Friday, July 22, 2005

Patriot Act Renewal Distraction

******* 23 July 2005 UPDATE *******
Prison Planet's analysis reveals some very interesting observations. Below are a few of the more intriguing:
Today is the last day of parliament before an 80 day break. So if the governmen wanted to get those anti-terror measures through which were proposed after the 7/7 bombing, then this status of high alert is the perfect climate to get them rammed through without dissent.

Sky News reported that members of parliament could be recalled tonight in a special session for the express purpose of passing that legislation.

In the early confusion about what is actually happening in London, several things are already clear.

- This immediately stalls questions about the first bombing. The mainstream media were finally beginning to highlight the fact that the government's official story did not fit together. This takes those issues off the front pages.

- This further promulgates the fearmongering and creates a pliable public that is willing to accept draconian anti-terror laws. They are trying to turn us into Israel, with an alert or a bombing every fortnight.

- On the very day that the Patriot Act is due to be renewed, Bush can use the alert level to grease the skids and bully Congress into re-authorizing the bill.
Read the rest of the article here


******* Original Post*******
Coincidence or not?

Yesterday's London bombings occurs on the same day the US House of Representatives permanently renews 14 out of 16 expiring Patriot Act provisions. The two which were not permanently renewed will come up for renewal in 10 years.

The original Patriot Act was in response to the 9/11 attacks and supposed to be a temporary measure to provide intelligence agencies with the capabilities to catch the terrorists. It has sinced turned into a permanent fixture in the American intelligence apparatuses.
Passage came with the specter of terrorism fresh in lawmakers' minds after another round of bombing incidents in London earlier in the day.
Source: CNN

Interestingly, on the day the vote was to take place, the failed London bombings provided a timely, vivid "reminder" of the necessity for intelligence agencies to have the freedom to go after anyone them deem to be a terrorist or terrorist suspect.

Although the Senate still has to authorize the changes, the fact this news-worthy item is being overshadowed by the London bombings is very interesting.

And, bombings which appear to have been made to look like the July 7th bombings, but were actually quite amateur in comparison, failed to explode -- ALL FOUR! What are the odds of that happenning?
Unlike the devastation of a fortnight before, when 56 people died and more than 700 were injured, Thursday's repeat attacks caused no casualties as the rucksack-borne bombs seemingly failed to detonate fully.

Witnesses reported hearing loud pops like guns or corks as smoke poured from the rucksacks, testimony which experts said indicated that the bombs' detonators went off but failed to ignite the main charges.
Source: AFP


Today, a suspected terrorist was shot in a London subway.
Scotland Yard said the man shot dead at about 1000 BST on Friday in Stockwell had still to be formally identified.

He was being under police observation because he had emerged from a house that was being watched following Thursday's attacks, a spokesman said.

The man was followed by surveillance officers to Stockwell station, where his clothing and behaviour added to their suspicions, he added.

Stockwell passenger Mark Whitby told BBC News he had seen a man of Asian appearance shot five times by "plain-clothes police officers".

"One of them was carrying a black handgun - it looked like an automatic - they pushed him to the floor, bundled on top of him and unloaded five shots into him," he said.
Source: BBC

So, he's a suspected terrorist because he walked out of a suspected terrorist house. Even though they aren't sure who he is, he is tackled because his attire and behavior is a bit suspicious, then they unload five shots into the unknown individual.

Let's hope, for the Scotland Yard's sake, this individual is found to have explosive material on him and, by their actions, the police prevented enother potentially devastating attack. If not, let's hope there's a public outcry for police restraint until there is absolute certainty of guilt of an individual before someone is allowed to kill them in cold blood.

All of this, food for thought yet again...

Technorati Categories: , , , , , , .

Saturday, July 16, 2005

Move Over Rove and Let Joe Take Over

Move over Rover and let Jimi take over
Jimi Hendrix - Fire


Joseph Wilson speaks out in a Washington Post article:
Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson called on President Bush Thursday to fire deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, saying Bush's top-level aide engaged in an "abuse of power" by discussing Wilson's wife's job with a reporter.

Wilson, in an interview broadcast Thursday on NBC's "Today" show, said he thinks the White House's posture in this controversy represents a continuing "cover-up of the web of lies that underpin the justification for going to war in Iraq."

"The president has said repeatedly, "I am a man of my word,' " Wilson added. "He should stand up and prove that his word is his bond and fire Karl Rove."

Wilson has said the leak of his wife's name was an attempt by the administration to discredit him after he challenged its assertion that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was seeking to obtain from Niger material to make nuclear weapons.
Source - Washintgon Post


The heat is on Bush to do something about Rove. Bush's credibility is on the line.

It would be interesting to see if some BIG event coincidentally strikes to take the focus away from ...

  • Rove's illegal act of revealing the identity of an intelligence operative.

  • Bush's refusal to take action on the source of the Plame leak.

  • Downing Street memos confirming the Bush administrations' "fixing" the facts to support the policy of going after Sadam.



Technorati Categories: , , , , , , , , .

Friday, July 15, 2005

Rove's Scandalous Links

Karl Rove has acts as if, and I'm sure considers himself, beyond reproach. Nothing can touch him. Noone can stop him from getting his way.

Those were the old days.

Although he still is connected and influencial, the revelations of participation in what are becoming more obvious as scandalous activities are beginning to show the cracks in the armor. Several still vocally stand in his defense, most likely to gain future favors. A growing number of others are distancing themselves carefully so as not to draw attention to themselves when the hammer falls. And, another number of others are fence sitting to weather Rove's political storm should he win or lose.

Daniel Schorr, National Public Radio's senior news analyst and Christian Science Monitor's contributing columnist, writes in the article Rove Leak is Just Part of Larger Scandal:

Let me remind you that the underlying issue in the Karl Rove controversy is not a leak, but a war and how America was misled into that war.

In 2002 President Bush, having decided to invade Iraq, was casting about for a casus belli. The weapons of mass destruction theme was not yielding very much until a dubious Italian intelligence report, based partly on forged documents (it later turned out), provided reason to speculate that Iraq might be trying to buy so-called yellowcake uranium from the African country of Niger. It did not seem to matter that the CIA advised that the Italian information was "fragmentary and lacked detail."

Prodded by Vice President Dick Cheney and in the hope of getting more conclusive information, the CIA sent Joseph Wilson, an old Africa hand, to Niger to investigate. Mr. Wilson spent eight days talking to everyone in Niger possibly involved and came back to report no sign of an Iraqi bid for uranium and, anyway, Niger's uranium was committed to other countries for many years to come.

No news is bad news for an administration gearing up for war. Ignoring Wilson's report, Cheney talked on TV about Iraq's nuclear potential. And the president himself, in his 2003 State of the Union address no less, pronounced: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Wilson declined to maintain a discreet silence. He told various people that the president was at least mistaken, at most telling an untruth. Finally Wilson directly challenged the administration with a July 6, 2003 New York Times op-ed headlined, "What I didn't find in Africa," and making clear his belief that the president deliberately manipulated intelligence in order to justify an invasion.

One can imagine the fury in the White House. We now know from the e-mail traffic of Time's correspondent Matt Cooper that five days after the op-ed appeared, he advised his bureau chief of a super-secret conversation with Karl Rove who alerted him to the fact that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and may have recommended him for the Niger assignment. Three days later, Bob Novak's column appeared giving Wilson's wife's name, Valerie Plame, and the fact she was an undercover CIA officer. Mr. Novak has yet to say, in public, whether Mr. Rove was his source. Enough is known to surmise that the leaks of Rove, or others deputized by him, amounted to retaliation against someone who had the temerity to challenge the president of the United States when he was striving to find some plausible reason for invading Iraq.

The role of Rove and associates added up to a small incident in a very large scandal - the effort to delude America into thinking it faced a threat dire enough to justify a war.
Source: Christian Science Monitor


This from someone with a career of more than six decades who knows how to conduct his research and developed a keen sense for putting all the pieces together.

Now, for the other scandal brewing...

As most of you who have followed this blog know, the actions of another Texas politician, not too disimilar from Rove in his character, Tom DeLay, have been in and out of the media for quite some time. Specifically, the issue of ethical misconduct.

Well, lo and behold, here we find Karl Rove involved as well.

In a press release from the Campaign for a Cleaner Congress, manager Peter L. Kelley reveals Rove's close connection with Jack Abramoff, who is at the center of DeLay's lobbying scandal. From the article Rove Tied to Tom DeLay Lobbying Scandal:
Karl Rove's involvement in leaking the name of a CIA operative for political advantage during wartime could be just the tip of the iceberg as far as unethical behavior, since his web of influence extends to the most notorious figure of the House Lobbying Scandal.

"It's widely known that Karl Rove has been pulling strings all over Washington for years, obviously not just in the case of the Plame leak," said Peter L. Kelley, manager of the Campaign for a Cleaner Congress.

"What is not widely known, however, is his close connection with Jack Abramoff, who is at the center of the lobbying scandal in which Washington is now embroiled. Rove let archconservative operatives like Grover Norquist call shots at the White House. And just this week, a Texas judge ruled that a former Rove lieutenant must face felony charges of money laundering for Tom DeLay's political operation.

"Without further ethics reforms, the public has virtually no ability to find out what is really going on in Washington these days," Kelley said. "But what we do know is starting to smell, and it offers a starting point for further investigation."


The collapse of Rove's dynasty has begun. Let's see whether his influence will save him from these continuous revelations of unethical and, potentially, criminal activities.

Technorati Categories: , , , , , .

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Media Sharks Smell Blood in White House CIA Leak Involvement

Interesting week to say the least!

Since my last post on Friday, where I expressed my concern over the undeniably restrained coverage by the press community for such a HOT news item (specifically, last week's revelation that Karl Rove, Bush's deputy chief of staff, was the source of the leak which resulted in the exposure of a CIA operative) which should have had them all drooling to break the news. Well, this week, the press has been all over White House press secretary Scott McClellan and Bush, who was initially defending Rove, has taken a more non-commital tone.

There is definitly blood in the water. The press sharks smells it and have decided to jump all over the news of Rove's involvement. Like dogs who have been beaten for so long, sensing a time to bite the abuser in a moment of weakness.

Democrats are calling for Rove's dismissal while the Republican faithful see nothing wrong, or relevant to the leak, in Rove's discussion of Joe Wilson's wife being a CIA operative.
Republicans mounted an aggressive and coordinated defense of Karl Rove yesterday, contending that the White House's top political adviser did nothing improper or illegal when he discussed a covert CIA official with a reporter.
Source: Washington Post


The Republican National Committee and congressional Republicans are vocal in blaming the Democrats for "partisan politics", yet the White House has been taking a more subdued approach, in contrast to earlier unwavering support for Rove.
President Bush said Wednesday he will withhold judgment about top aide Karl Rove's involvement in the leaking the identity of a CIA operative until a federal criminal investigation is complete.

The lack of an endorsement surprised some Bush advisers who had expected the president to voice his support.

"This is a serious investigation," Bush said at the end of a meeting with his Cabinet, with Rove sitting just behind him. "I will be more than happy to comment on this matter once this investigation is complete.

"I also will not prejudge the investigation based on media reports," he said, when asked whether Rove acted improperly in discussing CIA officer Valerie Plame with a reporter.

Bush is "withholding judgement". Sounds like political CYA.

Friday, July 08, 2005

Media Quiet on Karl Rove Involvement in Plame Leak

Why haven't we been hearing more about Karl Rove's alleged involvement in leaking Valerie Plame's (identified as a CIA operative) name to the media? One of the most potentially damaging stories of the year for the current administation and it is obviously being played down.

Isn't it odd that one of the most treacherous acts against the country is going under-reported? Revealing the name of an intelligence operative and compromising, more likely resulting in the death of, other assets and intelligence channels which have taken years to develop. According to the law, the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the act by itself warrants imprisonment.

Ariana Huffington's opinion, appearing July 6th on her site, is the obvious fear of what Karl Rove and the White House are capable of doing, to even the biggest of media moguls and their empires, to those who cross them.
According to the players, the key to whether this story has real legs -- and whether it will spell the end of Rove -- is determining intent. And a key to that is whether there was a meeting at the White House where Rove and Scooter Libby discussed what to do with the information they had gotten from the State Department about Valerie Plame being Joe Wilson’s wife, and her involvement in his being sent on the Niger/yellowcake mission. If it can be proven that such a meeting occurred, then Rove will be in deep trouble -- especially if it is established that Rove made three phone calls leaking the info about Plame and her CIA gig… one to Matt Cooper, one to Walter Pincus, and one to Robert Novak.


So, it's a given Karl Rove is involved, the questions is to what degree he willingly, and with premeditated intent to cause harm, released the information. Did he encourage, demand, or suggest (wink, wink) the name be made public as pay-back for Ambassador Joe Wilson's (Valerie Plame's husband) public denial of the Nigerian yellowcake uranium memo used by the Bush administration as proof of Sadam's weapons program.
Other than intent, the other big legal question raised was: will Rove be able to get away with claiming that he did not know Plame was an undercover agent?

We all know what happened after Rove placed those calls. The question is, what will happen now?


Yes, what will happen now? Good question, indeed.

Last week, New York Times reporter Judith Miller was sentenced to jail, being held in contempt of court for refusing to reveal a confidential source to the grand jury investigating the disclosure of Plame's identity. We can only hope this ultimately results in the revelation of the identity of the leak.

One thing is for certain, the media will wish this go away or some other news rise to the surface. You see, this will be the only way to avoid being held to the public scrutiny of having failed in their responsibility to report this egregeous action and bring to light this obvious violation of public trust by our leaders.

Technorati Categories: , , , , , .

Thursday, July 07, 2005

Blasts in Britain: Police had Advance Warning

Truly a sad day today in England. A series of explosions were reported to have occurred in the subway and on a bus resulting in a large number of deaths.

I am saddened by the meaningless loss of life. It makes no sense that this should happen to innocent civilians which are not responsible for the politicians' actions. In addition, I'm disturbed by the timing of the event and disappearance of some initial reports.

Below is an objective analysis from Signs of the Times of why actions such as these definitely DO NOT serve the terrorists' objectives, whatever they may be:
We would like to appeal to all our readers to think about these attacks rationally. First of all, ask yourself, what does "al-qaeda" or any other "previously unknown" Islamic group have to gain from carrying out these attacks at this particular time in London. Coming on the very day that the "G8" leaders meet in Scotland, the only tangible results of the attacks have been to vector British and world public attention TOWARDS the "reality" of "Arab terrorism" and AWAY from the crimes of people like Bush and Blair as regards the pillaging of the resources (both human and natural) of third world countries. On the very day that G8 leaders were expected to deliver on the demands of the World public to alleviate "third world" debt, "al-qaeda" steps in and saves them the trouble by bringing "terrorism" center stage.

One of the most troubling aspects of "Arab terror" attacks in Europe and the US is that the victims are almost always ordinary civilians. By now, any Arab terrorist strategist should surely have realised that their issue is not with the civilian population of Western nations but rather with the politicians that make the decisions, many of which run contrary to the will of the people. The massive anti-Iraq war demonstrations around Europe and the US made this point quite clear. In this case, what does "al-qaeda" have to gain from attacking London trains and buses filled with civilian workers when it is patently obvious that civilian deaths at the hands of "terrorists" will do nothing to sway the average Western government from their political and military designs on the Middle East, quite the opposite in fact.

It really is a no brainer that "al-qaeda" terrorism very definitely serves the agenda of Bush and Blair.


Something very strange happened during the early reporting of the events. Several articles released early during the breaking news of the explosions stated that British police had notified the Israeli embassy of the potential terrorist acts began disappearing from web sites. The original release being replaced by denials.

One such report had the title "Israeli Official: Scotland Yard had warning" with the brief content:
JERUSALEM — British police told the Israeli Embassy in London minutes before today's explosions that they had received warnings of possible terror attacks in the city, a senior Israeli official said.


The report was replaced with on titled "Israel denies receiving warning before blasts".

Links to sites where the article was replaced:


Here is one example where the original AP release exists:
Scotland Yard had warned Israel of possible terror attacks

Jerusalem, July 7 (AP): British police told the Israeli Embassy in London minutes before today's explosions that they had received warnings of possible terror attacks in the city, a senior Israeli official said.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the nature of his position.

Israel was holding an economic conference near the scene of one of the explosions. Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was supposed to attend, but the attacks occurred before he arrived.

Just before the blasts, Scotland Yard called the security officer at the Israeli Embassy and said warnings of possible attacks had been received, the official said. He did not say whether British police made any link to the economic conference.

Link to article on Hindu News
Link to article on Rediff.com
Link to article on NY Newsday


I'm troubled by the parallels to the reports of warnings to the Israeli instant messaging service company in the World Trade Center, Odigo, prior to the September 11th attack. Why is it that Israeli interests seem to have been warned PRIOR to the attacks?

Food for thought.

Technorati Categories: , , , , , , , .

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

You Lied!

Yesterday, I listened to a song I was unable to get out of my head. 'You Lied' (listen here) possesses a pleasant-sounding musical accompaniment and melodic flow to a definitely disturbing, yet starkly accurate, lyrical foundation.

Here are the lyrics for your benefit:

You Lied
copyright 2005 Signs of the Times

You told the world Saddam had chemical bombs
To kill us all in our homes, on our farms
You said he sent his men into the heavens
big planes crashing down, September 11

You lied, You lied,
People died, When Bush lied

I've got some questions, wipe that smirk off your face
Betraying your people, that's a real disgrace
See I'm having a hard time finding that plane
you said hit the Pentagon, bursting into flames
Vapourising the aircraft, didn't leave no remains
But the bodies appear not to burn quite the same

More lies Yeah, yeah, more lies
America died, When Bush lied

And talk about mir'cles, did you see how they fell,
the three towers in New York, those charges worked well
Flattened out in a straight line, just like it was planned
Did you think we were so stupid that we wouldn't understand
And it's a pity about the folks there on Flight 93,
Just as they took back control, you blew them to smithereens

You lied, You lied
Heroes died, when Bush lied

You say Osama is living in a place you have traced
But you don't go and get him, it seems such a waste
Could it be it's because he's still one of your men
A C-I-A asset just like he was then
He endorsed your campaign in a last minute pitch
Is he just one more man who has gotten quite rich

From your lies, Your lies
Freedom died, from your lies

How about those Israelis dancing to their success,
On the rooftops of Jersey, they created a mess
So you sent them back home with a slap on the wrist
Told the cops not to bother, 'cause they don't exist

It's a lie, You lied
Justice died, when you lied

Now people are dying through your crimes in Iraq
You've killed more than Saddam, though you don't care to keep track
Cause they're only some Arabs in a faraway land
That Yahweh has promised to his chosen band
While Sharon and his cronies pull on your strings
When he opens his mouth your whole government sings

His lies, His lies
Palestinians die, With Bush lies

Next time you talk to your God, I've got a question for him
What side is he on or does it change on a whim'
There's a whole lot of people, suff'rin here in his name
What kind of pyscho is he that he's playing this game
It sounds more like the devil is guiding your hand
Destruction and death are the plagues of the land

of your lies, your lies
Children die, When Bush lies

You see, Mr President, there's something amiss
Two elections you lost, but you overcame this
By rigging the vote, not counting the blacks
You've ensured two full terms, the dry drunk is back
And now they're changing the laws to get you a third
The brown shirts are charging at the front of the herd

of your lies, your lies
Democracy dies, When Bush lies

The question remains what can we do about this
Most people refuse to consider this list
They're lost in illusion, can't recognise proof
so we offer this song to all who stand for the truth

No more lies, No more lies
Must we all die, Because of your lies

No more lies, No more lies
Must we all die, Because of your lies

Your lies...


Here's another you might have heard before which is just as significant:
Imagine
Written by: John Lennon

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one


Think about the it for a moment... no more lies, no more wars.

How much longer do we accept the world which has been set up for us? Get up and DO something to change the status quo. Take the world back from those who wish to control and enslave every single one of us.

For us, for our children, for mankind's future.

Technorati Categories: , , , , , , , , .

Friday, July 01, 2005

Listen to Molly

Molly Ivins has been around quite a while (30 years in journalism) commenting and writing about a variety of things. She has a no-nonsense, down-to-earth, yet piercing style of getting right to the heart of the matter. I've enjoyed reading her columns and would like to share a few with you...

On the recent Supreme Court decision to allow local governments to sieze private property for economic development:
Eminent development - Supreme Court sides with rich vs. poor
"Jobs, jobs, jobs," is the eternal cry of the economic development lobby, which always stands to profit from whatever abomination is about to be foisted on the public. I'm not arguing that bigger is better or worse, I'm arguing that local governments are likely to seize on any chance to increase their tax base. We've got places in Texas that beg for prisons, chemical complexes, even nuclear waste dumps.

What it doesn't mean is a better place to live, which I gather is what the Supreme Court majority had in mind with this decision. Those who naively trust local governments to make wise decisions clearly haven't been paying attention. The main difference between the feds and the locals is that it costs more to buy the feds. And I don't like cynics.

People have the most remarkable ability to convince themselves that what they are doing is for the greater good if they are also making a great deal of money out of it. Or, as Upton Sinclair put it, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

People excuse this kind of thing by saying, "You can't stop progress." "Progress" of this sort doesn't happen through some inexorable law, it usually happens because the law and the political system have been bought by huge economic interests. Corporations can file lawsuits and defend lawsuits longer than a normal human can live, and they can make more generous campaign contributions than any seven homeowners will ever be able to come up with.


On the Downing Street memo:
Dismissing Downing Street - Just because everyone knew it was a setup doesn't mean it's not news
The New York Times, The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times have all gone way out of their way to deny that the Downing Street Memos (it's now plural) are news. Like many of you, during the entire lead-up to the war with Iraq, I thought the whole thing was a set-up.

I raise this point not to prove how smart we are, but to emphasize that I followed the debate closely and probably unconsciously searched for evidence that reinforced what I already thought. Most people do that. I read some of the European press and most of the liberal publications in this country. I read the Times, the Post, the Wall Street Journal and several Texas papers every day. It's my job.

But when I read the first Downing Street Memo, my eyes bugged out and my jaw fell open. I could not believe what I was reading. It was news to me, and as I have tried to indicate, I'm no slouch at keeping up. Yes, it has long seemed to me the administration had been planning the war for months before it began its pubic relations campaign to scare a skeptical public.

That was no easy task. Public opinion was still evenly divided at the time we invaded. The administration actually said it could invade another country without even consulting Congress or the United Nations. Pretty much everything that followed was a charade.

It was always weird that the White House kept saying it knew Saddam Hussein had WMD, but it would never tell the U.N. inspectors where.

The very prestigious papers [New York Times, Washington Post and Los Angeles Times] that are now dismissing the Downing Street Memos have already themselves admitted that their pre-war coverage was -- I don't know, you pick the adjective. Slack? Inadequate? Less than rigorous? Wrong? And now they're saying, oh hell, this isn't news, we knew it all along.

Michael Kinsley out at the Los Angeles Times, which has certainly done some commendable reporting on this war and taken the heat for it, too, also dismisses the memos. I don't get it. You suddenly get evidence -- I don't know if it proves or just strongly suggests -- that this administration lied to all of us about war, and your reaction is not to go after the administration, but to dismiss the evidence? And to put down the people who are calling you screaming about why you haven't bothered to mention it? What is wrong with this picture?

Also aggravating, the Republicans in Congress refuse to allow hearings. Rep. John Conyers of Michigan held "Democratic hearings," without the R's, in a room described as a large closet, because they were not allowed to use an actual hearing room. Under these difficult circumstances, 30 Democratic representatives persisted in asking the important question, "Were Americans deliberately misled in the lead-up to this war?" When did we come to the point where the minority has no place?

I don't know if these memos represent an impeachable offense -- although I must say, I don't want to bring up the Clinton comparison again. But they strike me as a hell of lot worse than anything Richard Nixon ever contemplated.


On the Bush administration:
The definition of insanity - Bush appointments and comments clearly indicate he's not learning from his mistakes
Sometimes you look at the people Bush appoints to high public office and the only possible response is, "What were they thinking?"

Zalmay Khalilzad for U.S. ambassador to Iraq? Why not just send Richard Perle? Khalilzad is a second-rank neo-con with all the same credentials as the rest of those bozos -- pre-emptive war, world hegemony, Project for a New American Century... the whole stinking lot of it. Plus, he's been a big booster for Iran's ayatollahs, the Afghani Mujahideen and the Taliban, not to mention an oil company consultant. Isn't that just jim-dandy?

What this tells us is that the administration has learned exactly nothing from the past three years of insurgency in Iraq. The 1,700-dead, $1 billion-a-week mistake will continue to be run in exactly the same way we have already proved doesn't work.

It's like Ben Franklin's definition of insanity -- doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results.

As one who has long argued that George W. Bush is not stupid, I must admit that not learning from your mistakes is a prime signal of stupidity. But of course, in order to learn from your mistakes, you have to recognize you made them.


On business clout and influence in politics:
Turning up the sleaze - Welcome to the age of government by transaction
A jaw-dropping article in The Texas Observer shows that two lobbying clients of Jack Abramoff paid $25,000 to Grover Norquist's group for a lunch date and meeting with President George W. Bush in May 2001. Abramoff brought the Indian chiefs to the White house at the request of Norquist, a leading "movement conservative" in Washington. In addition, Abramoff obtained $2.5 million in contributions from the Indians for a nonprofit foundation run by his wife and himself.

The White House guests were the chiefs of two of the six casino-rich Indian tribes represented by Abramoff and his partner Michael Scanlon, former top aide to House Majority Whip Tom DeLay. The $25,000 check from the Coushatta tribe of Louisiana is made out to Americans for Tax Reform, an anti-tax group founded and directed by Norquist.

Norquist, Abramoff and Karl Rove have worked together for 30 years, since they were national leaders of the College Republicans. Norquist, DeLay and Abramoff are all key players in the "the K Street Project" to turn the Washington lobby corps into an arm of the Republican Party.

For an overview of the entire Abramoff scandal and its relation to Tom DeLay and the K Street Project -- and what all this means in terms of Washington sleaze -- see an article by Elizabeth Drew, "Selling Washington," in the June 23 issue of The New York Review of Books. Drew and other students of Washington corruption conclude what we have here is not so much a difference in kind as in degree of corruption -- but of a degree that's making a difference in everything.

Drew writes, "The effects of the new, higher level of corruption on the way the country is governed are profound. Not only is legislation increasingly skewed to benefit the richest interests, but Congress itself has been changed. The head of a public policy strategy group told me: 'It's not about governing any more. The Congress is now a transactional institution. ...' The theory that ours is a system of one-person, one-vote, or even that it's a representative democracy, is challenged by the reality of power and who really wields it. (Massachusetts Rep.) Barney Frank argues that 'the political system was supposed to overcome the financial advantage of the capitalists, but as money becomes more and more influential, it doesn't work that way.'"


Molly has lots of material which you should go give it a look. Go here for a list of her opinion columns.

Technorati Categories: , , .

Thursday, June 30, 2005

On Being Small and Powerful

Earlier this week I received my Surfrider Foundation monthly Making Waves issue and was struck by the simplicity and timeliness of the editorial.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Surfrider Foundation, I will just provide some excerpts from their Mission Statement and Foundation Principles page:



SURFRIDER recognizes the biodiversity and ecological integrity of the planet's coasts are necessary and irreplaceable. SURFRIDER is committed to preserving natural living and non-living diversity and ecological integrity of the coastal environment.

SURFRIDER believes environmental education is essential to the future health and well- being of the planet. SURFRIDER seeks to develop and utilize educational materials that are informative, factual, proactive, synergistic and fun.

SURFRIDER strives to be accurate and nonpartisan in its communications with its members and the general public. In addition, SURFRIDER will express the unique values inherent in wave-riding — individualism, camaraderie, non materialism, and an appreciation for human kind's historic relations with the Ocean.

SURFRIDER is a grassroots organization, effective through the participation of its members. SURFRIDER activities emphasize the value of an involved membership.

SURFRIDER will not permit sponsors to divert the Foundation from its mission or projects undertaken.

Anyone who has a love for the ocean or an appreciation for the preservation and protection of our natural resources, I encourage you visit the Surfrider website and assess whether their efforts to protect the world's oceans is worthy of your support.

Now, back to the editorial...

People have to come to terms with one fact of life. If one is unhappy / dissatisfied / uncomfortable / etc. with ones situation, is it ultimately up to the individual to analysze the situation and make a choice as to whether there should be any action taken to change the situation or accept it as what it is.

There are those who like to complain. Either they see a futility in the situation, because they feel there are no options for changing the situation, or it is a preferred method of getting attention from others.

There are those who expect others to take care of the situation for them. You know, taking care of something takes work! Some don't want to work. Maybe it's not about the work but about the responsibility they will assume. Taking action means taking responsibility.

There are those who refuse to acknowledge the situation in the first place. Either they are afraid of confirming the reality behind their situation or concerned about the ramifications of having acknowledged the situation at all.

There are many more reasons for not DOing anything about a situation which one knows is just not right. And many will live a life less than what it could POTENTIALLY BE.

Then, there are those who see this life as something meaningful. Life is made up of each individual moment, each decision, each action or inaction of every one of us on this planet.

From the editorial, for those who see life as an opportunity to grow individually and collectively:
Ever feel like you're not getting anywhere no matter how hard you try, or that everything is going wrong in the world? Well do not fret, for everything you do affects the whole, and it doesn't work proportionately. Just as a butterfly flapping its wings in one hemisphere can effect a hurricane in another, one sincere gesture on your end can have positive consequences of geometrical proportions. So don't ever give up.

So yes, as one individual changes, the entire system changes. You never know when you are going to be the tipping point.

I'm small and I know it and it's great news. Every time I stand at the water's edge and a wave races up and embraces my feet, it's a trip. I think one of the most tragic things of all is how we cheat ourselves of the present moment, of the small moment.


Make the small moments count.

Technorati Categories: , , , , , .

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

9/11 and the Holocaust: Emotional Ties that Obfuscate

Last night President Bush made references to the 9/11 terrorists five times during his 28-minute speech. The focus of the speech was Iraq. So, why the need to mention 9/11?
"The president's frequent references to the terrorist attacks of September 11 show the weakness of his arguments," House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said. "He is willing to exploit the sacred ground of 9/11, knowing that there is no connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq."
AP


The obvious answer is to remind the American people why it is necessary for America to continue its "defense of freedom" by fighting terrorism. But, this speech was about Iraq, not about terrorism.

Ever more obvious are the attempts by the Bush administration to link everything to terrorism. Last night's references to 9/11 were blatant emotional triggers meant to "remind" the American public of why the Bush administration goes after countries like Iraq.

In a similar vein, pro-Israeli policy advocates whip out the Holocaust, either directly or indirectly via cries of anti-semitism, to tug on the emotional strings, to remind the world why Israel must "protect" herself. Same song, different verse.

The Bush administration has taken a page right out of the book used in Israel's handling of the Palestinian people. Label your opponent a terrorist or associate your opponent with terrorist acts, whether factual or fabricated doesn't matter, so you can gain the emotional support of your citizens. There will be no peace in the Middle East.

Bottom line is that these are attempts to manipulate the logical analysis of the situation at hand by inserting references to emotionally-charged events clearly meant to obfuscate the issue under discussion. Unfortunately, the strategy appears to work quite well as most people can't seem to get past the emotion to see what is actually unfolding right in front of their eyes.

Technorati Categories: , , , , , , , , .

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Iraq War's Illegality and Immorality will not be Heard Tonight

Tonight, President Bush will address the American people from Fort Bragg, North Carolina (interesting selection of locale). The live speech will speak to the current Iraq situation, of course spun to minimize political damage. There will likely be mention of Iran and Syria to keep the public from forgetting why at some future date the US will most likely attack or support an attack by Israel. And, there will certainly be no mention of controversial, yet factual, news items.

Several "hot" items have come up in the world press although have received limited air time, if at all, by American media. I'm sure those who have been following the news from more objective news services and aggregators (American Free Press, AntiWar.com, Centre for Research on Globalization, Counter Punch, Information Clearing House, Signs of the Times, Truthout) will be listening closely to see how he dodges the key revelations and accusations.

Take a look at the most significant news items which have disappeared from the American media:


Mr. Bush will try to convince the American public of the moral basis and responsibility of America to "spread freedom and democracy", "defeat evil", "win the battle against terror", etc. Yet, for all the righteous spinning of the reasons, one fact will be indisputable: there has been more death and destruction in this war than all the terrorist acts combined.

The American public should instead spend their Tuesday night listening to the proceedings of the World Tribunal on Iraq (compilation of reports available here) or reading the Statement of Principles.

About WTI:
The World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) is a worldwide undertaking to reclaim justice. It aims to record the severe wrongs, crimes and violations that were committed in the process leading up to the aggression against Iraq, during the war and throughout the ensuing occupation, that continue to be widespread to this day. It is our intention to also record the social, political, environmental and cultural devastation. In the end, the evidence gathered and presented will serve as a historical record that breaks the web of lies promulgated by the war coalition and its embedded press.

WTI is a horizontal network of local groups and individuals worldwide that work together in a non- hierarchical system. The project consists of commissions of inquiry and sessions held around the world investigating various issues related to the war on Iraq, such as the legality of the war, the role of the United Nations, war crimes and the role of the media.

On June 23rd to the 27th 2005, at the start of the third year of the occupation of Iraq, the culminating session will take place in Istanbul. This session will reach a decision following an examination of the results of the previous sessions as well as new reports and testimonies, while evaluating the implications of the aggression against Iraq for the world at large.


Technorati Categories: , , , , .

Friday, June 24, 2005

China Viewed More Favorably than US

For most Americans, the belief that, to the rest of the world, the US has always been the model to which all other countries aspire has been ingrained since youth.

America... the land of the free, the home of the brave, where all is possible and achievable if you work hard. The image to the rest of the world exuded the commitment to fairness and equality, the fostering of the entrepreneural spirit, and reserved strength. The quiet, protective kid, possessive of an aura of respect, whom the bully on the block would not even mess with.

That was then. This is now.

What a shock it must be to learn that the America which used to be the envy of the rest of the world, the culture and success to which others would aspire to duplicate, is no longer the America in which we live.

We live in an America despised by a large part of the world for the military actions undertaken by the Bush administrations. An America viewed by the rest of the world as a staunch supporter, financial and political, of Israel and Israeli policy. This unwavering support of Israeli policy, regardless of the facts, may very well be the lit fuse to the powder keg which, when it explodes, will affect millions of people.

The proof of how the world views the US is in the result of a poll where China, even with well documented violations of human rights, is viewed more favorably than the US.

How can this be? Perhaps, the rest of the world, not so easily influenced and manipulated by American media (Fox, MSNBC, CNN, Washington Post, etc.) is forming a much more accurate opinion of today's America.

The poll was conducted by an American organization, the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, and surveyed public opinion in 16 countries, including the United States.
The United States' image is so tattered overseas two years after the Iraq invasion that communist China is viewed more favorably than the U.S. in many long-time Western European allies, an international poll has found.

The overseas image of the United States slipped sharply after the Iraq invasion in 2003, the Pew polling found, and it has not rebounded in Western European countries like Britain, France, Germany and Spain.CNN


Most people around the world can form an objective opinion of what has happenned to the America which was once highly-regarded. It all boils down to American policy.
The Iraq war remains the leading source of anti-American attitudes despite diplomatic efforts to counter that image.
Kyodo News


The poll, which was released Thursday, found suspicion and wariness of the United States in many countries where people question the war in Iraq and are growing wary of the U.S.-led war on terror.ABC News


Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Global Attitudes Project, said that 16,766 people in 16 nations were interviewed for the project's fourth international survey since 2002. He said America's image has slipped primarily because of the war in Iraq and has shown little sign of improving since it began, either in Europe or in Muslim nations.Toledo Blade


People in other countries who had unfavorable views of the United States were most likely to cite Bush as the reason rather than a general problem with America.

Madeleine Albright, the secretary of state when Bill Clinton was president, said big majorities of the public in these countries are discontented with Bush "and say Bush’s re-election has made them view the United States less favorably."MSNBC


People in most countries were more inclined to say the war in Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place. Non-U.S. residents who had unfavorable views of the United States were most likely to cite Bush as the reason rather than a general problem with America.CNN


Most can tell the difference between Americans and American policy. One crucial detail though which must be pointed out. If Americans allow the continuation of the policies which have collapsed the house of respect and admiration for America, the blame should lay solely on our shoulders. To not stand up and speak out in opposition to these belligerent policies is to accept the subsequent consequences.

Don't act surprised when the house that is America collapses. Many have tried to warn all occupants of the dangers, it is now up to the occupants to take whatever steps are necessary to salvage our house or prepare for its demise.


Technorati Categories: , , , .

Thursday, June 23, 2005

Who Really Owns Your Property?

In a landmark decision today, the Supreme Court ruled local governments could seize private property "for private economic development". That is, take an individual's home or business if the local government deems there is the potential for improvement to the local community by replacing your property with one that would provide an increase to the revenue base.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this type of action, seizure of an individual's property, primarily restricted to eminent domain decisions which focused on the public use of the area? Now, it appears the focus is on the increase of revenue, not on the direct benefit to the community.
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Never mind the price the affected individual will pay by losing a home, a business, a livelihood. Never mind the property may be the result of years of hard work, perhaps even land passed down from generation to generation.
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Connecticut, filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

So, in effect, the high court has supported, although in a split decision, the right of a developer over the right of a tax-paying, land-owner legally in possession of the affected property.

Justice O'Connor sums it up nicely:
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Once again, individual rights take a back seat to business interests and power brokers. Get used to it or do someting about it.
"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

Go Bill!

Technorati Categories: , , , , , .

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Papers, please...

We are getting closer to modern version of Nazi Germany.

The privacy afforded to American citizens prior to the events of 9/11, leading up to the "War on Terror", is all but gone. One layer of privacy taken away at a time, all the while the media and the majority of Americans sit idly.

Patriot Act, Total Information Awareness, No-Fly Lists, Patriot Act II, and now a National ID.

Yesterday, the US Senate approved an "emergency" military spending package containing an unpublicized line item called the Real ID Act. The Real ID Act will require a federally approved ID card for travel, opening a bank account, any activity involving the federal government, to name a few.

Primarily pushed by the Bush administration as a means to prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining drivers licenses, it actually affects ALL Americans.

Here's the reasoning behind the Act, directly from the mouth of it's sponsor, Republican James Sensenbrenner:
Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican and Real ID Act sponsor, applauded the Senate vote on Tuesday. "The Real ID is vital to preventing foreign terrorists from hiding in plain sight while conducting their operations and planning attacks," Sensenbrenner said. "By targeting terrorist travel, the Real ID will assist in our war-on-terror efforts to disrupt terrorist operations and help secure our borders."


There are those damn terrorists again! Am I one of the few who realizes how this entire blame-the-terrorists-in-order-to-apply-further-controls-on-American-citizens game is being played out? I sure hope not.

Notice that Representative Sensenbrenner's reason for the Act contradicts what that of the Bush administration which states the Act was primarly to address illegal immigration. I guess it doesn't matter, illegal immigrants, terrorists, take your pick... just don't point out that the target of the investigations should be the Israeli infiltration of the American political system and the compromise of national security at the hands of Israeli spy rings.

You can find answers to FAQs about the Real ID Act here. Here are a few of the highlights (or, more appropriately, lowlights):

  • Starting three years from now, if you live or work in the United States, you'll need a federally approved ID card to travel on an airplane, open a bank account, collect Social Security payments, or take advantage of nearly any government service.

  • At a minimum: name, birth date, sex, ID number, a digital photograph, address, and a "common machine-readable technology" that Homeland Security will decide on [will be stored on the ID card].

  • The card must also sport "physical security features designed to prevent tampering, counterfeiting, or duplication of the document for fraudulent purposes."

  • Homeland Security is permitted to add additional requirements--such as a fingerprint or retinal scan--on top of those.

  • In exchange for federal cash, states must agree to link up their databases.



Below are some comments from Representative Ron Paul from Texas, one of the more vocal opponents to not only this legislation, but other pieces of legislation that have resulted in an erosion of civil liberties and individual rights:
Terrorism is the excuse given for virtually every new power grab by the federal government, and the national ID is no exception. But federal agencies have tried to create a national ID for years, long before the 9-11 attacks. In fact, a 1996 bill sought to do exactly what the REAL ID Act does: transform state drivers’ licenses into de facto national ID cards. At the time, Congress was flooded with calls by angry constituents and the bill ultimately died.

Proponents of the REAL ID Act continue to make the preposterous claim that the bill does not establish a national ID card. This is dangerous and insulting nonsense. Let’s get the facts straight: The REAL ID Act transforms state motor vehicle departments into agents of the federal government. Nationalizing standards for driver's licenses and birth certificates in a federal bill creates a national ID system, pure and simple. Having the name of your particular state on the ID is meaningless window dressing.

Federally imposed standards for drivers' license and birth certificates make a mockery of federalism and the 10th amendment. While states technically are not forced to accept the federal standards, any refusal to comply would mean their residents could not get a job, receive Social Security, or travel by plane. So rather than imposing a direct mandate on the states, the federal government is blackmailing them into complying with federal dictates.

One overriding point has been forgotten: Criminals don’t obey laws! As with gun control, national ID cards will only affect law-abiding citizens. Do we really believe a terrorist bent on murder is going to dutifully obtain a federal ID card? Do we believe that people who openly flout our immigration laws will nonetheless respect our ID requirements? Any ID card can be forged; any federal agency or state DMV is susceptible to corruption. Criminals can and will obtain national ID cards, or operate without them. National ID cards will be used to track the law-abiding masses, not criminals.


Everyone should be paying close attention to this! Yet, I find no mention of this Act anywhere in mainstream media!

Here are some pieces out of Representative Ron Paul's speech before the House of Representatives in February 2005:
I rise in strong opposition to HR 418, the REAL ID Act. This bill purports to make us safer from terrorists who may sneak into the United States, and from other illegal immigrants. While I agree that these issues are of vital importance, this bill will do very little to make us more secure. It will not address our real vulnerabilities. It will, however, make us much less free. In reality, this bill is a Trojan horse. It pretends to offer desperately needed border control in order to stampede Americans into sacrificing what is uniquely American: our constitutionally protected liberty.

The REAL ID Act establishes a national ID card by mandating that states include certain minimum identification standards on driver’s licenses. It contains no limits on the government’s power to impose additional standards. Indeed, it gives authority to the Secretary of Homeland Security to unilaterally add requirements as he sees fit.

Supporters claim it is not a national ID because it is voluntary. However, any state that opts out will automatically make non-persons out of its citizens. The citizens of that state will be unable to have any dealings with the federal government because their ID will not be accepted. They will not be able to fly or to take a train. In essence, in the eyes of the federal government they will cease to exist. It is absurd to call this voluntary.

This bill could have a chilling effect on the exercise of our constitutionally guaranteed rights. It re-defines "terrorism" in broad new terms that could well include members of firearms rights and anti-abortion groups, or other such groups as determined by whoever is in power at the time. There are no prohibitions against including such information in the database as information about a person’s exercise of First Amendment rights or about a person’s appearance on a registry of firearms owners.

What will all of this mean for us? When this new program is implemented, every time we are required to show our driver’s license we will, in fact, be showing a national identification card. We will be handing over a card that includes our personal and likely biometric information, information which is connected to a national and international database.

H.R. 418 does nothing to solve the growing threat to national security posed by people who are already in the U.S. illegally. Instead, H.R. 418 states what we already know: that certain people here illegally are "deportable." But it does nothing to mandate deportation.

Although Congress funded an additional 2,000 border guards last year, the administration has announced that it will only ask for an additional 210 guards. Why are we not pursuing these avenues as a way of safeguarding our country? Why are we punishing Americans by taking away their freedoms instead of making life more difficult for those who would enter our country illegally?

H.R. 418 does what legislation restricting firearm ownership does. It punishes law-abiding citizens. Criminals will ignore it. H.R. 418 offers us a false sense of greater security at the cost of taking a gigantic step toward making America a police state.


Read it and weep. America, in the not too distant future, will no longer be the land of the free. In order to be truly free, one will have to leave or become an outcast, not living by the rules imposed upon the masses.

I'll finish with a couple of comments from an opinion article I read a while back on the Cassiopaea web site. The title of the article is "America - Who is Responsible?".
Each of us finds ourselves in the position we are in, not as a result of some cruel twist of fate or the "hand of god" but rather as a result of who we are and what we see.

There seems to exist a strong desire (natural or otherwise) within human beings in general to avoid taking responsibility for their actions and their resulting life situation. It could be said that if people were to apply the same, (often considerable) skill for finding something else to point the finger at for their own troubled life situation, to accepting responsibility for and resolving their issues, the world and the people that inhabit it would likely be much happier.

Today, with the wealth of facts and evidence available, many Americans must surely be feeling extreme discomfort as they are forced to resort to increasingly illogical and irrational explanations to allow them to hold on to the idea that they are living in a democracy or that their "elected leaders" are working in their best interests. At some point it becomes too much, and as the mind weighs up the enormous size of that square peg and the pinprick size of the round hole the realisation dawns that it can simply no longer be done.

With all the proof that those in power are making decisions which are definitely NOT in our best interest, why is it that no one is doing anything to prevent the downward slide from continuing?
For a long time we have been able to convince ourselves that our view of the world and our place in it was viable, basically because to some extent, up to now, things were more "open", the future was perhaps more "open" and we could allow ourselves the luxury of "maybe".

No longer it seems.

Denial of the objective reality of this will get us nowhere, leading only to either depression as we, in vain, attempt to shut out the truth staring us in the face; or anger as we subconsciously realise that our sacred cows are ultimately bound for the slaughterhouse anyway. Indeed, it seems that depression and/or anger is the overriding emotion pervading many America cities these days.

The truth, it seems, is that "lock down" is in operation, things are being steered in a very definite direction, and those at the wheel are not really trying very hard anymore to hide the destination.

There exists, however, an opportunity for us all to do something about this decidedly negative situation in which we find ourselves. It has only been by our acceptance of, and support for, this illusory worldview our leaders have presented to us, that they have been able to bring the world to the brink of disaster upon which it now sits.

All of life serves knowledge. Simply by being alive we are learning. It is our choice to seek to learn either Truth, that which IS, or to attempt to force the "truth" to conform to the limited simplistic, beliefs foisted upon us by those men that would have all of reality reflect their own twisted imaginings.


The time will come to decide for those who "see"... serve truth or serve another.

Technorati Categories: , , , , ,

Friday, May 06, 2005

Odigo 9/11 Announcement and Israeli Spy Ring Investigation Coincidence?

In an article from today's Haaretz, "Odigo says workers were warned of attack", comes the admission from the company's CEO that two employees received messages warning of an attack at the World Trade Center.

This same information was reported by the Washington Post and discounted as conspiracy theorist material at the time. Yet, here we are, almost 4 years later and NOW the admission is made.
Micha Macover, CEO of the company, said the two workers received the messages and immediately after the terror attack informed the company's management, which immediately contacted the Israeli security services, which brought in the FBI.


So the FBI is notified. Then, Obido provides information after the event which could be used to identify the source of the messages, but what ever came of the investigation?
Odigo usually zealously protects the privacy of its registered users, said Macover, but in this case the company took the initiative to provide the law enforcement services with the originating Internet Presence address of the message, so the FBI could track down the Internet Service Provider, and the actual sender of the original message.


What gives?

Why is it that such an admission comes so late after the event?

Why is it getting publicity now?

Could it be to create some headlines to distract from the brewing scandal of Israeli Spy Rings embedded and working within the US for decades?
1947. Information collected by the ADL in its spy operations on US citizens is used by the House Select Committee on Unamerican Activities. Subcommittee Chair Clare Hoffman dismisses the ADL’s reports on suspected communists as “hearsay."

1950 John Davitt, former chief of the Justice Department's internal security section notes that the Israeli intelligence service is the second most active in the United States after the Soviets.

1954 A hidden microphone planted by the Israelis is discovered in the Office of the US Ambassador in Tel Aviv.

1956 Telephone taps are found connected to two telephones in the residence of the US military attaché in Tel Aviv.

1954 "The Lavon Affair". Israeli agents recruit Egyptian citizens of Jewish descent to bomb Western targets in Egypt, and plant evidence to frame Arabs, in an apparent attempt to upset US-Egyptian relations. Israeli defense minister Pinchas Lavon is eventually removed from office, though many think real responsibility lay with David Ben-Gurion.

1965 Israel apparently illegally obtains enriched uranium from NUMEC Corporation. (Washington Post, 6/5/86, Charles R. Babcock, "US an Intelligence Target of the Israelis, Officials Say.")

1967 Israel attacks the USS Liberty, an intelligence gathering vessel flying a US flag, killing 34 crew members. See "Assault on the Liberty," by James M. Ennes, Jr. (Random House). In 2004, Captain Ward Boston, Senior Legal Counsel for the Navy’s Court of Inquiry into the attack swears under oath that President Lyndon Johnson ordered the investigation to conclude accident, even though the evidence indicates the attack was deliberate. Given the use by Israel of unmarked boats and planes, and the machine-gunning of USS Liberty’s lifeboats, the most likely explanation is that USS Liberty was to be sunk with all hands, with evidence left to frame Egypt for the sinking. This would have dragged the US into the war on Israel’s side.

1970 While working for Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, Richard Perle is caught by the FBI giving classified information to Israel. Nothing is done.

1978, Stephen Bryen, then a Senate Foreign Relations Committee staffer, is overheard in a DC hotel offering confidential documents to top Israeli military officials. Bryen obtains a lawyer, Nathan Lewin, and the case heads for the grand jury, but is mysteriously dropped. Bryen later goes to work for Richard Perle.

1979 Shin Beth [the Israeli internal security agency] tries to penetrate the US Consulate General in Jerusalem through a “Honey Trap”, using a clerical employee who was having an affair with a Jerusalem girl.

1985 The New York Times reports the FBI is aware of at least a dozen incidents in which American officials transferred classified information to the Israelis, quoting [former Assistant Director of the F.B.I.] Mr. [Raymond] Wannal. The Justice Department does not prosecute.

1985 Richard Smyth, the owner of MILCO, is indicted on charges of smuggling nuclear timing devices to Israel (Washington Post, 10/31/86).

1987 April 24 Wall Street Journal headline: "Role of Israel in Iran-Contra Scandal Won't be Explored in Detail by Panels"

1992 The Wall Street Journal reports that Israeli agents apparently tried to steal Recon Optical Inc's top-secret airborne spy-camera system.

1992 Stephen Bryen, caught offering confidential documents to Israel in 1978, is serving on board of the pro-Israeli Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs while continuing as a paid consultant -- with security clearance -- on exports of sensitive US technology.

1992 "The Samson Option," by Seymour M. Hersh reports, “Illicitly obtained intelligence was flying so voluminously from LAKAM into Israeli intelligence that a special code name, JUMBO, was added to the security markings already on the documents. There were strict orders, Ari Ben-Menashe recalled: "Anything marked JUMBO was not supposed to be discussed with your American counterparts."

1993. The ADL is caught operating a massive spying operation on critics of Israel, Arab-Americans, the San Francisco Labor Council, ILWU Local 10, Oakland Educational Association, NAACP, Irish Northern Aid, International Indian Treaty Council, the Asian Law Caucus and the San Francisco police. Data collected was sent to Israel and in some cases to South Africa. Pressure from Jewish organizations forces the city to drop the criminal case, but the ADL settles a civil lawsuit for an undisclosed sum of cash.

1995 The Defense Investigative Service circulates a memo warning US military contractors that "Israel aggressively collects [US] military and industrial technology." The report stated that Israel obtains information using "ethnic targeting, financial aggrandizement, and identification and exploitation of individual frailties" of US citizens.

1996 A General Accounting Office report "Defense Industrial Security: Weaknesses in US Security Arrangements With Foreign-Owned Defense Contractors" found that according to intelligence sources "Country A" (identified by intelligence sources as Israel, Washington Times, 2/22/96) "conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any US ally." The Jerusalem Post (8/30/96) quoted the report, "Classified military information and sensitive military technologies are high-priority targets for the intelligence agencies of this country." The report described "An espionage operation run by the intelligence organization responsible for collecting scientific and technologic information for [Israel] paid a US government employee to obtain US classified military intelligence documents." The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (Shawn L. Twing, April 1996) noted that this was "a reference to the 1985 arrest of Jonathan Pollard, a civilian US naval intelligence analyst who provided Israel's LAKAM [Office of Special Tasks] espionage agency an estimated 800,000 pages of classified US intelligence information."

The GAO report also noted that "Several citizens of [Israel] were caught in the United States stealing sensitive technology used in manufacturing artillery gun tubes."

1996 An Office of Naval Intelligence document, "Worldwide Challenges to Naval Strike Warfare" reported that "US technology has been acquired [by China] through Israel in the form of the Lavi fighter and possibly SAM [surface-to-air] missile technology." Jane's Defense Weekly (2/28/96) noted that "until now, the intelligence community has not openly confirmed the transfer of US technology [via Israel] to China." The report noted that this "represents a dramatic step forward for Chinese military aviation." (Flight International, 3/13/96)

1997 An Army mechanical engineer, David A. Tenenbaum, "inadvertently" gives classified military information on missile systems and armored vehicles to Israeli officials (New York Times, 2/20/97).

1997 The Washington Post reports US intelligence has intercepted a conversation in which two Israeli officials had discussed the possibility of getting a confidential letter that then-Secretary of State Warren Christopher had written to Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat. One of the Israelis, identified only as “Dov”, had commented that they may get the letter from "Mega”, the code name for Israel’s top agent inside the United States.

1997 US ambassador to Israel, Martin Indyk, complains privately to the Israeli government about heavy-handed surveillance by Israeli intelligence agents.

1997 Israeli agents place a tap on Monica Lewinsky’s phone at the Watergate and record phone sex sessions between her and President Bill Clinton. The Ken Starr report confirms that Clinton warned Lewinsky their conversations were being taped and ended the affair. At the same time, the FBI’s hunt for “Mega” is called off.

2001 It is discovered that US drug agents’ communications have been penetrated. Suspicion falls on two companies, AMDOCS and Comverse Infosys, both owned by Israelis. AMDOCS generates billing data for most US phone companies and is able to provide detailed logs of who is talking to whom. Comverse Infosys builds the tapping equipment used by law enforcement to eavesdrop on all American telephone calls, but suspicion forms that Comverse, which gets half of its research and development budget from the Israeli government, has built a back door into the system that is being exploited by Israeli intelligence and that the information gleaned on US drug interdiction efforts is finding its way to drug smugglers. The investigation by the FBI leads to the exposure of the largest foreign spy ring ever uncovered inside the United States, operated by Israel. Half of the suspected spies have been arrested when 9-11 happens. On 9-11, 5 Israelis are arrested for dancing and cheering while the World Trade Towers collapse. Supposedly employed by Urban Moving Systems, the Israelis are caught with multiple passports and a lot of cash. Two of them are later revealed to be Mossad. As witness reports track the activity of the Israelis, it emerges that they were seen at Liberty Park at the time of the first impact, suggesting a foreknowledge of what was to come. The Israelis are interrogated, and then eventually sent back to Israel. The owner of the moving company used as a cover by the Mossad agents abandons his business and flees to Israel. The United States Government then classifies all of the evidence related to the Israeli agents and their connections to 9-11. All of this is reported to the public via a four part story on Fox News by Carl Cameron. Pressure from Jewish groups, primarily AIPAC, forces Fox News to remove the story from their website. Two hours prior to the 9-11 attacks, Odigo, an Israeli company with offices just a few blocks from the World Trade Towers, receives an advance warning via the internet. The manager of the New York Office provides the FBI with the IP address of the sender of the message, but the FBI does not follow up.

2001 The FBI is investigating 5 Israeli moving companies as possible fronts for Israeli intelligence.

2001 JDL’s Irv Rubin arrested for planning to bomb a US Congressman. He dies before he can be brought to trial.

2002 The DEA issues a report that Israeli spies, posing as art students, have been trying to penetrate US Government offices.

2002 police near the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station in southern Washington State stop a suspicious truck and detain two Israelis, one of whom is illegally in the United States. The two men were driving at high speed in a Ryder rental truck, which they claimed had been used to "deliver furniture." The next day, police discovered traces of TNT and RDX military-grade plastic explosives inside the passenger cabin and on the steering wheel of the vehicle. The FBI then announces that the tests that showed explosives were “false positived” by cigarette smoke, a claim test experts say is ridiculous. Based on an alibi provided by a woman, the case is closed and the Israelis are handed over to INS to be sent back to Israel. One week later, the woman who provided the alibi vanishes.

2003 The Police Chief of Cloudcroft stops a truck speeding through a school zone. The drivers turn out to be Israelis with expired passports. Claiming to be movers, the truck contains junk furniture and several boxes. The Israelis are handed over to immigration. The contents of the boxers are not revealed to the public.

2003 Israel deploys assassination squads into other countries, including the United States. The US Government does not protest.

2004 Police near the Nuclear Fuel Services plant in Tennessee stop a truck after a three mile chase, during which the driver throws a bottle containing a strange liquid from the cab. The drivers turn out to be Israelis using fake Ids. The FBI refuses to investigate and the Israelis are released.

2004 Two Israelis try to enter Kings Bay Naval Submarine Base, home to eight Trident submarines. The truck tests positive for explosives.
(Read entire article here)


Could it be to preempt some pending announcements to mitigate the impact on certain Israeli organizations somehow involved, directly or indirectly, with fore-knowledge of the WTC attacks?

Once again, I have to refer you to another great analysis of putting all the pieces together by the folks at Signs of the Times. Go here to read the assembly of articles and commentary.


Technorati Categories: , , , , ,

Thursday, May 05, 2005

Control the Media, Part II

As if it's not enough that the media is directed on what to say/print and what not to, when an item is reported, the information goes unchallenged and is presented as reliable and factual.

Here's an example of how damaging information, in this case compromising the credibility of the Bush administration's Iraq message, gets coverage outside the US, yet no coverage in major news outlets within the US.

The Pentagon publishes a report on the findings of the "accidental" killing of Italian secret agent Nicola Calipari and wounding of kidnapped journalist Giuliana Sgrena in Baghdad. Several areas are blacked-out electronically. Then someone finds that by selecting the entire text of the document, copying, and pasting into another document one can actually read the blacked-out portions.

Contained withtin the document is some disturbing information about the number of attacks on US forces in Iraq. And, so far today, none of this has made the main media outlets. There is still news about the Italian dispute with the results of the findings, but nothing about how the stability and progress in Iraq is not as positive as has been reported by the administration or the media.

From an article in Asia Times Online:
The uncensored Pentagon report at least allows the international public to know that there were no less than 15,527 attacks on the occupation forces from July 2004 to March 2005. In Baghdad alone, from November to March 12, there were 2,404 attacks. These numbers confirm that when US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his minions spin that the situation in Iraq is under control they are essentially lying. In the three months since the Iraqi elections there may have been fewer American casualties, but there were countless more assassination attempts against the so-called Iraqi security forces, all of them based on precise intelligence. Every day, there are at least 20 bomb attacks in Baghdad alone, and at least 60 throughout Iraq.


I guess if the American public never sees it in the major US outlets (e.g. CNN, Fox, USA Today, MSNBC, etc.), it must not be happening. If Americans continue to stick their collective heads in the sand, by not looking beyond the selective and biased "news" reported on American outlets, they will only have themselves to blame when the rest of the world responds.

Turn to objective, independent sources for news:


Technorati Categories: , , , , ,