Posted by: quiscus | December 9, 2008

December 9, 2008

1.  The government admits WTC 7 fell at the speed of freefall – which means the building didn’t ‘melt’, as it would have if it came down from fire damage:

“The free-fall evidence, now confirmed by NIST, is devastating. The demeanor of the two NIST scientists is several floors of icing on the cake.

And, btw, I only got a C in high school physics, but even so, I have understood the basic principles of gravity since that time — something that these Ph.D.s at NIST seem to have no problem obfuscating (I’m being kind — they know they’re lying and covering up the crime, otherwise they wouldn’t be squirming and stumbling when answering those simple questions put forth by you and Steven Jones).”

2.  “Meyers explanation for NORAD’s absence on 911 is shameful. It’s an insult to the intelligence.

He would have you believe in an enormous coincidence – that on the one day North American airspace, air sovereignty was attacked, the one day the people actually needed them, NORAD strayed violently from its mission, and, for some undisclosed reason, gave the attackers precisely the break they needed to carry out their crimes and left North American airspace utterly undefended.


What do you suppose the actuarial odds are of that happening?

Meyers said something interesting before the Commission. I wish the Commission had followed up on it properly. He said NORAD was looking outward because someone had directed them to look outward.

Who directed NORAD to look outward?

Norad was bogged down by “the orders” which “still stand,” those being the June 1st “Air Piracy (Hijacking) Instructions” issued by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. At the top of the command chain, Donald Rumsfeld was needing to give “approval” to respond with figthter interceptors. This “approval” never came. Ever.

While Norman Mineta thought that maybe “the orders” could refer to a shoot down order, this is not the case. There was no shoot down order issued before the Pentagon was struck, and so “the orders” were something else. As they are described as still “stand” -ing, the standing orders of June 1st, 2001 are the most plausible scenario.

Rumsfeld/Cheney were attempting to stop fighter response at the headquarters level.

Bush’s ONLY function that day was to give the shoot down order. He refused to do so. He refused to act in any way. He was derelict in his duty, and his actions are arguably treason, in that they gave “aid” to the “enemy” whomever it was attacking the nation, at the time.

The facts look very damning, if one can get past the propaganda and flag waving, or irrational theories from thin air. Bush sat there. America was under attack. He was “Commander in Chief” of the armed forces. He sat there. He issued no orders. He analyzed no data.

Bush gave aid to hijackers by being grossly derelict in his duty to protect the nation at 9:05am on 9/11. For that he should face a trial.

3.  “On all of this, the Bush administration has gone out of its way to lend a hand to Obama’s transition team and, in the process, help institutionalize the imperial transition itself. Like the new money arrangements pioneered in the 2008 elections, it surely will remain part of the political landscape for the foreseeable future. From such developments in our world, it seems, there’s never any turning back.

There’s nothing strange about all this, of course, if you’re already inside this system. It seems, in fact, too obvious to mention. After all, what president wouldn’t move into the political/governmental house he’s inheriting as efficiently and fully as possible?

The unprecedented size of this imperial pre-presidency, however, signals something else: that what is to come – quite aside from the specific policies adopted by a future Obama administration – will be yet another imperial presidency.

Maybe if the imperial presidency and the national security state worked, none of this would matter. But how can they, given the superlatives that apply to them? They’re oversized, over-muscled, overweight, overly expensive, overly powerful, and overly intrusive. ”

4.  “We tend to look back on the Clinton years as a decade of relative peace, but, in fact, it was peppered by (relatively) small-scale military interventions, in Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti and elsewhere – including sporadic bombing in Afghanistan and Somalia – that were characterized by a reluctance to take casualties but a conviction that the U.S. needed to run the world. There is no evidence that Sen. Clinton or the Clinton retreads who populate the incoming administration have rethought that policy in anything resembling a fundamental way.

Much is made of President-elect Obama’s willingness to bring in people with strong and mildly differing convictions (and prestigious advanced degrees) who see themselves as principals rather than subordinates. It indicates, according to conventional wisdom, that Obama himself is secure in his own ability to handle such an assemblage of egos and garner good results from his “team of rivals.”

The best evidence that he may be able to do so is his appointment of retired Marine commandant Jim Jones as his national security adviser. The national security adviser is theoretically the president’s filter, tempering rivalries among the sprawling State, Defense and intelligence empires and seeing to it that the president gets a feeling for all sides of an argument and some hints as to what’s really the best policy. As a veteran bureaucratic infighter, Gen. Jones is familiar with all the relevant departments and equipped by his very bearing not to take much crap.

But the fact that early Iraq critics like Steve Clemons of the center-left New American Foundation and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress – not to mention Boston University army careerist-turned political science professor Andrew Bacevich – have not made any short lists suggests that Gen. Jones will be refereeing disputes within a rather narrow range of options. The argument won’t be over whether the U.S. should intervene heavily in the rest of the world, but where it should intervene this week.

5.  Some people still say that it doesn’t matter when spies give info to the other side:

“All paths stem from the United States, directly or indirectly. One began with Russian spies that deeply penetrated the Manhattan Project. Stalin was so enamored of the intelligence haul, Mr. Reed and Mr. Stillman note, that his first atom bomb was an exact replica of the weapon the United States had dropped on Nagasaki.

Moscow freely shared its atomic thefts with Mao Zedong, China’s leader. The book says that Klaus Fuchs, a Soviet spy in the Manhattan Project who was eventually caught and, in 1959, released from jail, did likewise. Upon gaining his freedom, the authors say, Fuchs gave the mastermind of Mao’s weapons program a detailed tutorial on the Nagasaki bomb. A half-decade later, China surprised the world with its first blast.

Why did Beijing spread its atomic knowledge so freely? The authors speculate that it either wanted to strengthen the enemies of China’s enemies (for instance, Pakistan as a counterweight to India) or, more chillingly, to encourage nuclear wars or terror in foreign lands from which Beijing would emerge as the “last man standing.”

6.  Good – at least one ‘left-wing’ PBS station actually wants to expose the Bush cabal.  Why doesn’t every station?

KBDI refuses to delay airing of Guantanamo torture documentary

Even as Barack Obama has vowed one of the first acts of his presidency will be to shut down Guantánamo, and even as the topic has been raging in Congress, many Americans will have to wait until the day after George W. Bush leaves office to watch a documentary detailing the horrific policies of his regime


Though PBS stations across the country have shied from airing “Torturing Democracy”, Colorado’s KBDI Channel 12 wants viewers to know it isn’t hesitating to share the provocative documentary with its viewers.

The difficulties in getting the documentary aired — on PBS stations of all places — has led to speculation about deeper motivations.

One of the most insightful observations comes from Scott Horton, the noted human rights attorney, who wrote about the controversy in an Oct. 24 commentary published in Tina Brown’s blog The Daily Beast.

This spring, PBS’s distinguished Frontline series aired a mildly critical account of the lead-up to the Iraq War entitled “Bush’s War.” As the airing of the program was announced, the Bush Administration proposed to slash public funding for PBS by roughly half for 2009, by 56 percent for 2010 and eliminating funding entirely for 2011.

Did PBS get the message? Perhaps.

Horton noted PBS’s subsequent reticence in airing “Tortured Democracy” — at least until Bush has left office — and suggests that “PBS appears to be suffering from acute corporate indigestion over [Jones’] work.”

7.  “Blagojevich (n.) To sell public office for a profit. synonym Venality.

President John Adams warned of blagojeviching in his inaugural address:

In the midst of these pleasing ideas we should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections. If an election is to be determined by a majority of a single vote, and that can be procured by a party through artifice or corruption, the Government may be the choice of a party for its own ends, not of the nation for the national good. If that solitary suffrage can be obtained by foreign nations by flattery or menaces, by fraud or violence, by terror, intrigue, or venality, the Government may not be the choice of the American people, but of foreign nations. It may be foreign nations who govern us, and not we, the people, who govern ourselves; and candid men will acknowledge that in such cases choice would have little advantage to boast of over lot or chance.

8.  “Oral argument in the case of Maher Arar — the Canadian citizen abducted (“rendered”) by the U.S. in October, 2002 and sent to Syria for a year to be tortured despite having no terrorist ties of any kind (I wrote about Arar’s case here)  — is taking place today in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and can be viewed live, here.  The Bush administration claimed, and federal courts have thus far accepted, that courts cannot hear Arar’s lawsuit because the “state secrets” privilege bars judicial examination of what was done to him (the Canadian government, by start and revealing contrast, has compensated Arar with several million dollars and formally apologized to him for its role in his abduction).

As Armando noted yesterday, the Arar travesty illustrates the human cost — not just the abstract injustice — spawned by those, such as John Brennan, who have advocated and defended “rendition.”

Digby speculates about the interplay between the withdrawn Brennan nomination and this new Hayden rumor, and also documents — significantly — that Hayden has emphatically maintained in the past that the CIA must not be bound to the interrogation techniques in the Army Field Manual and that it cannot effectively do its job if it is.  That would be a very odd posture for a CIA Director in an administration headed by a President who repeatedly vowed to impose the Army Field Manual on the CIA as the most effective way to end the torture regime.

It’s worth noting that disagreements and objections directed at political leaders aren’t a bad thing.  An astounding 79% of the public approves of Obama in the transition.  Having “the Left” exert pressure to ensure attention is paid to its political values isn’t going to cause a collapse of the Republic or even the Obama presidency.  To the contrary, as The Atlantic‘s Marc Ambinder observes, the Left’s objections have actually been quite muted, but provide an important benefit:  “to prevent Obama from ruling as a royalist, a little cross-pressure is probably a good thing.”

Even in this New Era of Trans-Partisan Harmony, there’s nothing wrong with citizens objecting to what political leaders do and trying to pressure them to move in directions that they perceive are better.  That’s actually called “democracy.”  As upsetting as that disharmony apparently is to some, it’s actually far preferable than the alternative, where everyone lines up behind a leader and agrees to remain respectfully silent and trusting in his superior judgment.  Between excessive citizen activism and excessive trust or passivity, the former is far preferable to the latter.

9.  No more sanctions – ever:

Instead of categorically accepting the ‘carrot and stick’ scheme as an appropriate foreign policy tool and engaging in the ‘politically correct’ argument over which should come first, we should expose the futility of this barbaric practice as an appallingly ineffective instrument in modifying the conduct of the governments it targets and reveal the horrible human suffering it creates. Over five hundred thousand children under the age of five perished as a direct result of U.S. and UNSC imposed sanctions on the so-called “dual use” materials and equipments related to nutrition, health and education in the 12 years prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.”

10.  Gaza blockade:

The United Nations, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch have all condemned Israel’s blockade as “cruel”. Former US president Jimmy Carter has made no apology for vividly describing the situation in Gaza as “a heinous atrocity” amounting to nothing short of a war crime. The question that must be asked is: what government in the 21st century can deny another group of people their basic human rights, that is, the right to security, food, water, shelter and dignity? Additionally, how does this government commit such a grave crime against humanity and somehow manage to remain complete unscathed?

The agonizing slow death order placed on the Palestinian people is finding its first victims in more than 400 seriously ill patients being prevented from leaving Gaza to receive urgent medical attention in Israeli or Arab hospitals. We are witnessing the type of ghetto the world thought we would never see again. The comparison was presented earlier this year by none other than Israel’s deputy defense minister Matan Vilnai, when he threatened “a bigger holocaust (shoah)” against the Palestinians in Gaza. He would later “explain” his usage of the word as meaning “disaster”. In any case, the threat was ominous enough.

For all its complexities and horrifying results, the purpose of Israel’s blockade is to push the entire Palestinian population into survival mode. Individuals are preoccupied with the daily detail of survival and its exhaustions. The most recent Red Cross report on the situation called the repercussions of the siege “devastating”. Hospitals in Gaza are barely functioning, and the fuel being shipped in is barely enough to operate the Gaza power plant for one day. The notion to “drip-feed” aid to the Palestinians was first conjured up in 2006 by an advisor to the Israeli Prime Minister. Dov Weisglas said in February 2006, “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not make them die of hunger.”

11.  And he should know, since ISI helped the US government attack us on 9/11:
“Former ISI Chief: Mumbai And 9/11 Both “Inside Jobs”

An exclusive interview with General Hamid Gul, the former head of  Pakistan’s intelligence service (ISI)”

Amazing that Farheed asks about who perpetrated 9/11 and because Gul wants to stay alive he doesn’t name who the perpetrators are but he probably knows. Gul’s logic is so simple, too – because the US hasn’t charged anyone with crimes for 9/11 it must have been planned here. And, my gripe is that it should have been standard military procedure to court martial individuals for failure to protect the air space.

Why can’t either one of them say Osama is dead? Bhutto died because she uttered these words.

12.  “
9/11 Suspects Ask to Make ‘Confessions’

Dare we hope these guys take the stand and start testifying how they worked with Dick Cheney to plan 9/11?

Torture, and the threat of more torture, can make people do whatever you want them to do and say whatever you want them to say.

Will they confess to the controlled demolition of WTC 7?

Will they confess to getting US air defenses to stand down?

Confessions don’t mean squat when they come from someone who has been tortured and held in Gitmo.

They were probably promised a quick and relatively painless death, which would be preferred to a daily dose of torture and then eventual death.

There were no other choices for them in this bullshit kangaroo system set up by the Bush Crime Family.

They rushed to get the anthrax case closed and it didn’t work. No one bought it.

The NIST findings were so obviously bogus. No one bought that.

Maybe this will blow up in their faces too.

How convenient for the Bush/Cheney regime that they all want to admit to their role in a crime before any evidence has been presented and before the possibility of a public trial can take place.

Why wouldn’t they want to take the opportunity to excoriate the American government and the western world for its treatment of the Muslim world, if they took years to plan and organize the 9/11 attacks?

Remember the long speeches by Saddam Hussein at his trial?

Why would these alleged “terrorists” pass up this opportunity to increase their infamy before martyrdom?

Come on people, the only way this makes sense is if the “confessions” are being written for them and/or they have been tortured to the point where they just want it all to end.

Anyone held by these sociopaths needs to be independently evaluated for competency as I strongly suspect that most of these poor souls have been tortured into insanity.

Let’s have the FBI bring Ali Mohamed out of their protective custody and see what he has to say in a public courtroom, shall we?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: