
Congressmen John Conyers and Jerrold Nadler have written a letter to the Attorney General requesting the appointment of a special prosecutor on torture.
“While I applaud the Obama administration for releasing these torture memos in the spirit of openness and transparency, the memos’ alarming content requires further action,” opined Nadler, who chairs the House Judiceary Committee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. “These memos, without a shadow of a doubt, authorized torture and gave explicit instruction on how to carry it out, all the while carefully attempting to maintain a legal fig leaf.
“These memos make it abundantly clear that the Bush administration engaged in torture. Because torture is illegal under American law – as the U.S. is a signatory to the Convention Against Torture – we are legally required to investigate and, when appropriate, to prosecute those responsible for these crimes.”
“Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee said Tuesday it would be a conflict of interest for the Justice Department to even investigate former department lawyers,”
…
“This letter makes official our views on the necessary procedure in investigating those U.S. officials who allowed or actively instructed others to commit torture,” continued Nadler in a media advisory. “Because the United States is bound by its own laws and by international treaty, we are obligated to investigate and, where necessary, to prosecute those who have violated the laws against committing torture – whether by ordering it or committing it directly. We have no choice if we are to remain a just and principled nation of laws.
“Special Counsel is the most appropriate way to handle this matter. It would remove from the process any question that the investigation was subject to political pressure, and it would preempt any perceptions of conflict of interest within the Justice Department, which produced the torture memos. President Obama has honorably shown his commitment to the rule of law and placed this process into the hands of his able Attorney General, where it belongs. I look forward to working with Attorney General Holder on this, and with Chairman Conyers as the Judiciary Committee continues its oversight investigations.”
http://rawstory.com/08/blog/2009/04/28/conyers-nadler-request-special-prosecutor-on-torture/
6. “The US should cut military spending in half
To really keep us safe, we should slash defense spending. Americans should prepare for fewer wars, not different ones. Far from providing our defense, our military posture endangers us. It drags us into others’ conflicts, provokes animosity, and wastes resources. We need a defense budget worthy of the name. We need military restraint. And that would allow us to cut defense spending roughly in half.
…
There are no enemies to justify such spending. Invasion and civil war are unthinkable here. North Korea, Syria, and Iran trouble their citizens and neighbors, but with small economies, shoddy militaries, and a desire to survive, they pose little threat to us. Their combined military spending is one-sixtieth of ours.
Russia and China are incapable of territorial expansion that should pose any worry, unless we put our troops on their borders. China’s defense spending is less than one-fifth of ours. We spend more researching and developing new weapons than Russia spends on its military. And with an economy larger than ours, the European Union can protect itself. Our biggest security problem, terrorism, is chiefly an intelligence problem arising from a Muslim civil war. Our military has little to do with it.
We should embrace this geopolitical fortune, not look for trouble. If we decided to avoid Iraq-style occupations and fight only to defend ourselves or important allies, we could cut our ground forces in half.
If we admitted that we are not going to fight a war with China anytime soon, we could retire chunks of the Air Force and Navy that are justified by that mission. Even with a far smaller defense budget, ours will remain the world’s most powerful military by a large margin. The recently enacted GI Bill, which gives veterans a subsidized or free college education, offers a vehicle for transitioning military personnel into the civilian economy.
Of course, powerful interests benefit from heavy defense spending, and cutting the military budget would be a tough sell. Both political parties believe that American primacy is the route to safety. But they’re wrong.
A more restrained approach to defense is what would make us safer.“
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0427/p09s01-coop.html
7. “Hastert goes (back) to work for Turkey
Philip Giraldi has a new “Deep Background” just out for the American Conservative magazine about former House Speaker Dennis Hastert’s new job lobbying for Turkey – from which he has been credibly accused in the past of accepting cash bribes while still in the congress.”
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2009/04/29/hastert-goes-back-to-work-for-turkey/
8. Spain – Cheney and C.Rice put on trial?
“THIS JUST IN: Spanish Judge Opens Torture Probe
This alert was just recently filed by the AP:
MADRID (AP) — Spain’s top investigative magistrate has opened an investigation into the Bush administration over alleged torture of terror suspects at the Guantanamo prison.
Baltasar Garzón’s move on Wednesday is separate from a complaint by human rights lawyers that seeks charges against six specific Bush administration officials.
Judge Garzon’s action, which is separate from the inquiry requested by human rights lawyers against six Bush Administration officials including John Yoo, David Addington, Alberto Gonzales, and Douglas Feith, and is said to be premised upon the complaints of four individuals who claim to have been tortured while detained at Guantanamo, one of which is a Spanish citizen, along with two Brits and a Moroccan previously residing in Spain.
…
According to his sources the targets of this investigation include Condoleeza Rice and Richard B. Cheney, What is likely to happen is for the investigation to proceed, if unappealed, a court date will be set, and the targets will be advised to appear.
…
under applicable Spanish law, the Obama administration has the power to bring the proceedings in Spain against former Bush administration officials to a standstill. “All it has to do is launch its own criminal investigation through the Justice Department,” said one lawyer working on the case, “that would immediately stop the case in Spain.”
