Saturday, March 31, 2007

Full written confession published in advance of the crimes

Another current and rather obvious mistake based entirely on faulty models of understanding is that the dispute over the British sailors captured in Iranian waters is part of an Anglo-American plan to provoke an attack on Iran.  Nonsense!  If the analysts can get their minds off their stupidities and their heads out of their asses about the inevitability of an attack, and, for once, look at the facts (I’m getting tired of being the only one who does so), it is glaringly apparent that the London response is completely ad-libbed.  B-liar is getting pounded by the Iranian propaganda, and the British lies aren’t even close to believable.  Don’t you think it obvious that a real calculated provocation would have with it a pre-planned media war against the Iranians?  The fact that the British are obviously making this up as they go along – and not too well, I might add – proves that London, at least, was not part of a conspiracy.  There are two options left:  1) it was a mistake (the captain’s negligence); or 2) some cowboy local commander, working on his own agenda, decided to cross the line (both literally and figuratively).  B-liar now manages the complete trifecta, looking stupid, weak, and lying, all at the same time.  This was no plan.

As I’ve said all along, the ‘Clean Break’ document (Realm=Empire) is the blueprint for the Zionist Plan for the Middle East (note my comments on the real role of oil), and the neocons, weakened but certainly still dangerous, continue to follow it to the letter.  The ‘Iran talk’ from the Israeli right (aped by their employees in the United States), now fading, was just a distraction to divert attention from the Lebanon debacle (Iran is hardly mentioned in the ‘Clean Break’ document).  Despite recent American diplomatic contact, Syria, as always, is back on the agenda:

“The Bush administration has launched a campaign to isolate and embarrass Syrian President Bashar Assad, using parliamentary elections in late April as a lever, according to State Department officials and Syrian exiles.

The campaign, which some officials fear is aimed at destabilizing Syria, has been in the works for months.

It involves escalating attacks on Syria's human rights record, which is generally regarded as abysmal, as well as White House-approved support for Syrian bloggers and election monitors inside and outside the country to highlight the nation's lack of freedom, the officials and others said.

The State Department in recent weeks has issued a series of rhetorical broadsides against Syria, using language harsher than that usually reserved for U.S. adversaries. On Friday, the administration criticized a planned visit there by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif..

‘It's the new Cuba - no language is too tough,’ said one of the officials, who like others insisted on anonymity to discuss internal government planning.”

and (my emphasis in red blood dripping from his fangs):

The officials say the campaign bears the imprint of Elliott Abrams, a conservative White House aide in charge of pushing Bush's global democracy agenda.

The first parts of the Plan are to break up Iraq, break up Lebanon, and attack Syria.  If you get confused by Iran talk, you’ll miss what they are really up to.  The Plan hasn’t been going all that well.  Iraq isn’t breaking up, Israel was defeated in Lebanon, the Americans didn’t take the bait last summer and attack Syria (representing the awakening of the American Establishment to the fact their government was being run by traitors like Abrams), the Saudis have belatedly woken up to the fact that Israel is not their friend and the Americans are out of control, and the current Zionist attack on Syria has had the unwanted effect of reconciling Syria with the Saudis:

“Indeed, U.S. efforts to isolate Syria received a setback at this week's Arab summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi leadership, which has ostracized Assad since the Hariri assassination, appeared to welcome him back into the fold.”

Despite all these setbacks, the Washington neocons know only one thing, and continue to follow the Plan religiously. 

I find it amazing that Americans still continue to resist the idea that their government is under the control of Zionist traitors, particularly given that the ‘Clean Break’ document, being obsessively followed by the people who wrote it like Perle, Wurmser, and Feith (note in particular the actions of Feith in creating a complex system of lie creation and dissemination which led directly to the attack on Iraq he advocated, but that Israel could not possibly have done, in the ‘Clean Break’ document!), constitutes one of those extreme rarities in conspiracy theory, a full written confession of the complete details of the conspiracy, a document which is still being followed in Washington by the actual conspirators who wrote it!

Thursday, March 29, 2007

I fart in your general direction

Suddenly, out of the blue, everybody knows the truth. 

Iran farts in the general direction of Tony Blair:

“You don't frighten us, English pig-dog! Go and boil your bottoms, son of a silly person. I blow my nose on you, so-called Arthur-king, you and your silly English kiniggets. 
I don't want to talk to you, no more, you empty-headed animal, food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. You mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries.”

The Iranians know what I’ve been saying for months and months and months, that the talk of a war against Iran is an American bluff.  The Iranians intend to drive a wedge between Tony and the neocons, and are succeeding brilliantly.  By the way, those American troops supposedly massed on the border of Iran . . . the charge of the light-headed brigade?  The Americans don’t seem to mind losing 3,000 soldiers one-by-one, but I think even they’d notice 3,000 all at once.

Meanwhile, the Arabs now are starting to feel comfortable that their old friends in the American Establishment – you know, the guys that Noam says rule the world – are starting to pay attention again and are actually ruling the world.  We’re seeing the neocon-realist war in Washington played out with a new courage to speak the truth in the Middle East.  Elliot Abrams and David Wurmser, blood dripping from their fangs (I know people don’t like this way of putting it, but considering the mass slaughter and suffering for which these ghouls are personally responsible, a little blood on the fangs doesn’t do them justice; I won’t sacrifice truth on the altar of political correctness, and if the Zionist apologists don’t like it they should stop abetting murder), must be screaming in anguish.  Someone is telling the Arab leaders that they are in a position to dictate a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians which would mean the end of Zionist dreams of an Israeli empire.  That encouragement must be coming from very high in the American Empire (higher than Bush, who’s being embarrassed, and put in his place, by an unheard of snub).  Never fear, Zionists!  We will no doubt soon see a baffling ‘Palestinian’ attack on Israeli civilians just in time to stop the Zionists’ biggest nightmare, peace. 

Evidence of a new intelligence:

  1. The Americans joining a meeting which included Iranian diplomats to discuss Iraq, and going out of their way to shake hands with the Iranians;
  2. American diplomatic meetings with Syria;
  3. American reestablishment of ties to the Palestinians by meeting with the Fatah-Hamas government while pretending Hamas isn’t there!;
  4. An indication (i. e., threat) that the United States would negotiate a Palestinian state without Israeli involvement (i. e., interference), for which Condi got her own snub;
  5. UAE distancing from neocon Iran talk;
  6. Saudi King Abdullah calling the American occupation of Iraq ‘illegitimate’;
  7. Saudi efforts to cool tensions with Iran;
  8. U. S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates cooling tensions with Iran.

Don’t count the four horsemen of the apocalypse out just yet, but realism and intelligence are breaking out all over.  I thought this interview (see also here) with Prince Hassan Bin Tallal to be particularly inspiring.  It often seems that the Israelis can manipulate the Arabs at will, but the Prince reveals a complete understanding of the situation, including Israel’s efforts, following the ‘Clean Break’ paper, to break the Middle East up into tiny states through constant war so Israel can have its empire (if only Americans had the courage and intelligence to see how the Clean Breakers infiltrated the American government to achieve Israeli extremist goals!).  The only weapon against Zionism is an understanding of the truth!




Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Darfur 'humanitarians'

Tony Blair has been musing about going out in style and leaving yet another nice legacy for the British by murdering hundreds of thousands more Muslims in Sudan and thus appeasing his ever blood-thirsty Lord (Blair regards killing Muslims as a ‘defining moral issue’).  He even wants a new ‘no-fly’ zone, the Anglo-American invention which was so successfully used to lock up Saddam (those who still fool themselves into thinking Saddam wouldn’t have done anything to reenter the international community as Libya was later allowed to do, including turning over access to the oil which supposedly is the reason for the attack on Iraq, might want to read this).  I’ve already written about Darfur and the horrible hypocrisy of covering up the savage desire to murder Muslims under the cloak of humanitarianism.  There is not the slightest doubt that the Anglo-American intervention called for by the Zionists and Christian fruitcakes will result in the death of hundreds of thousands of people who would not otherwise have died (‘excess deaths’), and anyone who wants to dispute it has only to look at what is going on in Iraq.  Darfur is a Sudanese problem, and needs to be solved by the government of Sudan, with the help of other African governments.

Tony Hendra does an outstanding job of mocking the ‘humanitarians’.  Jewish lovers of the suffering people of Darfur might want to give some love to those people . . . what are they called again? . . . oh yeah, the Palestinians.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Who won the 'war on terror'?

Zbigniew Brzezinski writes about the ‘war on terror’.  I can’t emphasize enough how important it is for Americans to understand that the entire concept is Israeli, invented by Israeli strategists, and promulgated mainly by Benjamin Netanyahu (and his agents working within the highest levels of the American government), to provide a rationale for the peculiar against-interest continued American sponsorship of Israel after the fall of the Soviet Union (sponsorship needed for Israel to continue to build its empire after the loss of the concept of Israel as the bulwark in the Middle East against Soviet influence).  Brzezinski is aware of this, or course, but can’t say it, although you can get hints of what he is talking about by the Islamophobia examples that he gives.

There were terrorist attacks in the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s, but nobody thought about responding with a ‘war on terror’.  The concept is absurd.  You fight wars against countries.  We’re told that a bunch of guys, mostly Saudis, directed by a fellow closely associated with the Saudi power elites, attacked the United States.  What is the response?  The United States attacked Afghanistan, the whole country, because the guy the FBI claims directed the attack was living in a cave somewhere there!  Before the concept of the ‘war on terror’ was invented by the Israeli right this would have been regarded as sheer lunacy, but Americans swallowed the whole thing.  At the time, many people made the sane suggestion that, since the terrorist attacks were a criminal act, the appropriate response would be to send some FBI agents to Afghanistan to conduct an investigation, find the guilty parties, apprehend them, and bring them back for trial (had the United States asked nicely the Taliban would have consented to this).  Instead, the United States decided to fight a war – a war which it and its allies are losing rather badly – in order to clear the way to place some pipelines and prepare the intellectual climate in the United States for the war that was really the main neocon agenda item, the attack on Iraq.

The assassination of JFK contained big pointers leading you to think that either Cuba or the Soviet Union was behind the crime.  These pointers were all bogus, manufactured by whoever planned the murder.  The idea was to leave options open for a right-wing goal of attacking either the Soviet Union or Cuba.  The back-up plan, if something went terribly wrong (which it did, when Oswald wasn’t killed at the scene – note how the 9/11 planners avoided the problem by killing the perpetrators off in the act of committing the terrorism), was to leave the threat of a ruinous war out there to scare reasonable people in Washington to assist in covering up the crime.  The cover-up by the war-avoiding Washington establishment would also provide cover for the real forces behind the assassination (I’m following Peter Dale Scott on this, although I think that the 9/11 conspiracy is much different that the JFK assassination conspiracy, as conspirators learn from their mistakes, as well as by reading commentators on their mistakes like Peter Dale Scott!).

The big pointers from September 11 directed attention to places like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, obviously not practical places for an American attack.  Yet it seemed that the American government had to do something, and the main pointer to Afghanistan, Osama himself (a guy who denies having had anything to do with the attack), together with the illogic of the ‘war on terror’, led directly to the attack which had been pre-planned by the Bush Administration before September 11 (along with the attack on Iraq which was intended to be prepared by the introduction to the American people of the ‘war on terror’ concept in Afghanistan).  I really have to wonder if the cover-up, with enthusiastic if somewhat incompetent assistance of the Washington elite, was motivated by threats to reveal manufactured evidence connecting the attacks to the Saudi royals (Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid al-Midhar look more and more like double agents, explaining how they moved through and into the United States unimpeded, ended up living in a house in San Diego owned by an FBI informant, and even attended the Malaysia meeting) leading to the threat of a war which the American Establishment would do anything to prevent (Senator Graham seems to a pointer, and I’d be looking for people connected to him very suspiciously).

The Israeli extreme right won the ‘war on terror’.  Who lost?  Besides the obvious victims in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine, the losers are the people who are now subjected to the regime of fear caused by the ‘war on terror’, in the United States and its allies.


Monday, March 26, 2007

Enough to make you sick

The last paragraph of this sarcastic column by William M. Arkin (found via Wot Is It Good 4) is spot on:

“Maybe Valerie Plame in fact was a skilled case officer running a key agent of some foreign intelligence service providing inside information about weapons of mass destruction. So skilled, so crucial to our national security that her husband can write a political op-ed in The New York Times revealing his own clandestine relationship with the agency, a relationship that was sure to be linked back to his wife. I say one less incompetent and nincompoop on the government payroll.”

Arkin is also completely right in advocating the repeal the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act (and generally reflecting this old comment from Cryptome), and in his snide comments about the usefulness of the very pale CIA – none paler than Plame – in a multi-colored world.  Those ‘covert’ CIA agents must stand out like sore thumbs. 

The saddest thing about this whole incident is how quickly the American ‘left’, i. e. partisan supporters of the Democrats, wanted to believe anything told them by the CIA as it fit with their attack on the Bush Administration.  Plame ‘covert’?  Well, it must be true as a high CIA official, wiping the torture blood off his hands as he gave his testimony, reconfirmed the consistent CIA story.  The CIA is a professional lying (and torturing, and drug smuggling) organization.  You might as well ask Pinocchio.  The ‘left’ didn’t stop at obscene credulity – no, it went on to treat Plame and the CIA as if they were the final bastion for Americans against the Islamist hoards.  While the Plame incident proved that the Bush Administration are hypocrites when it comes to really caring about Benjamin Netanyahu’s ‘war on terror’, the reaction to it makes the American ‘left’ look even worse.  It’s enough to make you sick.  You know you’re fucked when the ‘left’ is more odious than the ‘right’. 

What is really going on, and what is to be done

The media coverage of the Democrat Iraq ‘withdrawal’ legislation has been as mendacious as you would expect from another arm of the Lobby.  Here’s some truth from an article (or here) by Barry Grey (my emphasis throughout in red):

“After weeks of public posturing and behind-the-scenes maneuvering, Democrats in the House of Representatives secured passage Friday of an emergency spending bill that grants the Bush administration’s request for over $100 billion in additional funds for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In what amounts to a colossal political fraud, they presented their ‘Troop Readiness, Veterans Health and Iraq Accountability Act’ as a measure to force an end to the war in Iraq by September 1, 2008.

It does nothing of the kind. Even if a similar Democratic measure were to be passed in the Senate – and it will not – and the final bill were to survive a presidential veto – a political impossibility – the resulting law would do nothing to halt the current military escalation in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and would allow upwards of 75,000 US troops to remain in Iraq indefinitely.

The bill is a labored attempt by the Democratic leadership to pose as opponents of the Iraq war, while in practice ensuring its continuation. The vote to authorize war funding flies in the face of the will of the electorate, which expressed its desire to end the war and its opposition to the policies of the Bush administration in last November’s congressional elections, overturning Republican control in both houses of Congress.”


“The conditions attached to US troop deployments by the bill are themselves so conditional as to be meaningless. Under the measure, Bush would be obliged to certify to Congress on July 1, 2007 and again on October 1, 2007 that the Iraqi government has made progress in meeting certain benchmarks, such as containing sectarian violence, reining in militias, and reforming the constitution. Should Bush fail to go through the motions of making such a certification, withdrawal of US combat troops would begin. Even if the government certified progress, US combat troops would be withdrawn by September 1, 2008.

But this ‘final deadline’ could be extended if the administration obtained approval from Congress. In any event, less than half of the 140,000 US troops currently in Iraq are designated as combat forces, meaning that 75,000 or more troops would remain after the ‘deadline’ to conduct counterinsurgency operations, train Iraqi forces, police borders and protect US assets.”


“The bill also requires the Pentagon to observe standards for training, equipping and resting troops before their deployment and limits the duration of Army tours of duty to 365 days. With the military already stretched to the limit, these provisions could actually create obstacles to the further escalation of the war under Bush’s so-called troop ‘surge’ in Baghdad and Anbar Province. Consequently, the bill allows Bush to waive these requirements in the name of ‘national security,’ giving him a free hand to send as many additional troops as he desires.”

and (note the parts emphasized in green;  socialists know about the Lobby but can’t mention it as it conspiracy theory contradicts a pure class-based analysis):

“For their part, Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leadership continually tacked to the right, readjusting their war spending bill to placate Blue Dog Democrats and other war supporters within the Democratic caucus by further watering down its nominal restrictions on Bush’s war powers. They secured the support of the party’s right wing by dropping language that would have required Bush to obtain congressional support before launching an attack on Iran.”


“The critical role was played by the misnamed ‘Out of Iraq Caucus’ of House Democrats. This group of some 70 congressmen has postured as the most militant critics of the war. Their key leaders, such as Lynn Woolsey and Maxine Waters, both of California, have been paraded before antiwar demonstrators by protest organizers as living proof that the Democratic Party can be pressured to end the war.

Pelosi dealt with them through a combination of threats and inducements. The house speaker reportedly warned California Rep. Barbara Lee, another leader of the Out of Iraq Caucus, that she would be stripped of her post on the powerful House Appropriations Committee if she sought to block passage of the bill.”

and (unfortunate socialist crap; in fact, as we know, large portions of the American Establishment know all too well that the war was a mistake for their interests, and want out of Iraq as part of a larger Mid-East peace initiative involving a state for the Palestinians):

“The legislative charade mounted by the Democratic Party has nothing to do with ending the war in Iraq. There are, in fact, no principled differences between the Democrats and Bush when it comes to the imperialist aims of the war. Both parties, the Democrats no less than the Republicans, serve the corporate interests – the oil conglomerates, the Wall Street banks, and the American financial oligarchy as a whole – that seek through military violence to establish US control of the resources and markets of the world.”

and (concluding with more socialist crap):

“Ending the catastrophe inflicted by American imperialism on Iraq, and preventing new wars in Iran and elsewhere, requires a complete political break with the Democratic Party and the two-party system. It requires the independent political mobilization of working people, both in the US and internationally, in a class-conscious socialist movement.”

It would be nice if it were that simple.  In fact, disentangling the American policy makers from the Lobby is going to be very difficult, and will require a multi-pronged attack:

  1. Legitimate Christian groups – not the crooked satanists known as Christian Zionists – will have to set up counter-lobbying groups to make politicians know there is a political price to pay for supporting evil. 
  2. Legitimate Jewish groups – not the crazies working for the Lobby – will have to mobilize to deligitimize the Lobby as the sole spokesman for, and recipient of political donations from, the Jewish community. 
  3. The United States will need real campaign finance reform to stop the kind of single-issue funding scandal we are seeing with the Jewish Billionaires and their stranglehold over the Democrats. 
  4. Last but not least, Americans will have to come to a realization of what is really going on, and come to realize that the interests of the Lobby – supporting the extreme Israeli right – are the exact opposite of both common decency and the real interests of Americans.

Unfortunately, as none of these necessary steps to sanity is likely to happen, the United States is fucked.






Sunday, March 25, 2007

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Fooling the drones

A group of American soldiers were involved in the death of a disabled Iraqi police officer named Hashim Ibrahim Awad.  Three of the soldiers have pleaded not guilty and are awaiting court martial on murder charges; five of them have entered guilty pleas to lesser charges.  They were supposed to kill, i. e., murder, an alleged insurgent.  Not being able to find him, they snatched Awad, and set up an elaborate crime scene to make it look like he had died in a firefight after firing on the American soldiers.  The fun part is reported by Wired:

“The case is remarkable for the fact that the killers nearly got away with their alleged crime right under the eye of the military's sophisticated surveillance systems. According to testimony, at least three times the warriors took deliberate, and apparently effective, measures to trick the unmanned aerial vehicles – UAVs in military parlance – that watch the ground with heat-sensitive imaging by night, and high-resolution video by day.

The images are routinely translated into PowerPoint presentations, systems manufacturers say. The PowerPoint of this particular killing was nearly accepted as proof of a ‘good shoot’ until one of the troops, Navy hospitalman Melson Bacos, stunned investigators with a confession, according to the testimony of Special Agent James Connolly with the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, or NCIS.”


“The men allegedly flexicuffed Awad's hands and marched him about a half-mile to a bomb crater, where they bound his feet and positioned him with a stolen shovel and an AK-47. Then they returned to an attack position and shot him.

On the way, according to testimony, the forward party took at least three steps to disguise its actions from aerial surveillance, steps that initially persuaded investigators the killing was justified. One Marine went forward and dug around in the crater. At the same time, the three other troops crouched with Awad behind a low wall in what Brahms described as a squad in a typical military posture.

They held that pose as the surveillance UAV passed over, creating an infrared tableau of four troops watching a bomber dig a hole along the road.

After the UAV passed, and they dodged being seen by a U.S. helicopter, the four rose from behind the wall to march Awad to the crater, according to the medic's testimony. While they were moving Awad the final 125 yards to his death, according to Bacos, they heard the UAV return. Cpl. Trent Thomas quickly wrapped himself around Awad so that the two men would appear as a single person on the heat-reactive infrared sensors, according to testimony.

Then they put Awad in the hole where the Marine had posed with the shovel seconds before, backed off and signaled. Six of the eight troops opened fire – staging a firefight with a bomb-planting insurgent.

‘Congratulations, we just got away with murder, gents,’ the squad leader told them, according to Bacos' testimony.”

Since the deception was only discovered due to a confession, you have to wonder how many more ‘good shoots’ are actually murders in disguise. 

Of course, as we enter the Orwellian complete surveillance society, the punishment we all receive for swallowing whole Benjamin Netanyahu’s War on Terror (see here to see why the surveillance society doesn’t work to stop terrorism, as it drowns under the weight of its own information, but just serves to increase fear and make money for those who supply the security apparatus), the kind of deception used by the American soldiers is going to become necessary for all of us.


Friday, March 23, 2007

Further reflections on the proposed break up of Iraq

I’ve been thinking more about the reaction by Iraqis to the proposed destruction of their country.  With repeated attacks ascribed to Sunnis on Shi’ite targets, the only thing keeping the country from falling into a complete civil war is the realization by Iraqis that it is much more likely that these attacks are the work of agents provocateurs, attempting to break up the country on the principles of people like Oded Yinon (see, e.g., here and here and here).  The conclusion isn’t difficult if you consider the absence of motive for Sunnis to attack Shi’ites and the possibility of other motives, including organized crime, individual or tribal disputes allowed to run unimpeded in the absence – thanks to the occupiers – of rule of law, the fact that the Americans – still looking to be showered with rose petals – would prefer to cast the Iraqi resistance as an internal Iraqi religious battle, and – predominantly – the Zionist conspiracy to cause civil war in Iraq.  The Iraqis, unlike Americans, haven’t got the luxury of being able to lie to themselves about who was really behind the attack, who is really behind the occupation intended to lead to complete civil war, and who is really behind the otherwise baffling inability of the Democrats, elected on the basis they would get the U. S. out of Iraq, to do what they were elected to do (the most hilarious excuse by the Democrats is that they are working as part of a electoral ‘strategy’, as if it were a strategy to do the exact opposite of what your voters want you to do!).  When we see complaints about the preoccupation in the Western media on the Sunni-Shi’ite conflict (and without denying that some hotheads, on either side, might be using the current anarchy to settle old scores), we have to see such complaints in the context of a country that had a strong national identity millennia before there were Sunnis or Shi’ites, and in the context of a belief that this preoccupation by the West is intended to help break up the country.  In Iraq, anger at the Zionist plot is leading to national unity.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

War for no oil?

It remains very important for Zionists to find some reason for the unpopular attack on Iraq other than the only obvious one.  The ‘war for oil’ crowd is braying, with the draft Iraqi oil law being the latest supposed evidence of the oily background to war.  This is nonsense, of course, but popular nonsense as it suits both the Zionists and the Leninist academics, who see it as backing up their usual views of Empire.  I want to write about this nonsense, but today I want to write about Greg Palast’s latest version of the Israel-protection theory.  Palest, to his credit, doesn’t try to snow us by claiming that the war was about access to oil, or even imperial control of strategic resources.  He recognizes the obvious (something the oil companies knew prior to the war, but something no one else will admit):  there’s no oil to get or control, and the war is the reason the oil is unavailable, and will be unavailable for the foreseeable future.

Palast’s new alternative theory makes lemonade out of the lemons of no oil by claiming that the point of the war was to remove Iraqi oil from the world supply, thus leading to increased oil prices and massive oil company profits.  He turns the ‘war for oil’ thesis on its head, and makes it a ‘war for no oil’.  This isn’t as crazy as it sounds, and has the great advantage of actually paying attention to the fact that the completely predictable result of the American attack and occupation would be a civil war and insurgency which would remove almost all Iraqi oil from the world market.  There’s only one tiny detail wrong with the thesis.  The oil embargo.  Iraq was already under a largely successful oil embargo.  There were big leaks in it, as Saddam was able to smuggle significant amounts of oil out of the country.  However, the Americans could easily have stopped these leaks.  The only reason they didn’t was that Republicans were making money off the illegal oil trade, and American allies Turkey and Jordan requested that the oil be allowed to continue to be trucked over their respective borders.  If the whole point of the exercise was merely to remove Iraqi oil from the world markets, and thus force up the price, all the Americans had to do was enforce the embargo, and make it clear that Iraqi oil was going to stay off the world market.  Why would the Americans want to spend a trillion or two dollars to accomplish what they could have done for a tiny fraction of that (not to mention the relatively unimportant fact that no Americans would have died)? 

Monday, March 19, 2007

Lobbyology 101: the mechanics of power

Some people have trouble wondering how the Lobby, representing less than 50% of a group that compromises 2% of the American population, wields so much power.  From an old (2002!) article (or here) by Michael Lind on the Lobby (emphasis in red):

“Most ethnic lobbies – of which the German and Irish diasporas were the most influential in the past – have based their power on votes, not money. (Most immigrant groups have been relatively poor at first, and have lost their ethnic identity on becoming more prosperous.) The influence of these lobbies has usually been confined to cities and states in which particular ethnic groups have been concentrated – Irish-American Boston, German-American Milwaukee, Cuban-American Miami. The emergent Latino lobby is similar in its geographic limitation. The small U.S. Jewish population (about 2 percent of the total) is highly concentrated in New York, Los Angeles, Miami and a few other areas.

The Israel lobby, however, is not primarily a traditional ethnic voter machine; it is an ethnic donor machine. Unique among ethno-political machines in the U.S., the Israel lobby has emulated the techniques of national lobbies based on economic interests (both industry groups and unions) or social issues (the National Rifle Association, pro- and anti-abortion groups). The lobby uses nationwide campaign donations, often funneled through local ‘astroturf’ (phony grassroots) organizations with names like Tennesseans for Better Government and the Walters Construction Management Political Committee of Colorado, to influence members of Congress in areas where there are few Jewish voters.

Stephen Steinlight, in an essay for the Center for Immigration Studies, describes how the Israel lobby uses donations to influence elected officials: ‘Unless and until the triumph of campaign finance reform is complete . . . the great material wealth of the Jewish community will continue to give it significant advantages. We will continue to court and be courted by key figures in Congress. That power is exerted within the political system from the local to national levels through soft money, and especially the provision of out-of-state funds to candidates sympathetic to Israel.’ Steinlight adds: ‘For perhaps another generation . . . the Jewish community is thus in a position to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions that support our agendas.’ Steinlight is the recently retired director of national affairs at the American Jewish Committee (AJC).”

The textbook case of how Lobby power operates is the unseating of Cynthia McKinney, who has now lost two opportunities to run in elections she would have easily won, in both cases losing due to rigged Democratic primaries financed by Lobby money.  In 2002, she lost to Denise Majette.  In an extremely anti-McKinney column, Michael Barone wrote:

“Even larger sums of money poured into Majette's campaign in July and August, mostly from outside Georgia, presumably from supporters of Israel or people repelled by McKinney's radical statements or her support from those linked to terrorism. McKinney's father Billy McKinney, an Atlanta state representative, when asked just days before the primary to explain why she ran, claimed the endorsement of former U.S. congressman and ambassador to the United Nations Andrew Young (who had endorsed her in earlier campaigns but declined to do so in 2002), and said in front of an Atlanta TV station camera: ‘That ain't nothin'. Jews have bought everybody. Jews. J. E. W. S.’”

When she returned to Congress in 2004, the Democrats refused to recognize her seniority which would have made her ranking Democrat on the International Relations Committee (a position which went to . . . rabid Zionist Tom Lantos).  In 2006, in an exact repeat of the 2002 fiasco, she lost the primary to Hank Johnson.  One of her supporters, Steve Muhammad, was a little politically incorrect, as recounted by the ADL (forcing McKinney to make a cutting apology):

“‘You got what you damn wanted. You got your Uncle Tom, now go put your cameras on him,’ referring to Hank Johnson, the African American candidate who defeated Ms. McKinney. He continued to rant, ‘You ain't in Israel and this ain't no Lebanese people, so back up. Gonna get your Jewish [expletive]… (inaudible)….’”

The Lobby will continue to run American foreign policy until Americans wake up and introduce real campaign finance reform.


Sunday, March 18, 2007

KSM and Omar Saeed Sheikh

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s ‘confession’ is largely being treated by even the American mainstream media as a joke.  It is very unlikely that the story of the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is accurate (in fact, the real KSM may never have been in custody), the confessions were obtained after years of torture, the text of the confession was redacted, and you can’t trust the Bush Administration about anything anyway.  Even the content of the confession is so over-the-top that the Americans appear to have undermined the credibility of their own deception.  In fact, given the circumstances of how the confession was obtained, and the fact that he was almost certainly not speaking English, we have to assume, even on a best case scenario, that much of the confession has been manufactured (which is why that we can’t read too much into mistakes in details like a change of the name of a building, as it would not be unreasonable for American translators to improve the text by giving buildings the name by which they are currently known).

I just wanted to touch on the implications of the fact that KSM has taken credit for the Pearl murder.  If you tie this in with Musharraf’s claim that Omar Saeed Sheikh is a British intelligence agent – something which, on its face, makes a lot of sense – the KSM confession may be part of a campaign to get Omar Saeed Sheikh out of the Pakistani jail in which he supposedly still sits.  As I have pointed out, if you combine the idea that Omar is a British intelligence agent with allegations that he wired money to Atta, it certainly puts a different spin on the September 11 attacks.

Saturday, March 17, 2007

Another damp squib

After the fiasco of the Libby trial – where somehow a complete victory felt like a complete loss – the Democrat camp-followers were hoping for a big win with the consolation prize of the Plame testimony.  Note how carefully that testimony is crafted so that she doesn’t actually lie while leaving room for lots of speculation and quibbling.  The timing of when she “traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence” is neatly finessed.  Theories still exist that she was some kind of anti-Bush Jane Bond (such theories all derive from information provided by anonymous CIA sources, with the most recent and politically stylish of them attempting to implicate Iran in anti-American activities), rappelling from helicopters into Tikrit to foil the WMD-planting plans of the evil Dr. Cheney, the Man With the Golden Shotgun.  In fact, Brewster-Jennings was a post-office box, and Plame was outed as a spy – probably by Ames to the Russians, and, separately, by the Cubans, through a dumb CIA mistake – long before Fleischer or Armitage – or whoever – opened his big mouth.  Since she was known to the international spook community it would not have been safe for her to operate undercover, or overseas, anywhere.  Somehow, I have trouble seeing the blond, blue-eyed and very female Plame being a very effective undercover agent in either Iraq or Turkey, but maybe I’m just sexist.

Thursday, March 15, 2007

Life in Iraq is complicated

There is a good posting in Lenin’s Tomb on the complexities of the Iraqi resistance (see also this Sunni rant), referring to this article on a speech by Kamal Majid (together with a swell Latuff cartoon).  Life in Iraq is complicated.  Superimposed on a real civil war is a multifaceted resistance, comprised of both Sunni and Shi’ite groups.  Despite that, the Americans have decided to concentrate only on killing Sunnis, to the extent that the Shi’ite groups are keeping a low profile when required, in order to remain off the American radar.  To keep a scorecard is practically impossible.  The main Shi’ite militia groups are vehemently opposed to the Shi’ite pro-Iranian government of Iraq (which is being blamed by the Bush Administration for all the problems in Iraq), the Americans have decided to leave the Shi’ite militias alone and kill Sunnis, who are the mortal enemies of Iran, but whom the Americans claim are armed by Iran, which is, of course, supposed to be the enemy of the United States.  Neither the Iraqi Army nor the terrorists – trained by the Americans and Israelis – operating in Iraq can be counted on to kill the people the Americans want killed.  According to Seymour Hersh, as the Americans are attacking Sunni groups in Iraq, they are simultaneously financing, with the help of the Saudis, revolutionary Sunni groups associated with al Qaeda in Lebanon and Syria (the prominent reference to al Qaeda makes Hersh’s reporting somewhat suspect, although it may just be his idea of a joke; note that his details in Lebanon, if not the master plan, has been seriously questioned), with the goal of reducing Iranian influence, while Saudi King Abdullah and Iranian President Ahmadinejad have a friendly meeting (not to forget Cheney’s peculiar mission to Sunni Pakistan to threaten regime change there if more efforts aren’t made against the mythical al Qaeda).  As Lenin’s Tomb points out, the civil war, largely instigated by American actions, both open warfare and covert terrorism, is being spun as the main excuse for both the failure of the Bush Administration in Iraq, and the ‘necessity’ of remaining ‘in country’ and continuing to kill Iraqis (who deserve what they get for not gratefully receiving the gift of ‘democracy’ from the selfless American people).  As crazy as all this sounds, it fits the pattern.  The only rational explanation is to create a war of everybody against everybody, the ultimate goal of the Zionists, both Christian and Jewish, and very Ledeen-esque.

The fifth pilot

A former air traffic controller named Robin Hordon, one of the ones fired by Reagan, has some interesting things to say about the inexplicable failure of NORAD to do anything about the 9–11 attacks, the fact that the planes would have always been under radar surveillance regardless of what the hijackers did, the implications of the radical change ordered by Rumsfeld in June 2001 concerning in-flight emergency protocol, and the possibility that the relatively simple crashes into the two towers could have been managed by resetting automated flight controls (flight directors).  He also has thoughts on the Pentagon crash:

“Whatever scenarios Hordon may consider in regard to Flights 11, 175 and 93, he is adamant that 9/11 researchers shouldn’t rest until they’ve gotten to the bottom of the alleged crash of Flight 77 into the Pentagon. To many, the idea that a military jet or missile – not Flight 77 – actually struck the Pentagon is a bizarre and almost inconceivable assertion. But for many 9/11 researchers, it is a central and compelling focus.

‘The particular maneuver that was called upon for this huge Boeing aircraft, OK, it’s highly suspicious that a flight director could pull that one off. We also know that it’s highly suspicious that if it were the pilot that people say was operating the aircraft, we know that that guy couldn’t pull that off. That was completely impossible.’”

The question I’ve asked before concerns the fact that the hijackers had at least five pilots available to them.  Four of them were qualified, and the fifth was Hani Hanjour.  Why then did they have two qualified pilots on Flight 11, and had Hani Hanjour fly one of the missions?  Why did they have him fly the most difficult one?

'The Americans' did it

One of the many tricks of Zionism, and one which is becoming more important as things get crazier in Israel, is to blame all the faults of Israel on ‘the Americans’.  Israel attacked Lebanon.  We’re told it’s because of ‘the Americans’.  Israel doesn’t respond to repeated efforts at negotiation by Syria.  We’re told Israel would dearly love to negotiate, but ‘the Americans’ prohibit it.  Olmert is now saying that Israel is not ‘enthusiastic’ about attacking Iran, but if it happens, watch for the story that ‘the Americans’ forced a reluctant Israel to do it.  Israel is, as always, the universal victim, and all the fault is with ‘the Americans’.

Of course, this is a trick.  ‘The Americans’ are the neocons and the Jewish Billionaires Club.  They get their marching orders from Tel Aviv, and the orders are relayed to the Republicans through the Christian Zionists, and to the Democrats through the Jewish Billionaires themselves (power they get through huge political donations, and which everybody can clearly see manifested in the recent actions of the Democrats in Congress and the main Democrat Presidential candidates).  The neocons ensure that the Bush Administration acts in accordance with the orders, providing whatever cover for the decisions of the Israeli right that is required.  At the end of the day, the Israeli government can honestly say that ‘the Americans’ were behind all its worst decisions.

Chomsky and his ilk are merely a more sophisticated version of the same scam.  Everything Israel does is explained in terms of its subservience to the wishes and interests of the American Establishment.  This lie is becoming harder to maintain for two reasons:

  1. After the end of the Cold War, it has become impossible to see any real role for Israel in assisting the American Establishment (Benjamin Netanyahu’s War On Terror was created in Israeli think tanks in the early 1980s for the express purpose of replacing the Cold War as the reason for American support for Israel, all in anticipation of the fall of the Soviet Union); and
  2. American Establishment figures are now expressly arguing against the traditional unthinking American support for Israeli colonialism, an odd thing to do if Israeli colonialism benefits the American establishment.

The most recent manifestation of the sophisticated version of ‘the Americans did it’ is the current spate of writing that the attack on Iraq was really about oil, i.e., not about Israel.  This is rather obvious nonsense, betrayed by the ‘facts on the ground’ in Iraq itself, and I’ll need to revisit it.

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Unraveled secrets

Secrets are being unraveled on the internet, often using the internet:

  1. Conrad Black’s trial starts this week.  The Canadian satirical magazine Frank (most content hidden behind a payment wall), which doubles as one of the few sources of truth in what passes for journalism in Canada, published a website purporting to support Black.  It is very well done, given away only by the odd picture of Black, the fact that the quotes of support are from such a motley crew of losers, and the over-the-top vocabulary and blow-hard style, reflecting Black’s use of words.  The site was so effective that it fooled a lot of people, including, for a few hours, Lord Black himself, who actually allowed himself to be tricked into inviting the supposed backers of the website over to his mansion for drinks.  Canadians are torn over Black.  The tiny number who work for the Canadian media think he is a combination of Jesus and a character from a story by Horatio Alger.  Everyone else is evenly split between hoping that the trial results in him being hung by his thumbs and slowly tortured to death, or taken out behind the court house and summarily dispatched like a rabid dog with a shot behind the ear.  It’s a tough choice.  It remains unfortunate that Canadians still have to rely on American courts to keep Canadian streets free of crime.
  2. Intrepid internet sleuthing uncovers the identity of the ‘duclod man’ (for his apparent website, and even more sleuthing, see here).
  3. Joyce Hatto was an English concert pianist who, late in her life when she was supposedly very ill, issued an enormous number of recordings, all of which turned out to be stolen from other pianists.  Hatto was recently described as “the greatest living pianist that almost no one has ever heard of”.  In fact, her husband, William Barrington-Coupe, picked recordings by semi-obscure but excellent younger artists, sometimes altered them slightly, and issued them under her name (criticisms of the husband’s story are here and here).  The scandal was only discovered – after some suspicions had been expressed on internet discussion groups – when a critic put one of the CDs in his computer and iTunes identified it as being by someone else (to add to the conspiracy, it is possible that a whistleblower put this information in the iTunes database!).  Apart from Hatto and her husband themselves, Hattogate exposes the entire corrupt world of classical reviewing.  One reviewer unfavorably compared a recording by a young pianist to the Hatto recording.  The problem was that they were the same recording, made by the young pianist, and stolen by Hatto and her husband!  The reviewers haven’t a clue:  they review solely on their perception of the reputation of the artist.  Thus, younger artists, the victims of the Hatto scam, are screwed (as are people who buy CDs based on reading the corrupt reviews).
  4. The use of the internet to out Hatto and her husband reminds me of the recent story in Slate (see also here) by Paul Collins describing how Google Book Search is going to reveal plagiarism in the world of publishing.  There must be a lot of plagiarists out there – as well as a few from history – waiting for the other shoe to drop once their source is scanned and on the web.  The odd thing is that plagiarism is being revealed to be such a common crime that some are saying it is not worth worrying about.

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

ZOG proof

A couple days ago I stuck my neck out and made a prediction based on the stranglehold that the Jewish Billionaires Club has over the Democratic Party.  I said that my prediction coming true (or here or here) would prove the Zionist control over the Democrats, but I never believed it would come true so quickly.  Those of you who are still struggling with the ZOG thesis really have to ask yourselves if there is any evidence which would make you see the truth.  Americans, a people morally and legally responsible for the 650,000 excess deaths in Iraq, something which isn’t even the tiniest political issue (Democrats are pretending to care about withdrawal while doing everything they can to ensure it doesn’t happen), like to quibble about the tone of the thesis, as if people responsible for mass murder without even the slightest moral twinge are really so solicitous of the finer feelings of the Jewish community.  The real reason for rejection of the (increasingly obvious) ZOG thesis is the fact that people proudly living in the Most Powerful Country in the World are embarrassed that a handful of Jewish poindexters managed to take over their entire military and diplomatic policy apparatus, and run them for the sole benefit of a tiny foreign country.  What is even worse is that the Democrats, the party that is supposed to save the Republic, are even more in the pockets of the Zionists than the Republicans (the Bush White House is clearly starting to free itself from the Zionists, with American ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, usually identified as a neocon, going out of his way to shake the hand of the Iranian envoy, something he didn’t have to do and an obvious reference to the fact that the adults are back in charge; note how the Zionists are spinning the meeting, with ‘jovial’ talks being called no talks at all).

Why is it so important to recognize the truth of the ZOG? Israel has some extremely dark plans, including attacks on Lebanon again, and an attack on Syria.  There are even people high in the Israeli government muttering about an Israeli nuclear attack on Iran, an attack which would cause thousands of immediate deaths (not to mention thousands more in Israel from the counterattack), and perhaps tens of thousands of lingering deaths from the radiation, lead to World War III, and cause a world-wide recession.  All the while, the Palestinians are literally being starved to death, genocide only being staved off by United Nations relief efforts (efforts which have been under attack in the United States by the Zionists, as there is nothing more anti-Semitic than keeping Arabs from starving to death).  None of these dark plans would even be a possibility if Israel couldn’t count on the American support bought by the Jewish Billionaires Club.  The Israeli right will continue its evil plans, plans which don’t even benefit Israel, until Americans recognize the importance of the ZOG, and until the kind of overt support for Zionism, exemplified by the three major Democrat candidates for President having to kiss AIPAC’s ass, becomes a political kiss of death in American politics.  People whose pride won’t allow them to admit the truth of the ZOG thesis are morally responsible for the horrors that have yet to flow from the ZOG. 

Monday, March 12, 2007

Unclear on the concept

Freedom to read week’ is a week in Canada devoted to raising awareness of intellectual freedom. It is particularly concerned with censorship.  As part of this year’s campaign, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation asked Yann Martel, author of the Man Booker Prize winning novel Life of Pi, to read over the air at CBC Radio Saskatchewan from any banned or challenged book.  They knew he was scheduled to read from Mein Kampf that night at a Saskatoon Public Library event.  Martel chose Mein Kampf as the book he would read from over the air.  The CBC producers wouldn’t let him read from that book.  The CBC was apparently concerned that someone might turn on the car radio in the middle of the reading, and suddenly veer off to Walmart to buy a brown shirt.  Or perhaps they were afraid that with a Conservative government in Canada, someone might turn on the radio and think that the CBC had changed its normal liberal outlook.

Sunday, March 11, 2007

Definitive ZOG experiment

I love testable theories.  The best way to test a theory is to make a prediction based on the theory, and see what actually happens.  Nancy Pelosi has put language in the Iraq war spending bill that would prevent Bush from going to war in Iran without the approval of Congress.  This, of course, just confirms the constitutional power of Congress which has essentially been a dead letter in recent decades.  AIPAC is opposing (or here; see also here) such language.  Rahm Emanuel is ‘predicting’ (hint, hint) that the language won’t survive. 

Here we have the definitive ZOG experiment.  If the language stays, the United States, and the Democratic Party, aren’t under the complete control of the ZOG run by the Israeli extreme right and the Jewish Billionaires Club.  If the language, which seems innocuous and obvious for a party that has regained political control solely on the basis of its opposition to more Bush wars, is removed or emasculated, we will have one hundred per cent proof that American foreign and military policy is being run exclusively by and for the interests of a foreign power.

Saturday, March 10, 2007

‘We have more planes. We have other planes.’

From an article by Gail Sheehy dated June 17, 2004 (my emphasis throughout in red):

“Despite having boarded her train at 5 a.m. that morning in Washington, D.C., Rosemary Dillard’s linen jacket was still creaseless, her carriage professional and crisp, as she walked down the train platform at Princeton Junction on the morning of June 4.

Ms. Dillard dared to hope that the F.B.I. would clarify the timeline in the mystifying story of Sept. 11, 2001.

The briefing in New Jersey two weeks ago, attended by about 130 family members of victims, had been arranged by the F.B.I. Previously unavailable calls from passengers and crew were to be played for families of victims of the four infamous flights that were turned into missiles by terrorists.

Who knew what, and when? And what did the airlines and federal officials do about it? These were the burning questions on the minds of many family members who have begged the commission to help connect the dots. This week, when the 9/11 commission wraps up its public hearings, families had been promised that the final report would be titled ‘9-11: The Timeline.’ But at the last minute the commission switched the subject to ‘9-11: The Plot,’ focusing on the hijackers’ success in foiling every layer of the nation’s defenses, up to and including the airlines’.

For Ms. Dillard, the tapes scheduled to be played in Princeton this June morning were especially important: She herself had acted as the American Airlines base manager at Reagan National Airport on the morning of Sept. 11. She had been responsible for three D.C.-area airports, including Dulles. For the last two and a half years, she has been haunted by the fact that American Airlines Flight 77 took off from Dulles Airport that morning, with her blessing.

Her husband was a passenger on that flight.”


“The families heard a tape that has just now surfaced. Recorded by American Airlines at its headquarters in Fort Worth, Tex., even as the first hijacked airliner, Flight 11, was being taken over, the tape shows the airline’s top management was made aware beginning at about 8:21 a.m. – 25 minutes before the impact of the first plane into the World Trade Center’s north tower – that a group of men described as Middle Eastern had stabbed two flight attendants, clouded the forward cabin with pepper spray or Mace, menaced crew and passengers with what looked like a bomb, and stormed the cockpit in a violent takeover of the gigantic bird.

Despite all the high secrecy surrounding the briefing, a half-dozen different family members were so horrified by voice evidence of the airlines’ disregard for the fate of their pilots, crew and passengers that they found ways to reveal some of what they heard on those tapes, and also what they felt. To them, the tapes appeared to show that the first instinct of American and United Airlines, as management learned of the gathering horror aboard their passenger planes on Sept. 11, was to cover up.

The response of American’s management on duty, as revealed on the tape produced at the meeting, was recalled by persons in attendance:

‘Don’t spread this around. Keep it close.’

‘Keep it quiet.’

‘Let’s keep this among ourselves. What else can we find out from our own sources about what’s going on?’

‘It was disgusting,’ said the parent of one of the victims, herself a veteran flight attendant for United Airlines. ‘The very first response was cover-up, when they should have been broadcasting this information all over the place.’”


“On the American Airlines tape played at the meeting, a voice is heard relaying to the airline’s headquarters the blow-by-blow account by Ms. Sweeney of mayhem aboard Flight 11. The flight attendant had gone face to face with the hijackers, and reported they had shown her what appeared to be a bomb, with red and yellow wires. The young blond mother of two had secreted herself in the next-to-last passenger row and used an AirFone card, given to her by another flight attendant, Sara Low, to call the airline’s flight-services office at Boston’s Logan airport.

‘This is Amy Sweeney,’ she reported. ‘I’m on Flight 11 – this plane has been hijacked.’ She was disconnected. She called back: ‘Listen to me, and listen to me very carefully.’ Within seconds, her befuddled respondent was replaced by a voice she knew.

‘Amy, this is Michael Woodward.’

The American Airlines flight-service manager had been friends with Ms. Sweeney for a decade and didn’t have to waste time verifying that this wasn’t a hoax. Ms. Sweeney repeated, ‘Michael, this plane has been hijacked.’

Since there was no tape machine in his office, Woodward began repeating the flight attendant’s alarming account to a colleague, Nancy Wyatt, the supervisor of pursers at Logan. On another phone, Ms. Wyatt was simultaneously transmitting Ms. Sweeney’s words to the airline’s Fort Worth headquarters. It was that relayed account that was played for the families.

‘In Fort Worth, two managers in S.O.C. [Systems Operations Control] were sitting beside each other and hearing it,’ says one former American Airlines employee who heard the tape. ‘They were both saying, ‘Do not pass this along. Let’s keep it right here. Keep it among the five of us.’’”

The two managers’ names were given in testimony to the 9/11 commission by Mr. Arpey, then executive vice president of operations, who described himself as ‘directly involved in American’s emergency-response efforts and other operational decisions made as the terrible events of Sept. 11 unfolded.’ Joe Burdepelly, one of the S.O.C. managers, told Mr. Arpey at 8:30 a.m. Eastern time that they had a possible hijacking on Flight 11. Mr. Burdepelly also said that the S.O.C. manager on duty, Craig Marquis, was in contact with Ms. Ong. Mr. Arpey related that from Ms. Ong, he and the S.O.C. managers had learned by 8:30 a.m. ‘that two or three passengers were in the cockpit, and that our pilots were not responding to intercom calls from the flight attendants. After talking with S.O.C.,’ Mr. Arpey testified, ‘I then called Don Carty, the president and C.E.O. of American Airlines, at that time,’ who was not available. Mr. Arpey then drove to the S.O.C. facility, arriving, he says, between 8:35 and 8:40 a.m. Eastern time.

Mr. Arpey testified that by 8:40 a.m. they knew one of the passengers had been stabbed, possibly fatally, although this news was transmitted by Ms. Sweeney at least 15 minutes earlier. ‘We were also receiving information from the F.A.A. that, instead of heading west on its intended flight path, Flight 11 was headed south. We believed that Flight 11 might be headed for the New York area. Our pilots were not responding to air traffic control or company radio calls, and the aircraft transponder had been turned off.’

Mr. Arpey’s account revealed that the American Airlines executives had attempted to monitor the progress of Flight 11 via communications with the F.A.A. and their traffic-control officials. ‘As far as we knew, the rest of our airline was operating normally at this point,’ he said.

But Flight 11 had missed its first mark at 8:13 a.m., when, shortly after controllers asked the pilot to climb to 35,000 feet, the transponder stopped transmitting the electronic signal that identifies exact location and altitude. Air traffic manager Glenn Michael later said, ‘We considered it at that time to be a possible hijacking.’

At 8:14 a.m., F.A.A. flight controllers in Boston began hearing an extraordinary radio transmission from the cockpit of Flight 11 that should have set off alarm bells. Before their F.A.A. superiors forbade them to talk to anyone, two of the controllers told the Christian Science Monitor on Sept. 11 that the captain of Flight 11, John Ogonowski, was surreptitiously triggering a ‘push-to-talk’ button on the aircraft’s yoke most of the way to New York. When controllers picked up the voices of men speaking in Arabic and heavily accented English, they knew something was terribly wrong. More than one F.A.A. controller heard an ominous statement by a terrorist in the background saying, ‘We have more planes. We have other planes.’

Apparently, none of this crucial information was transmitted to other American pilots already airborne – notably Flight 77 out of Dulles, which took off at 8:20 a.m. only to be redirected to its target, the Pentagon – or to other airlines with planes in harm’s way: United’s Flight 173, which took off at 8:14 a.m. from Boston, or United’s Flight 93, whose ‘wheels-up’ was recorded at 8:42 a.m.

‘You would have thought American’s S.O.C. would have grounded everything,’ says Ms. Dillard. ‘They were in the lead spot, they’re in Texas – they had control over the whole system. They could have stopped it. Everybody should have been grounded.’”


“One of American’s top corporate executives directly in the line of authority that day was Jane Allen, then vice president of in-flight services, in charge of the company’s 24,000 flight attendants and management and operations at 22 bases. She was Ms. Dillard’s top boss. But Ms. Dillard never heard from her until after Flight 77 had plowed into the Pentagon. Reached at United Airlines corporate headquarters in Chicago, where Ms. Allen now works, she was asked to confirm the names of participants in the Sept. 11 phone call and why the decision was made to hold back that information.

‘I really don’t know what I could possibly add to all the hurt,’ she said.

But was it too much information, or too little, that was hurtful?

‘I really am not interested in helping or participating,’ Ms. Allen said, putting down the phone.”


“The information hold-back may have arisen from lack of experience, or from the inability to register the enormity of the terrorists’ destructive plans, or it may have been a visceral desire to protect the airlines from liability. The airlines make much of the fact that the ‘common strategy’ for civil aircraft crews before 9/11 was to react passively to hijackings – ‘to refrain from trying to overpower or negotiate with hijackers, to land the aircraft as soon as possible, to communicate with authorities, and to try delaying tactics.’

This strategy was based on the assumption that the hijackers would want to be flown safely to an airport of their choice to make their demands.

But that defense of the airlines’ actions is belied by the fact that the F.A.A., which was in contact with American Airlines and other traffic-control centers, heard the tip-off from terrorists in Flight 11’s cockpit – ‘We have planes, more planes’ – and thus knew before the first crash of a possible multiple hijacking and the use of planes as weapons.

To this writer’s knowledge, there has been no public mention of the Flight 11 pilot’s narrative since the news report on Sept. 12, 2001. When Peg Ogonowski, the pilot’s wife, asked American Airlines to let her listen to that tape, she never heard back.


“’I’ve been learning a lot,’ said Ms. Hoglan. ‘During the summer of 2001, there were 12 directives sent by the F.A.A. – which are now supposedly classified – notifying the airlines of specific threats that terrorists were planning to hijack their aircrafts. The airlines apparently buried that information and didn’t tell us.’

A Freedom of Information Act request has confirmed that the F.A.A. sent a dozen warnings to the airlines between May and September of 2001. Those 35 pages of alerts are being exempted from public disclosure by a federal statute that covers ‘information that would be detrimental to the security of transportation if disclosed.’ Most rational people would say that the non-disclosure of the alerts was what was detrimental to the security of transportation on Sept. 11.

‘The F.B.I. gathered the evidence, gave it to the F.A.A., the F.A.A. gave it to the airlines, and the airlines didn’t tell us,’ Ms. Hoglan said. ‘I was a working flight attendant with United that summer, in 2001, and I never heard a thing. I’m suing United Airlines, and I’m very keen on the role of the flight attendants in Sept. 11.’”


“Why didn’t United at least warn the pilots of Flight 93 to bar the cockpit door, some of the families wanted to know?

Ed Ballinger, the flight dispatcher for United Airlines that morning, was the last human being to talk to the cockpit of Flight 93. He had 16 flights taking off early that morning from the East Cost to the West Coast. When United’s Flight 175 began acting erratically and failed to respond to his warnings, he began banging out the same enigmatic message to all his planes: ‘Beware of cockpit intrusion.’

Flight 93, the last of the hijacked planes, called him back and said ‘Hi, Ed. Confirmed.’

Mr. Ballinger said he didn’t wait for his superiors or for Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta’s decision to ground all flights. He sent out a Stop-Fly alert to all crews. But United dispatchers were instructed by their superiors not to tell the pilots why they were being instructed to land, he claims.

‘One of the things that upset me was that they knew, 45 minutes before [Flight 93 crashed], that American Airlines had a problem. I put the story together myself [from news accounts],’ Mr. Ballinger said. ‘Perhaps if I had the information sooner, I might have gotten the message to [Flight] 93 to bar the door.’”

The FAA made a rather obvious cover-up effort to suppress the recollections of the actual air traffic controllers, who are presumably still available to provide their testimony.



Friday, March 09, 2007

The most honest man in the world

I’m starting to think that, for all his faults, Ehud Olmert is the most honest man in the world.  He has confirmed:

  1. The existence and power of the Lobby in American politics.
  2. The Israeli nuclear program.
  3. The fact that the Iraq war was good for Israeli security.
  4. The Israeli surveillance capabilities with respect to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
  5. The fact that the attack on Lebanon was pre-planned, and presumably just awaited a fortuitous time and an excuse.

The latest admission confirms the idea that the Israeli soldiers, about whom we have heard much wailing and weeping from the Israeli right, were sent into Lebanon as bait to start a war.

Thursday, March 08, 2007

Knowing it was terrorism too early

The article by Christopher Ketcham on pre-9/11 Israeli spying on those posing as terrorists is mostly a summary of what the bloggers have been writing for years, but this excerpt is worth thinking about:

“What is perhaps most damning is that the Israelis' celebration on the New Jersey waterfront occurred in the first sixteen minutes after the initial crash, when no one was aware this was a terrorist attack. In other words, from the time the first plane hit the north tower, at 8:46 a.m., to the time the second plane hit the south tower, at 9:02 a.m., the overwhelming assumption of news outlets and government officials was that the plane's impact was simply a terrible accident. It was only after the second plane hit that suspicions were aroused. Yet if the men were cheering for political reasons, as they reportedly told the FBI, they obviously believed they were witnessing a terrorist act, and not an accident.

After returning safely to Israel in the late autumn of 2001, three of the five New Jersey Israelis spoke on a national talk show that winter. Oded Ellner, who on the afternoon of September 11 had, like his compatriots, protested to arresting officer Sgt. Dennis Rivelli that ‘we're Israeli’, admitted to the interviewer: ‘We are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event’. By his own admission, then, Ellner stood on the New Jersey waterfront documenting with film and video a terrorist act before anyone knew it was a terrorist act.”

It’s funny that Counterpunch finds even the slightest speculation that there might be some details wrong about the Official Story of September 11 to be pernicious nonsense, and yet has plenty of time to engage in speculations about Israeli art students.  The only logical explanation is that the editors of Counterpunch are anti-Semites! 

Since the Israelis – as well as nearly every other country in the world – had warned the Americans that a terrorist attack was imminent – and right after the warnings Ashcroft stopped taking commercial flights – it seems likely that bundling the spies back to Israel wasn’t done just to protect Israel, but to protect the Bush Administration from the truth about the Israeli spy operation.  The dangerous truth that individual spies could have revealed was that the Israelis were subcontracting for American officials, meaning that the Bush Administration would have also been aware of the exact nature of the attacks when they occurred, not to mention before they occurred, and could have easily stopped them.

The Libby waste o time

As usual, I find myself in complete agreement with myself:

“The understanding between Libby and the White House seems to be that Libby can do whatever he can to get off on a technicality.  If he is convicted anyway, Bush will pardon him.  All Libby’s lawyers have to do is manage the timing of the case so that Libby doesn’t actually have to report to a jail before Bush pardons him in December 2008.”

In spite of much wishful thinking from Democratic camp followers about the implications of the trial, the Bush White House got away with everything.  Libby didn’t turn against Rove: it was part of the deal that if Libby was the fall guy he could use any defense he could to get off, including the usual multiple defendant excuse of blaming the other crooks, as long as he kept Bush and Cheney out of it (that’s why it was incumbent on Fitzgerald to charge everybody, and try everybody together, and his failure to do so led directly to the disastrous result).  Rove didn’t have to testify.  Cheney didn’t have to testify.  Libby, in fact, wasn’t even guilty of the crime of outing Plame, and Fitzgerald somehow managed to find a way to immunize the guilty parties while appearing to be on the attack.  Fitzgerald is moving on to Conrad Black, a more politically agreeable target, as well as a slam-dunk win.  The jury took so long to decide as they ended up seeing Libby, one of the greatest villains in the world, as some kind of saint.  All we have now that we didn’t have before is more evidence suggestive of Cheney’s supervisory role in the matter, but having more evidence that Cheney is slime doesn’t get anyone anywhere.

Libby had to lie to ensure that the Plamegate matter, and the much more important wider implications of the lies told to fool the American public into attacking Iraq, didn’t become an election issue in the 2004 Presidential election.  His lies worked, and the matter of being convicted is a slight embarrassment.  All he has to do is drag out the appeal so the timing is right for Bush to pardon him at the end of Bush’s term.  Libby will end up a very rich man at the end of all this, as the Republicans always make sure that no act of criminality goes unrewarded.

The only good thing about the trial is that it removed one of the main instruments of the Cabal from the White House.  It is easy to underestimate Libby, as he appears to be unaggressive and unthreatening.  In fact, he was one of the most dangerous men in the world.  It is not a coincidence that the White House lost its track at the same time that Libby was forced to leave.