Jump to content
The Education Forum

Steven Gaal

Members
  • Posts

    4,661
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Steven Gaal

  1. As for the rest that's another thing we've over, over and over again. There was no indication any planes had been hijacked anywhere near Florida, nor is it clear where Bush would have been safer. // Colby

    =========

    from POST JUST ABOVE +

    An administration official claimed, “The object seemed to be simply to get the President airborne and out of the way.” [Telegraph, 12/16/01] But without fighter cover this makes little sense, because the sky was arguably more dangerous than the ground. At the time, there were still over 3,000 planes in the air over the US [USA Today, 8/13/02 (B)], including about half of the planes in the region of Florida where Bush was. [St. Petersburg Times, 9/7/02] Recall, too, that the Secret Service learned of a threat to Bush and Air Force One “just minutes after Bush left Booker Elementary.” Karl Rove, also on Air Force One, confirmed that a dangerous threat was known before the plane took off: “They also made it clear they wanted to get us up quickly, and they wanted to get us to a high altitude, because there had been a specific threat made to Air Force One…. A declaration that Air Force One was a target, and said in a way that they called it credible.” [New Yorker, 10/1/01]

  2. Get back to us with real science indicating Gardasil does more harm than good.

    What exactly does this have to do with the JREF 9/11 forums?

    Skeptics love vaccination !! Skeptics act like bigpharma hacks !!

    #######

    Dunning was a speaker at JREF's annual Amazing Meeting 2012 (Gaal)

    =

    Leading Skeptic Brian Dunning Sentenced to 15 Months Prison for Fraud

    Posted by Greg at 15:01, 07 Aug 2014

    dunning.jpg

    Leading skeptic Brian Dunning, of the popular Skeptoid podcast, has this week been sentenced to 15 months in a Federal prison for defrauding eBay of hundreds of thousands of dollars. His incarceration will begin on September 2.

    Dunning has now posted 'a message' about his conviction and sentencing on his website, a move which some skeptics have applauded as taking ownership of his crime, while others aren't as impressed. While I really don't care to get too deep into this affair, I'd have to side with the latter. In particular, unless there are more details I'm not party to, Dunning's description of how he earned his riches (through his company Kessler's Flying Circus, or KFC) seems rather misleading:

    [W]e developed a pair of useful widgets: ProfileMaps, that showed a map of visitors to your MySpace page; and WhoLinked, a WordPress plugin that showed who has linked to your blog. These both included an eBay advertisement. Amazingly these both went viral, and through 2006 and 2007 our ads drove enough new customers to eBay US to earn KFC about $5.3 million dollars. Keep in mind that was the company's gross revenue; we had overhead and employees and costs like every other company. I was the second highest paid employee, and I did earn over a million dollars personally over 2006 and 2007 before taxes. [my emphasis]

    The original indictment describes the crime, involving 'cookie-stuffing', in a very different way:

    [T]he defendant provided free applications at two of his websites that users could download and use on their own websites: "ProfileMaps.info," which showed the physical location of visitors to a MySpace profile, and "WhoLinked.com," which showed who was linking to the user's website or blog. Any visitor to those websites could download either or both applications. Both applications included code that operated as follows: when a user visited a website that had installed the Profilemaps or Wholinked applications, the code would cause the user unknowingly to receive an eBay and/or CJ cooke with KFC's Affiliate ID without the user having clicked on an eBay ad or link, without the user knowing that his or her browser had been re-directed to the eBay and/or CJ affiliate tracking server, and without the user seeing any content of an eBay site. As a result, KFC would be paid if that user subsequently conducted an eBay revenue action within a certain period of time. [my emphasis)

    I was also a little...skeptical...about Dunning's final words, in which he says though he regrets "this stain", he will "own it". From what I have seen, apart from this 'message' that some others have linked to on social media, Dunning has assiduously avoided taking ownership...his Twitter feed does not mention his sentencing or link to the message, neither does his Facebook page. There is no link to the message, or mention of his conviction/sentencing, on the front page of his own website. And perhaps worst of all, there seems to be absolutely no mention of it anywhere on the Skeptoid site - a venture which regularly asks for financial donations from listeners (the most recent being an August 1 podcast release titled 'Listeners Have Another Say'). Top left of the site does feature a link to 'Support Skeptoid' though.

    In fact, Dunning's done such a good job of 'owning it' that today, while browsing various skeptical websites discussing this topic, I've seen a number of comments posted by Skeptoid supporters who were totally unaware of not only his prison sentence, but the conviction (which was recorded more than a year ago) [update: an example here].

    But it's not really my concern - I leave it to the real skeptics to dissect the case in more detail.

    [update: Skepchick have done a very good job of exactly that in this blog-post - it pretty much touches on everything I was thinking]

    Related:

    World Trade Center 7: The Lies Come Crashing Down - Skeptoid

    9/11 | Skeptoid

    Tag Archives: 9/11. Why I Left Joe Rogan on My List of Celebrities Promoting

    Pseudoscience. Posted on February 5, 2014 by Brian Dunning. On January 14 ...

    =========================================

    Why I Left Joe Rogan on My List of Celebrities Promoting ... - Skeptoidskeptoid.com/blog/2014/02/05/joe-rogan/

    911CT Debunking Podcast? - International Skeptics Forum

    www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156666
    Is there a topic-specific podcast on debunking 911CT's? .... Brian Dunning's work

    is also an excellent, comprehensive source for all types of ...

  3. By Jessica @Gianelloni Family: Life As We Know It

    I remember the day I found out about “The Gardasil Girls.” It’s a website set up by the parents of thousands of girls who have been injured or killed by the Gardasil vaccine. This was a vaccine that was fast tracked to market, brilliantly marketed, never properly tested for safety, and has remained on the market despite killing and injuring thousands of girls. It has already been taken off the market in many other countries, but not in the United States. It is currently pushed on every young girl starting at the age of 9 years old, for a cervical cancer that the vaccine has no way of protecting against. A train wreck of one vaccine injury case after another. Never discussed in mainstream media. And still pushed on young girls by every well-meaning doctor.

    I spend my days talking to parents of vaccine injured children. There is not a day that goes by that I don’t receive a message or phone call about another child who was injured by vaccines. Autism, SIDS, Asthma, Allergies, Diabetes, Ulcerative Colitis, Autoimmune Disorders, Neurological disorders, Seizure disorders, Behavioral Disorders. Vaccinated kids with whooping cough, croup, RSV. Constant ear infections, rounds and rounds of antibiotics, tubes, pneumonia, sinus infections, upper respiratory infections, strep infections, constipation, bloody stools, chronic diarrhea, the list goes on & on.

    I wrote a post recently titled: Is This The Best We Can Offer? You can read the full post (HERE). In this article I share how for the first time in U.S. history, children’s life expectancies may be shorter than their parents. Despite the rapidly growing vaccination schedule, American children are more chronically ill and disabled than ever.

    The following quotes come from Chapter 12 “Pediatrics: Sick is the New Healthy”, from the book “Vaccine Epidemic:”

    “Children in the United States today have much higher rates of asthma, autism, diabetes, Crohn’s disease, epilepsy, life-threatening food allergies, obesity, ADHD, learning and behavioral disorders, and suicide than kids did in the 1980’s,
    when fewer vaccines were given”.

    The current CDC Recommended Schedule gives 70 doses of 16 vaccines by age 18.

    “What if it were true that the way we now vaccinate children causes more death, chronic disease, and disability than it prevents in America?”

    I think it’s time that we start paying more attention to vaccine injury stories. Unfortunately, they are only growing in number. I’m doing a series on my blog called “Lioness Arising Mothers“, where I shared personal stories written by mothers of vaccine-injured children. Their stories are heart wrenching and awe inspiring. I encourage you to read their stories.

    A false polarity is perpetuated that positions deaths and injuries from disease as somehow more tragic than deaths and injuries from vaccines. These are equal tragedies. No child deserves to be written off as collateral damage in the war on disease
    .” -Nancy Hokkanen

  4. Christmas in America: Growing Poverty, Unemployment and Homelessness in the World’s Richest Country

    Poverty is a growth industry. So is human misery. America is banana republicanized. Unfit to live in for growing millions.

    Democracy is pure fantasy. A facade masking New World Order harshness. Monied interests run things. Class war rages.

    Inside the bubble it’s paradise. Outside it’s dystopian hell. America is venal. Corrupted. Depraved. Degenerate. Too broken to fix.

    “The foul stench of corruption and hypocrisy that emanates from Washington is the smell of a dying country,” says Paul Craig Roberts.

    Good tidings and cheer at Christmas and throughout the year are for America’s privileged alone. No joy to the world for most others.



    Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/#ixzz3N0YtPqSr
  5. Ya vol commandant Colby ve understand, ve villt ignore the information below.......we only believe the official report, YA vole !! Long live the exceptionalist Fatherland !!

    =

    Caleh Maupin

    You know, on September 11th 1973 there was a coup d'état, in which the people of Chile had their democratic government overthrown. Twenty thousand people were murdered by Pinochet, a US-backed thug but no one ever talks about that … and there is countless other examples of US aggression abroad but that never is allowed to be part of the narrative, especially not today.

    There is no parade commemorating the victims, or the millions of the people the US has slaughtered around the world, there is no parade commemorating the people of Vietnam or the people of Korea or the people in Latin America who have been killed by US’ Contras.

    ==========================================================

    see http://www.historyco...ykhalidandnawaf

    Who Knew About the Meeting, and What Did They Do About It?

    After the Kuala Lumpur meeting, the CIA was in possession of a substantial amount of incriminating evidence concerning the two future 9/11 hijackers. The CIA knew that Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi had ties to Osama bin Laden because they both had attended what the CIA considered “to be a gathering of al-Qaeda agents.” [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02] And, as mentioned above, the agency was aware that Khalid Almihdhar “held a US B-1/B-2 multiple-entry visa” and had made his travel arrangements to Malaysia through a Yemeni organization considered by the CIA to be a “logistical center” for al-Qaeda.

    As the CIA later admitted, they should have put the names of Almihdhar and Alhazmi on a watch list at this time. The watch list, a database known as TIPOFF, currently consists of over 80,000 names, with about 2,000 new names being added every month. [Los Angeles Times, 9/22/02] Regulations require that the list is checked for visa applications or whenever someone enters or leaves the US (note that it is not checked for domestic flights). Officials are liable to be subject to criminal penalties if they fail to consult TIPOFF when required. The Congressional inquiry noted that “the threshold for adding a name to TIPOFF is low,” explaining that even a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is connected with a terrorist group, warrants the addition of the person’s name to the database. [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02] Why were Almihdhar and Alhazmi, whose names were reportedly important enough to have been mentioned to the CIA Director several times that January [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02], not added to the watch list?

    National Security Agency (NSA) Director Michael Hayden later claimed, “In early 2000, at the time of the meeting in Kuala Lumpur, we had the Alhazmi brothers, Nawaf and Salem, as well as Khalid Almihdhar, in our sights. We knew of their association with al-Qaeda, and we shared this information with the [intelligence] community. I’ve looked at this closely.” [NSA Director Congressional Testimony, 10/17/02] However, according to a Congressional inquiry report, the NSA did not share this information with other US intelligence agencies even though “it was in the NSAs database.” Nor did the NSA itself submit the names to the TIPOFF database. [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02, AP, 9/26/2002]

    The big question mark however lies with the FBI, who claims it was left out of the loop by the CIA. Eleanor Hill, Staff Director of the Congressional investigation into 9/11, reported: “A CIA communication in early January 2000 states that Almihdhar’s travel documents, including his multiple entry visa for the United States, were shared with the FBI for further investigation. No one at the FBI recalls having received such documents at the time. No confirmatory record of the transmittal of the travel documents has yet been located at either the CIA or the FBI.” There are details about e-mails by a CIA employee while the Malaysian meeting was still in progress claiming that he briefed two FBI agents about Almihdhar. But even if this in fact happened, the agent does not recall telling the FBI about Almihdhar’s multiple-entry visa. [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02]

    That the FBI was not provided with this information is significant because, had this intelligence been shared, it is very likely that the FBI would have added the two Saudis to the TIPOFF database.

    ====================

    On to Southern California

    On January 8, 2000, Alhazmi and Almihdhar flew from Malaysia seated together and on the same airplane as Khallad bin Atash, an important al-Qaeda terrorist. Presumably they flew to Thailand. The CIA learned this the next day, but did nothing with the information, and failed to follow them. [New York Times, 10/17/02, Congressional Intelligence Committee, 10/17/02]

    On January 15, Alhazmi and Almihdhar flew from Bangkok, Thailand, to Los Angeles, California. [MSNBC, 12/11/01] According to Newsweek, the CIA tracked the flight into the US, but was aware only of Alhazmi being on the plane, not Almihdhar. But given their knowledge of the latter’s multiple-entry US visa, the agency must have conjectured that it was certainly possible that Almihdhar might also travel to the country. Yet, as the magazine noted, “astonishingly, the CIA did nothing with this information. Agency officials didn’t tell the INS, which could have turned them away at the border, nor did they notify the FBI, which could have covertly tracked them to find out their mission.” [Newsweek, 6/2/02] About two months later, the FBI claims the CIA learned that Almihdhar had also been on the flight (the CIA denies it), but again failed to do anything about it. [Michael Rolince Testimony, 9/20/02, Congressional Intelligence Committee, 10/17/02]

    A March 5, 2000 cable sent to CIA headquarters concerning Alhazmi’s presence in the US was interestingly marked “Action Required: None.” The next day a different overseas CIA station noted that the cable had been “read with interest,”“particularly the information that a member of this group traveled to the US…”—but again the CIA did not act. [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02] The CIA Director maintains no one read the cable. [New York Times, 10/17/02] The Congressional inquiry noted that, “Although the individuals had already entered the United States, the sharing of this information with the FBI and appropriate law enforcement authorities could have prompted investigative efforts to locate these individuals and surveil their activities within the United States.” [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02]

    Or Were They There Already?

    For the most part, the media has consistently reported that Alhazmi and Almihdhar first moved to the United States in early 2000, and the FBI Director has recently concurred. [San Diego Union-Tribune, 9/27/02]. However, numerous other reports suggest otherwise; that the two Saudis had been in the US before, and in the case of Alhazmi, long before. Soon after the attacks, the Wall Street Journal cited public records that put Alhazmi in San Diego as early as 1996. [Wall Street Journal, 9/17/01] Another story, reported by the Associated Press, placed Alhazmi in Cody, Wyoming in the fall of 1999. Witnesses said he was one of two men making a truck delivery from Canada to a high school there and had asked for directions to Florida. They left a very memorable impression. [AP, 10/23/01, Las Vegas Review Journal, 10/26/01]

    ===

    But certainly by November 1999, Alhazmi and Almihdhar were in San Diego. [Washington Post, 9/30/01, San Diego Channel 10, 10/5/01, Newsweek, 6/2/02] Shortly after arriving in Los Angeles, they met a man by the name of Omar Al-Bayoumi, who offered to drive them to San Diego and help them get settled. He brought them to the Parkwood Apartments, a well-kept building in a middle-class suburban neighborhood, and even paid their first two months’ rent. (Al-Bayoumi is under investigation and it is still unclear if he acted as terrorist support or just a remarkably good Samaritan). [Los Angeles Times, 9/1/02]

    If the two Saudis were in the US prior to the January Malaysia meeting, then there should be immigration records documenting their entry—records that the CIA would have discovered as they were investigating Almihdhar between December 1999 and the January meeting. The two had a habit of doing everything openly in their own names: Where are their immigration, credit card, and other records from 1999? Was the CIA aware in January 2000 that they had already visited the US?

    The early movements of these two take on greater importance with the recent revelation of an early 1999 NSA communications intercept “in which a ‘Nawaf Alhazmi’ was referenced.” [AP, 9/25/02] Significantly, the intercept was not mentioned in the Joint Staff Inquiry report published on September 20, 2002 but instead was leaked a few days later to the Associated Press. Unfortunately, the anonymous intelligence official who informed the news agency of the intercept disclosed no additional details. Notwithstanding, the revelation of this early 1999 intercept suggests the possibility that Alhazmi, and perhaps Almihdhar, were under some degree of surveillance by US intelligence before January 2000.

    ===

    The Truth Must Come Out

    The recent Congressional Intelligence Committee report on who knew what and when about Alhazmi and Almihdhar resembles more a whitewash than a true investigation. The FBI, CIA and others are taken at their word, even though they are known to have lied about this very issue in the past.

    For instance, up until June 2002, the CIA maintained that it had not learned of Almihdhar’s connections to al-Qaeda or his visits to the US until August 2001. [New York Times, 6/3/02] But as is well-known now, these links had been established by US intelligence before the January 2000 meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. If it had not been for leaks and the diligent work of investigative journalists, this information would never have made it to the public. Another example of their tendency to misrepresent the truth was made apparent when the FBI claimed it had begun “an aggressive, ‘full field’ investigation” immediately after the August 23 bulletin. But to the embarrassment of the FBI, it was discovered that the agency did not conduct even the simplest and most basic of searches, neglecting to check national databases of bank records, credit card records, and so on. [Newsweek, 6/2/02] The CIA and FBI’s inability to concur on whether or not the August 23 warning was labeled “immediate” is another case in point.

    Another curious inconsistency is that the Congressional inquiry failed to mention that both Alhazmi and Almihdhar lived in California with FBI informant Abdussattar Shaikh from September until December 2000. The Congressional report stated that while Alhazmi had lived in the informant’s home until December, “official records have Almihdhar leaving the US on June 10, 2000, and not returning until July 4, 2001.” [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02] But this is in complete contradiction to all previous media reports, the accounts from neighbors, and quotes from Abdussattar Shaikh himself! [Los Angeles Times, 9/27/01, Wall Street Journal, 9/17/01, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 9/28/01, San Diego Union-Tribune, 9/16/01, Newsweek, 9/9/02] There is a similar unwillingness to admit that Hanjour was in the US in the year 2000 before December, again because that would contradict immigration records. [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02] With actions like this, the investigation is further obscuring the truth, not uncovering it.

    The Congressional committee, the mainstream media, and major US officials have all repeatedly stated that there was no “smoking gun”—no single thing they could have done differently to stop the attacks. For instance, on June 7, 2002, President Bush purported, “Based on everything I’ve seen, I do not believe anyone could have prevented the horror of September the 11th.” [Sydney Morning Herald, 6/8/02] This is clearly wrong. Alhazmi and Almihdhar were the smoking gun—many times over. The Wall Street Journal claimed that even if the FBI knew the two had entered the US early on, “more-vigilant law enforcement is unlikely to have caught all of them.” Then they alleged, “it’s difficult to imagine how to prevent [terrorists] from operating here in the future without making the nation less free, less open and less tolerant of outsiders.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/17/01] But with what we now know of the connections between Alhazmi and Almihdhar and the other hijackers, it is clear all of them could have been caught, as FBI agents themselves have conceded. The gross failures and even crimes of intelligence officials should not be used as an excuse to destroy our freedoms.

    Questions, Questions

    The most serious questions have not even been asked by the Congressional committee. What does FBI informant Abdussattar Shaikh really know? Why does he contradict neighbors’ claims that Mohamed Atta was a frequent visitor to his house? Who do phone records show Alhazmi and Almihdhar called so frequently? Was there a deliberate sabotage of John O’Neill’s investigation in Yemen? Why did the CIA fail to share information on Alhazmi and Almihdhar? Why were even well known, top level terrorists like Khallad bin Atash not put on watch lists, much less investigated? Could the meetings in late night limousines have been the communication link between the hijackers and some group outside of al-Qaeda? Do we really know the true identities of the hijackers? Why can’t we see the video footage of them passing through airport security? Why does the FBI still use a photo of an innocent man for Salem Alhazmi? Is there any reason to believe Khalid Almihdhar is still alive?

    Most importantly, at what point do incompetence and bureaucratic barriers cease to be reasonable explanations for so many failures surrounding Alhazmi and Almihdhar? Could the US government have been protecting these two for some reason? When will investigators and the media start asking these difficult questions?

    )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    NSA Lied About Knowledge Of 2 9/11 Hijackers In U.S., Didn't Inform The FBI
    Posted by Jon Gold on Sat, 08/09/2014 - 4:11pm

    By Jon Gold
    8/9/2014

    =====

    see http://educationforu...=21401&p=290208

  6. No, despite your tendency to resort to personal attacks you've yet to produce evidence that "KARA [sic] MAIN ESTABLISHMENT AUTORITY [sic] ON 911 INTERCEP [sic] RESPONSE". As for the rest that's another thing we've over, over and over again. There was no indication any planes had been hijacked anywhere near Florida, nor is it clear where Bush would have been safer.

    http://911myths.com/index.php/Bush_at_Booker_School

    Sooooooo via Colby there is nothing unusual about the Secret Service response. Bush (per implication Colby) is not in any danger.

    Golly if Colby had just studied 911 facts he would not think/post in such a unfacutal way..........

    ++++++++++++++++++++++

    Preparations

    Bush’s appearance at the Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida, on September 11, 2001 had been in the planning stages since August [Booker web site], but was only publicly announced on the morning of September 7. [White House, 9/7/01] Later that same day, 9/11 hijackers Mohamed Atta and Marwan Alshehhi traveled to Sarasota and enjoyed drinks and dinner at a Holiday Inn only two miles down the sandy beach from where Bush was scheduled to stay during his Sarasota visit. [Longboat Observer, 11/21/01, Washington Post, 1/27/02]

    The Colony Beach and Tennis Resort, where Bush stayed the night before 9/11. [Colony Resort web site]

    On the night of September 10th, Bush stayed at the Colony Beach Resort—“an upscale and relatively pristine tropical island enclave located directly on the Gulf of Mexico, a spindly coral island… off Sarasota, Florida.” [AP, 07/29/01] Zainlabdeen Omer, a Sudanese native living in Sarasota, told the local police that night that someone he knew who had made violent threats against Bush was in town and Omer was worried about Bush’s safety. The man was identified only as “Ghandi.” A police report states the Secret Service was informed immediately. [Hopsicker, 7/22/02]

    After a private dinner with various Florida politicians (including his brother Jeb) and Republican donors, Bush went to bed around 10:00 p.m. [Sarasota Magazine, 11/01, Washington Post, 1/27/02] Surface-to-air missiles were placed on the roof of the resort [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02], and an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) plane circled high overhead. [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism—From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, p. 25] It’s not clear if this type of protection was standard for the president or whether security was increased because of possible threats.

    An Assassination Attempt?

    Bush awoke a little before 6:00 a.m. on September 11, pulled on shorts and an old T-shirt and laced up his running shoes. [CBS, 11/1/02] At 6:30 a.m., Bush, a reporter friend, and his Secret Service crew took a four-mile jog in the half-light of dawn around a nearby golf course. [Washington Post, 1/27/02, Washington Post, 09/11/01]

    At about the same time Bush was getting ready for his jog, a van carrying several Middle Eastern men pulled up to the Colony’s guard station. The men said they were a television news crew with a scheduled “poolside” interview with the president. They asked for a certain Secret Service agent by name. The message was relayed to a Secret Service agent inside the resort, who hadn’t heard of the agent mentioned or of plans for an interview. He told the men to contact the president’s public relations office in Washington, DC, and had the van turned away. [Longboat Observer, 9/26/01]

    #######################################

    Air Force One Takes Off Without Fighter Escort

    Air Force One took off at either 9:55 or 9:57 a.m. [CNN, 9/12/01, New York Times, 9/12/01, Telegraph, 12/16/01, CBS, 9/11/02, Washington Post, 9/12/01, Washington Post, 1/27/02, AP, 9/12/01] Communications Director Dan Bartlett remembered, “It was like a rocket. For a good ten minutes, the plane was going almost straight up.” [CBS, 9/11/02]

    But, incredibly, Air Force One took off without any military fighter protection. This defies all explanation. Recall that at 9:03 a.m., one of Bush’s security people said, “We’re out of here. Can you get everyone ready?” [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 9/10/02] Certainly, long before Bush left the elementary school at 9:35 a.m., arrangements would have been made to get fighters to Sarasota as soon as possible. Not only would it have been advisable to protect Air Force One, but it would have been only sensible as another way to protect Bush on the ground from terrorist attack even before he left the school. In Florida, there were two bases said to have fighters on 24-hour alert, capable of getting airborne in approximately five minutes. Homestead Air Station, 185 miles from Sarasota, and Tyndall Air Station, 235 miles from Sarasota; both had the highest readiness status on 9/11. Presumably, as happened at other bases across the country, just after 9:03, base commanders throughout Florida would have immediately begun preparations to get their fighters ready. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02] Fighters left bases on the same alert status and traveled similar distances to reach Washington, DC, well before 10:00, so why were the fighters delayed in Florida? [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 9/9/02]

    Military planes should have been over Sarasota by the time Bush left Booker at 9:35 a.m. Yet, as will be described below, more than one hour after Air Force One took off, there were still no fighters protecting it!

    Air Force One departs Sarasota. [AP]

    An administration official claimed, “The object seemed to be simply to get the President airborne and out of the way.” [Telegraph, 12/16/01] But without fighter cover this makes little sense, because the sky was arguably more dangerous than the ground. At the time, there were still over 3,000 planes in the air over the US [USA Today, 8/13/02 (B)], including about half of the planes in the region of Florida where Bush was. [St. Petersburg Times, 9/7/02] Recall, too, that the Secret Service learned of a threat to Bush and Air Force One “just minutes after Bush left Booker Elementary.” Karl Rove, also on Air Force One, confirmed that a dangerous threat was known before the plane took off: “They also made it clear they wanted to get us up quickly, and they wanted to get us to a high altitude, because there had been a specific threat made to Air Force One…. A declaration that Air Force One was a target, and said in a way that they called it credible.” [New Yorker, 10/1/01]

  7. post # 36 this thread

    Why Does the West Allow the Ukrainian Government to Write the Official Report on the Shoot-Down of MH-17?Global Research (21/11/14).

    Golly I think its dumb of Burton to honor a report that has a prime suspect of the crime to write the"OFFICIAL"

    crime report. DUH !?!???

    =

    So Colby also will wait for the accident investigation board ?

    Jesus wants us to use the brains he has given us.

    To Love the truth and love one another. Letting a murderer get away with a crime is not respecting the truth.A person who cant live and Love the truth is rejecting the universe and the Creator. I said "

    sooooooooooooooo sorry Mr. Burton", cause he is not using his brains.

  8. Mexican wars 1819, 1846-48: Long series of operations, commencing with the annexion of Florida (1819) and followed by a declaration of independence of Texas from Mexico (1836). Provocative troop movements near the U.S. southern border caused an incident which led to war. (It is said the US built a fortification 150 km inside the Mexican border.) The annexation of Texas by the USA and the conquest of California, New Mexico, and nearby territories followed. Mexico had a weak government at that time, because after Napoleon conquered Spain (1809) their former colonies soon revolted. Mexico had been a colony of the Spanish kingdom but now they revolted and formed a republic. There were a series of revolts, not just one.

    ========

    The Mexican-American War

    Thomas DiLorenzo

    August 29, 2013

    When James K. Polk became president in 1845 he announced to his cabinet that one of his chief objectives was to acquire California, which was then a part of Mexico. As he wrote in his diary (online as “The Diary of James K. Polk”), “I stated to the cabinet that up to this time as they knew, we had heard of no open act of aggression by the Mexican army, but that the danger was imminent that such acts would be committed. I said that in my opinion we had ample cause of war.”

    Thus, long before the presidency of George W. Bush, James K, Polk advocated the neocon notion of “pre-emptive war.” Polk recognized that the Mexican army had not committed any “act of aggression,” so set out to provoke one by sending American troops to the border of Mexico in territory that historians agree was “disputed territory” at the time because of a very dubious claim by the U.S. government. None other than Ulysses S. Grant wrote in his memoirs that, as a young soldier serving under the command of General Zachary Taylor during the 1846-1848 Mexican-American War, he understood that he had been sent there to provoke a fight:

    “The presence of United States troops on the edge of the disputed territory furthest from the Mexican settlements, was not sufficient to provoke hostilities. We were sent to provoke a fight, but it was essential that Mexico should commence it. I was very doubtful whether Congress would declare war; but if Mexico should attack our troops, the Executive [President Polk] could announce, ‘Whereas war exist by the acts of, etc.’ and prosecute the contest with vigor.”

    Polk’s gambit worked; he did provoke the Mexican army. In his war message to Congress he then declared that “Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon the American soil. . . . As war exists . . . by the act of Mexico herself, we are called upon by every consideration of duty and patriotism to vindicate with decision the honor, the rights, and the interests of our country.” This con game of provoking a war by showing up on another nation’s border, heavily armed with weapons aimed at the hoped-for belligerent, would be repeated many times in subsequent generations, right up to today’s provocation of a war in Syria.

    The invasion and conquest of Mexico enabled the U.S. government to acquire California and New Mexico at the cost of some 15,000 American lives and at least 25,000 Mexican casualties. It was an aggressive war of conquest and imperialism.

  9. And he (LINCOLN) never indicated the attacks may have been false flags.// COLBY

    Excerpts from the Lincoln-Douglas debate at Alton, IL, 1858

    Douglas: There is something really refreshing in the thought that Mr. Lincoln is in favor of prosecuting one war vigorously. It is the first war I ever knew him to be in favor of prosecuting. It is the first war that I ever knew him to believe to be just or constitutional. When the Mexican war was being waged, and the American army was surrounded by the enemy in Mexico, he thought the war was unconstitutional, unnecessary, and unjust. He thought it was not commenced on the right spot.

    When I made an incidental allusion of that kind in the joint discussion over at Charleston, some weeks ago, Lincoln, in replying, said that I, Douglas, had charged him with voting against supplies for the Mexican war, and then he reared up, full length, and swore that he never voted against the supplies, -- that it was a slander…
    he
    (LINCOLN)
    confessed that he voted that the war was wrong, that our country was in the wrong, and consequently that the Mexicans were in the right;
    (CAUSE WE (USA)
    LIED
    ABOUT THE
    FACTS
    OF THAT CAUSED INITIATION OF THE MEXICAN AMERICAN WAR..AKA FALSE FLAG)

    ################

    And he
    (LINCOLN)
    never indicated the attacks may have been false flags.
    // COLBY

    ((((No Mr. COLBY YOU ARE 100 % WRONG,Gaal,

    lie // facts // initiation // war aka false flag
    ))))

    =

    Among the most-aggressive challenges to the legitimacy of Polk’s casus belli was that offered by future president
    , then a first-term member of the House of Representatives from Illinois. In December 1847 Lincoln introduced eight “Spot Resolutions,” which placed the analysis of Polk’s claim in a carefully delineated historical context that sought to

    "obtain a full knowledge of all the facts which go to establish whether the particular spot of soil on which the blood of our
    citizens
    was so shed was, or was not,
    our own soil
    at that time."(LINCOLN)

    (or we were the aggressors and we attacked their (Mexican) soil,Gaal)

    And no I never indicated Lincoln had lied// Colby ++ I THINK THE RECORD INDICATES YOU DID,GaaL

    =

    The border between Texas and Mexico was disputed,=

    Lincoln was a political opponent of POTUS Polk.// Colby

    =

    Lincoln lies for political gain ???

    Colby implies Lincoln a xxxx (GAAL)
  10. LOL!

    Yet we all can say BUSH FAMILY HELPED THE NAZI CAUSE

    a authoritative newspaper reports

    =

    The New Hampshire Gazette » Bush/Nazi Link Confirmed

    www.nhgazette.com/the-bushnazi-stories/bushnazi-link-confirmed/
    Oct 10, 2003 ... The New Hampshire Gazette - The Nation's Oldest Newspaper ™ ... After the “

    Hitler's Angel” article was published Bush and Harriman made no ...

  11. Sorry dude none of the false alarms were caused by the NORAD drills, your post makes that pretty clear, and despite all the confusion there's no evidence the false alarms delayed attempts to intercept any of the hijacked planes. To the contrary, the planes from Langley were launched in response to “phantom AA11” not AA77.

    SO SAYS 911 expert MILES KARA A KNOWN DOD COVERUP ARTIST

    ===========================================================

    9/11 Prior Knowledge ? thread ? OK !!!

    ================================================================================

    incompetence or cover up ?? OPPS OPPS OPPS 911 sorry 911 sorry

    =============

    see http://www.historyco...ykhalidandnawaf

    Who Knew About the Meeting, and What Did They Do About It?

    After the Kuala Lumpur meeting, the CIA was in possession of a substantial amount of incriminating evidence concerning the two future 9/11 hijackers. The CIA knew that Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi had ties to Osama bin Laden because they both had attended what the CIA considered “to be a gathering of al-Qaeda agents.” [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02] And, as mentioned above, the agency was aware that Khalid Almihdhar “held a US B-1/B-2 multiple-entry visa” and had made his travel arrangements to Malaysia through a Yemeni organization considered by the CIA to be a “logistical center” for al-Qaeda.

    As the CIA later admitted, they should have put the names of Almihdhar and Alhazmi on a watch list at this time. The watch list, a database known as TIPOFF, currently consists of over 80,000 names, with about 2,000 new names being added every month. [Los Angeles Times, 9/22/02] Regulations require that the list is checked for visa applications or whenever someone enters or leaves the US (note that it is not checked for domestic flights). Officials are liable to be subject to criminal penalties if they fail to consult TIPOFF when required. The Congressional inquiry noted that “the threshold for adding a name to TIPOFF is low,” explaining that even a “reasonable suspicion” that a person is connected with a terrorist group, warrants the addition of the person’s name to the database. [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02] Why were Almihdhar and Alhazmi, whose names were reportedly important enough to have been mentioned to the CIA Director several times that January [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02], not added to the watch list?

    National Security Agency (NSA) Director Michael Hayden later claimed, “In early 2000, at the time of the meeting in Kuala Lumpur, we had the Alhazmi brothers, Nawaf and Salem, as well as Khalid Almihdhar, in our sights. We knew of their association with al-Qaeda, and we shared this information with the [intelligence] community. I’ve looked at this closely.” [NSA Director Congressional Testimony, 10/17/02] However, according to a Congressional inquiry report, the NSA did not share this information with other US intelligence agencies even though “it was in the NSAs database.” Nor did the NSA itself submit the names to the TIPOFF database. [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02, AP, 9/26/2002]

    The big question mark however lies with the FBI, who claims it was left out of the loop by the CIA. Eleanor Hill, Staff Director of the Congressional investigation into 9/11, reported: “A CIA communication in early January 2000 states that Almihdhar’s travel documents, including his multiple entry visa for the United States, were shared with the FBI for further investigation. No one at the FBI recalls having received such documents at the time. No confirmatory record of the transmittal of the travel documents has yet been located at either the CIA or the FBI.” There are details about e-mails by a CIA employee while the Malaysian meeting was still in progress claiming that he briefed two FBI agents about Almihdhar. But even if this in fact happened, the agent does not recall telling the FBI about Almihdhar’s multiple-entry visa. [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02]

    That the FBI was not provided with this information is significant because, had this intelligence been shared, it is very likely that the FBI would have added the two Saudis to the TIPOFF database.

    ====================

    On to Southern California

    On January 8, 2000, Alhazmi and Almihdhar flew from Malaysia seated together and on the same airplane as Khallad bin Atash, an important al-Qaeda terrorist. Presumably they flew to Thailand. The CIA learned this the next day, but did nothing with the information, and failed to follow them. [New York Times, 10/17/02, Congressional Intelligence Committee, 10/17/02]

    On January 15, Alhazmi and Almihdhar flew from Bangkok, Thailand, to Los Angeles, California. [MSNBC, 12/11/01] According to Newsweek, the CIA tracked the flight into the US, but was aware only of Alhazmi being on the plane, not Almihdhar. But given their knowledge of the latter’s multiple-entry US visa, the agency must have conjectured that it was certainly possible that Almihdhar might also travel to the country. Yet, as the magazine noted, “astonishingly, the CIA did nothing with this information. Agency officials didn’t tell the INS, which could have turned them away at the border, nor did they notify the FBI, which could have covertly tracked them to find out their mission.” [Newsweek, 6/2/02] About two months later, the FBI claims the CIA learned that Almihdhar had also been on the flight (the CIA denies it), but again failed to do anything about it. [Michael Rolince Testimony, 9/20/02, Congressional Intelligence Committee, 10/17/02]

    A March 5, 2000 cable sent to CIA headquarters concerning Alhazmi’s presence in the US was interestingly marked “Action Required: None.” The next day a different overseas CIA station noted that the cable had been “read with interest,”“particularly the information that a member of this group traveled to the US…”—but again the CIA did not act. [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02] The CIA Director maintains no one read the cable. [New York Times, 10/17/02] The Congressional inquiry noted that, “Although the individuals had already entered the United States, the sharing of this information with the FBI and appropriate law enforcement authorities could have prompted investigative efforts to locate these individuals and surveil their activities within the United States.” [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02]

    Or Were They There Already?

    For the most part, the media has consistently reported that Alhazmi and Almihdhar first moved to the United States in early 2000, and the FBI Director has recently concurred. [San Diego Union-Tribune, 9/27/02]. However, numerous other reports suggest otherwise; that the two Saudis had been in the US before, and in the case of Alhazmi, long before. Soon after the attacks, the Wall Street Journal cited public records that put Alhazmi in San Diego as early as 1996. [Wall Street Journal, 9/17/01] Another story, reported by the Associated Press, placed Alhazmi in Cody, Wyoming in the fall of 1999. Witnesses said he was one of two men making a truck delivery from Canada to a high school there and had asked for directions to Florida. They left a very memorable impression. [AP, 10/23/01, Las Vegas Review Journal, 10/26/01]

    ===

    But certainly by November 1999, Alhazmi and Almihdhar were in San Diego. [Washington Post, 9/30/01, San Diego Channel 10, 10/5/01, Newsweek, 6/2/02] Shortly after arriving in Los Angeles, they met a man by the name of Omar Al-Bayoumi, who offered to drive them to San Diego and help them get settled. He brought them to the Parkwood Apartments, a well-kept building in a middle-class suburban neighborhood, and even paid their first two months’ rent. (Al-Bayoumi is under investigation and it is still unclear if he acted as terrorist support or just a remarkably good Samaritan). [Los Angeles Times, 9/1/02]

    If the two Saudis were in the US prior to the January Malaysia meeting, then there should be immigration records documenting their entry—records that the CIA would have discovered as they were investigating Almihdhar between December 1999 and the January meeting. The two had a habit of doing everything openly in their own names: Where are their immigration, credit card, and other records from 1999? Was the CIA aware in January 2000 that they had already visited the US?

    The early movements of these two take on greater importance with the recent revelation of an early 1999 NSA communications intercept “in which a ‘Nawaf Alhazmi’ was referenced.” [AP, 9/25/02] Significantly, the intercept was not mentioned in the Joint Staff Inquiry report published on September 20, 2002 but instead was leaked a few days later to the Associated Press. Unfortunately, the anonymous intelligence official who informed the news agency of the intercept disclosed no additional details. Notwithstanding, the revelation of this early 1999 intercept suggests the possibility that Alhazmi, and perhaps Almihdhar, were under some degree of surveillance by US intelligence before January 2000.

    ===

    The Truth Must Come Out

    The recent Congressional Intelligence Committee report on who knew what and when about Alhazmi and Almihdhar resembles more a whitewash than a true investigation. The FBI, CIA and others are taken at their word, even though they are known to have lied about this very issue in the past.

    For instance, up until June 2002, the CIA maintained that it had not learned of Almihdhar’s connections to al-Qaeda or his visits to the US until August 2001. [New York Times, 6/3/02] But as is well-known now, these links had been established by US intelligence before the January 2000 meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. If it had not been for leaks and the diligent work of investigative journalists, this information would never have made it to the public. Another example of their tendency to misrepresent the truth was made apparent when the FBI claimed it had begun “an aggressive, ‘full field’ investigation” immediately after the August 23 bulletin. But to the embarrassment of the FBI, it was discovered that the agency did not conduct even the simplest and most basic of searches, neglecting to check national databases of bank records, credit card records, and so on. [Newsweek, 6/2/02] The CIA and FBI’s inability to concur on whether or not the August 23 warning was labeled “immediate” is another case in point.

    Another curious inconsistency is that the Congressional inquiry failed to mention that both Alhazmi and Almihdhar lived in California with FBI informant Abdussattar Shaikh from September until December 2000. The Congressional report stated that while Alhazmi had lived in the informant’s home until December, “official records have Almihdhar leaving the US on June 10, 2000, and not returning until July 4, 2001.” [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02] But this is in complete contradiction to all previous media reports, the accounts from neighbors, and quotes from Abdussattar Shaikh himself! [Los Angeles Times, 9/27/01, Wall Street Journal, 9/17/01, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, 9/28/01, San Diego Union-Tribune, 9/16/01, Newsweek, 9/9/02] There is a similar unwillingness to admit that Hanjour was in the US in the year 2000 before December, again because that would contradict immigration records. [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 9/20/02] With actions like this, the investigation is further obscuring the truth, not uncovering it.

    The Congressional committee, the mainstream media, and major US officials have all repeatedly stated that there was no “smoking gun”—no single thing they could have done differently to stop the attacks. For instance, on June 7, 2002, President Bush purported, “Based on everything I’ve seen, I do not believe anyone could have prevented the horror of September the 11th.” [Sydney Morning Herald, 6/8/02] This is clearly wrong. Alhazmi and Almihdhar were the smoking gun—many times over. The Wall Street Journal claimed that even if the FBI knew the two had entered the US early on, “more-vigilant law enforcement is unlikely to have caught all of them.” Then they alleged, “it’s difficult to imagine how to prevent [terrorists] from operating here in the future without making the nation less free, less open and less tolerant of outsiders.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/17/01] But with what we now know of the connections between Alhazmi and Almihdhar and the other hijackers, it is clear all of them could have been caught, as FBI agents themselves have conceded. The gross failures and even crimes of intelligence officials should not be used as an excuse to destroy our freedoms.

    Questions, Questions

    The most serious questions have not even been asked by the Congressional committee. What does FBI informant Abdussattar Shaikh really know? Why does he contradict neighbors’ claims that Mohamed Atta was a frequent visitor to his house? Who do phone records show Alhazmi and Almihdhar called so frequently? Was there a deliberate sabotage of John O’Neill’s investigation in Yemen? Why did the CIA fail to share information on Alhazmi and Almihdhar? Why were even well known, top level terrorists like Khallad bin Atash not put on watch lists, much less investigated? Could the meetings in late night limousines have been the communication link between the hijackers and some group outside of al-Qaeda? Do we really know the true identities of the hijackers? Why can’t we see the video footage of them passing through airport security? Why does the FBI still use a photo of an innocent man for Salem Alhazmi? Is there any reason to believe Khalid Almihdhar is still alive?

    Most importantly, at what point do incompetence and bureaucratic barriers cease to be reasonable explanations for so many failures surrounding Alhazmi and Almihdhar? Could the US government have been protecting these two for some reason? When will investigators and the media start asking these difficult questions?

    =======================

    incompetence or cover up ?? OPPS OPPS OPPS 911 sorry 911 sorry opps were incompetent not evil no we are not evil .....TRUST US ..... opps sorry 911 sooooooooooooooo sorry trust us trust us .....you are getting sleepy very very sleepy your eyelids are getting heavy sooooo heavy ...... trust us trust us

    )))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

    NSA Lied About Knowledge Of 2 9/11 Hijackers In U.S., Didn't Inform The FBI
    Posted by Jon Gold on Sat, 08/09/2014 - 4:11pm

    By Jon Gold

    8/9/2014

    =====

    see http://educationforu...=21401&p=290208

    you are getting sleepy very very sleepy your eyelids are getting heavy sooooo heavy

    +++++++++++ COLGRINCHBY THE MAN WHO STOLE THE FACTSMAS

    dsc_2012_12_26_the_grinch_by_theeyzmaste

  12. OK another paper about vaccines from the opthamologist. Get back to us with something from a qualified expert.

    Single Dose of DTP Vaccine Doubled Mortality Rate in African Infants

    The first
    , found that the mortality rate among infants vaccinated with a single dose of DTP (diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), tetanus) vaccine
    doubled
    over the six months following vaccination, and the mortality rate more than
    quadrupled after the second and third dose
    .

    The research team, led by Dr. Aaby, concluded that:

    "In low-income countries with high mortality, DTP as the last vaccine received may be associated with slightly increased mortality… The role of DTP in high mortality areas needs to be clarified."

    Scientific Bias Explains Divergent Results on Survival Outcomes Post-DTP Vaccination Three years later, Dr. Aaby published a review of the available research in the journal Tropical Medicine and International Health, stating: "Observational studies of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine from longitudinal study sites have reported divergent effects on child survival, ranging from 10-fold reduction to three-fold increased mortality. How Scientific is "the Scientific Method" Really?

    None of these studies had complete information on DTP vaccinations from both survivors and children who died. We reviewed the data analysis methodology to assess whether methodological differences could explain the divergent results.

    … Seven studies using a case-control design or a landmark approach found a negative effect of DTP on child survival. Eight of nine survival analyses with retrospective updating of vaccination status reported a beneficial effect.

    They concluded that these divergent results were at least in part due to methodological differences.

    This beneficial effect of DTP increased with the length of the interval between data collection visits. Studies with long interval between visits had very high mortality rates among unvaccinated children, low mortality rate ratios for vaccinated compared with unvaccinated children, and strongly beneficial estimates of DTP."

    "To assess the impact on mortality of routine vaccinations, observational study designs which minimize the effect of bias are warranted," the authors said, adding that "randomized trials should be considered."

    Bias skewing medical research is nothing new, although it is rarely discussed. Last year I interviewed Dana Ullman, MPH about this troublesome fact.

    Personally, I'm a big believer in the scientific method, provided it's applied appropriately and not biased by conflict of interest. And that's the key issue. Much of the scientific research that ends up being published is biased, prejudiced and littered with conflicts of interest. So it's no major surprise to find that differences in methodology would produce such conflicting results when looking at the mortality of vaccinated versus unvaccinated children.

    "Explosive Findings" Ignored

    Dr. Marcia Angell, the former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) has spoken out about the pervasiveness of scientific bias—and worse. In her book The Truth about Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It, she exposes many examples of why medical studies often cannot be trusted, stating that:

    "Trials can be rigged in a dozen ways, and it happens all the time."

    Likewise, in an essay published in PLoS Medicine in 2005, Dr. John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Ioannina School of Medicine, Greece, claims there is less than a 50 percent chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper will be true.

    Three years later, Dr. Ioannidis again showed that much of scientific research being published is highly questionable. According to his study:

    "Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true."

    He noted problems with experimental and statistical methods as the main culprits, including factors such as small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias and selective reporting.

    Dr. Aaby's review of studies on mortality post-vaccination does not mention whether the source of funding had any impact on the results, but that's a very important consideration as well. Typically, independently funded studies are more prone to discover potential problems with the drug, while studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry tend to have favorable findings.

    BBC 4 radio first aired a program titled The Vaccine Detectives, featuring Dr. Aaby's research into vaccinated versus unvaccinated children in Guinea Bissau in October 2010. The program was rebroadcast in January 2011

    Vaccine Studies are Too Short to Evaluate Health Outcomes

    Interestingly, the second time, it aired the same week Dr. Wakefield was again being viciously attacked for his 1998 MMR study and the media feverishly tried to convince everyone that vaccines are perfectly safe and essential for public health. Needless to say, no other major media outlets picked up on this BBC report and so there has been virtually no awareness in America.

    The accompanying article The Vaccine Casebook, introduced Dr. Aaby and his research team and summarized the program as follows:

    "... [A] team of Danish and African medical sleuths have pieced together evidence that could change public health care forever. They have discovered that vaccines and vitamin supplements have unexpected effects - good and bad - on the immune systems of children.

    It's the first time a British journalist has visited the Bandim health surveillance unit, where Dr Peter Aaby and his team has toiled for more than 30 years - through wars, natural disasters and epidemics... Their health detective work has generated more than 600 scholarly articles in the world's leading medical journals, and been responsible for the withdrawal of a potentially deadly measles vaccine by the World Health Organisation.

    But the WHO has not acted on the most explosive findings yet coming from Guinea Bissau.

    They show that the world's most commonly used vaccines can strengthen - or weaken - a child's immune system in the long term, and affect their ability to fight off disease. The results directly challenge the WHO's global health advice, followed by most countries in the developing world, and could mean that thousands of young lives, in Africa and beyond, are needlessly at risk.

    We'll hear from some of world's most respected public health scientists who back Aaby's findings. The documentary also asks why the WHO has not yet acted on the evidence generated so far. And whether safety tests for new vaccines and vitamin supplements, heavily promoted by donor agencies and pharmaceutical companies alike, are sufficiently far-reaching."

    In that radio program, Dr. Aaby also discussed another interesting finding. One of his health projects had been selected by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a test site in the 1980's for a new high titer measles vaccine that could be given to infants younger than 12 months. After a typically short trial run, the high titer measles vaccine, which was given in infants in addition to DPT vaccine, appeared to be a success. But Dr. Aaby decided to continue evaluating the children over a longer term.

    Three Vaccines Recently Connected with Infant Deaths

    What did he find?

    While the new measles vaccine appeared effective in the short term, over time the girl children who had been vaccinated were dying at a much higher rate than those who did not receive it.

    Fortunately, the WHO accepted his findings and withdrew the high titer measles vaccine from use, reverting back to using the older measles vaccine that was given along with DPT.

    That clearly raises the question of whether vaccine studies are conducted long enough to evaluate the true risks and benefits, especially when used in combination with other vaccines. In most cases the answer would undeniably be no, as the long-term effects are very rarely studied.

    In related news, a Japanese safety panel is now investigating the connection between Pfizer's Prevnar and Sanofi Pasteur's ActHIB vaccines and the deaths of five young children. Japan's health ministry has ordered doctors to stop immunizing infants with the vaccines until the investigation is completed.

    The Bottom Line

    Prevnar, which is used against pneumonia and meningitis, is commonly used in more than 100 countries around the world, and is part of the routine childhood immunization schedule in more than 50 countries. ActHIB prevents infection with the Haemophilius influenza.

    According to CNN:

    "The U.S. Food and Drug administration said it was aware of the suspensions in Japan, but "physicians assessing vaccine safety at the FDA and CDC have not detected new safety concerns" related to the vaccines."

    This is not the first time Prevnar has come under scrutiny. I began reporting the potential dangers of this vaccine some 10 years ago, when the vaccine was first approved. Back in 2000, Dr. Erdem Cantekin, Ph.D. Professor of Otolaryngology at the University of Pittsburgh stated that the alleged benefits of Prevnar are "greatly exaggerated, and the risks are significant."

    Prevnar is in fact a perfect example of a vaccine that was not appropriately studied before being released to the public.

    For example, the HMO trial in which Prevnar was approved had NO placebo group. Instead, the control group received another experimental vaccine for mennigococcus, and this was the ONLY trial done to establish the safety and efficacy of this vaccine for every newborn in the US!

    In addition to the Japanese deaths, five infants died after being vaccinated for measles at Gandhidhams Rambaugh Hospital in India earlier this month. Three additional infants are said to be in serious condition.

    The Times of India reported that:

    'The entire stock of this vaccine in the state has been withdrawn pending lab tests and measles vaccination in the district has been stopped till further notice.

    Not surprisingly however, on March 8, Market Watch reported that the panel had concluded the vaccines did not cause any of the infant deaths. They did however "request data on the safety of giving multiple vaccines simultaneously and more analysis of the cases," according to a Bloomberg report.

    Following the deaths at 10 am, people went berserk breaking furniture and fixtures and beating up Dr Abhishek Makwana, who was on duty. Four infants died within minutes of being vaccinated by two female health workers while one infant died after an hour

    A number of things are clear:

    1. There are risks inherent with all vaccines
    2. Long-term health outcomes post-vaccination are typically not studied
    3. When you or your child is injured by a vaccine, the risks are 100 percent, and you will have to deal with the consequences on your own, because those who make and give vaccines are protected from liability in civil court, and federal vaccine injury compensation is very difficult to get.

    What's worse, a U.S. Supreme Court recently decided to give drug companies total liability protection for injuries and deaths caused by government mandated vaccines.

    It's important to realize that there's no guarantee that a vaccine will, in fact, protect against an infectious disease. Nor is it a given that exposure to an infectious disease will cause a complication, injury or death.

    In the end, good health is about so much more than vaccination and preventing experience with infectious disease—it's about having a robust, well-functioning immune system, as that is your first line of defense.

  13. This is silly, people's recollections are faulty especially of high stress situations and how exactly does one define “shortly after”? One of the two was probally 'phantom AA11'.

    And the NYT spoke to lots of people.

    KARA MAIN ESTABLISHMENT AUTORITY ON 911 INTERCEP RESPONSE (SEEMS COLBY WANTS TO CONFUSE PEOPLE) COLBY THE GRINCH WHO STOLE FACTMAS

    Secret Service Failures on 9/11: A Call for Transparency

    Posted by Orangutan. on Sun, 03/25/2012 - 2:42am

    Posted on March 25, 2012 by WashingtonsBlog

    Guest Post by Kevin Ryan, former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories (UL). Mr. Ryan, a Chemist and laboratory manager, was fired by UL in 2004 for publicly questioning the report being drafted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) on their World Trade Center investigation. In the intervening period, Ryan has completed additional research while his original questions, which have become increasingly important over time, remain unanswered by UL or NIST.

    The U.S. Secret Service failed to do its job on September 11, 2001 in several important ways. These failures could be explained if the Secret Service had foreknowledge of the 9/11 events as they were proceeding. That possibility leads to difficult questions about how the behavior of Secret Service employees might have contributed to the success of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Answering those questions will require the release of existing interview transcripts as well as follow-up questioning, under oath, of a few key people within the agency.

    The most glaring example of Secret Service failure on 9/11 was the lack of protection for the President of the United States after it was well known that the country was facing terrorist attacks on multiple fronts.The interesting thing about this was that it was not a consistent approach. That is, the president was protected by the Secret Service in many ways that day but he was not protected from the most obvious, and apparently the most imminent, danger.

    President Bush had been at risk earlier that morning when Middle-Eastern looking journalists appeared at his hotel in Sarasota, Florida claiming to have an appointment for an interview.A Secret Service agent turned them away in a move that might have saved Bush from an assassination attempt. [1]

    Bush then traveled to an elementary school for a community outreach photo opportunity which had been well-publicized for several days. It was reported that “Police and Secret Service Agents were on the roof, on horseback and in every hallway” at the school. [2]Every visitor at the school was required to attend a preparation meeting two days before, and all the phone lines had been tapped.The school’s principal stated – “It was the safest place in the world. If you blew your nose and it wasn’t time for you to blow your nose, they knew it.” [3]

    The agency was protecting Bush very well, but not from terrorists in hijacked airplanes. Bush entered the classroom at 9:03 am that day, after it was widely known that the country was under attack.As stated by authors Allan Wood and Paul Thompson:

    “By that time, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the National Military Command Center, the Pentagon, the White House, the Secret Service, and Canada’s Strategic Command all knew that three commercial airplanes had been hijacked. They knew that one plane had been flown deliberately into the World Trade Center’s North Tower; a second plane was wildly off course and also heading toward Manhattan; and a third plane had abruptly turned around over Ohio and was flying back toward Washington, DC.” [4]

    Given the widespread knowledge that terrorists were hijacking planes and that planes were crashing into buildings, the Secret Service should never have let the president enter the building where he was scheduled to be located.The situation got worse, however, because shortly after Bush sat down, he was informed by his Chief of Staff that the World Trade Center had been hit again, by a second plane. Still there was no intervention by the Secret Service to remove the president from this well-publicized location.

    Either failure to protect the president, or knowledge that he was not a target

    Bush remained at the school until 9:35 am, more than 35 minutes after he arrived. He even gave a televised speech during that time, letting the world know he was still there. The actions of Bush and his Secret Service detail indicate that they were not worried at all about a terrorist attack against the school.Philip Melanson, author of a book on the Secret Service, described how odd this was by writing that, in an “unfolding terrorist attack, the procedure should have been to get the president to the closest secure location as quickly as possible.” [5]

    This failure to follow Secret Service standard procedures is a glaring discrepancy to this day and it leads to a number of important questions.Who was responsible for making the decision to leave the president and everyone in the building at risk?Were the Secret Service agents traveling with the president in contact with the agency’s offices in Washington or New York? The largest Secret Service field office in the country was located in WTC Building 7, which was evacuated by the time Bush was entering the classroom.

    The Secret Service supervisor traveling with the president, who was in charge of the president’s movements that day, was Edward Marinzel.It was Marinzel who should have been in charge of the execution (or non-execution) of the emergency action protocols carried out as the attacks were proceeding. [6]

    In an attempt to explain the failure to follow Secret Service procedures, the 9/11 Commission said in its report that Bush “told us his instinct was to project calm, not to have the country see an excited reaction at a moment of crisis,” and that the Secret Service “told us they were anxious to move the president to a safer location, but did not think it imperative for him to run out the door.”These official responses from the Secret Service, given in the 9/11 Commission Report (911CR), were taken from an as-yet unreleased 2004 interview with Edward Marinzel. [7]However, the Commission said nothing about why Bush entered the classroom in the first place, when everyone in government knew that the country was under attack.

    It seems possible that Marinzel’s authority was somehow overridden, because reporters noticed that it was White House spokesman Ari Fleischer who appeared to be calling the shots while Bush sat there doing nothing.As Bush’s Secret Service detail failed to protect him, Fleischer maneuvered to get his attention without alerting the press. Several reporters noticed that Fleischer had written the words “DON’T SAY ANYTHING YET” in big block letters on a paper sign and was mouthing these words to Bush as he sat there. [8]

    Another apparent failure of the Secret Service was that it did not immediately request air cover for either the president’s motorcade as it traveled to the airport, or for Air Force One, which took off at about 9:54. This seems to be another indication that the Secret Service knew that Bush was not in danger.

    The lack of immediate request for air cover for the president’s escort becomes more difficult to understand considering the 911CR’s claims of “unnerving false alarm” which was a “threat against Air Force One itself.” This threat was later “run down to a misunderstood communication in the hectic White House Situation Room” (p 325).

    The 911CR did not cover the failure to request immediate air cover, but it did attempt to address the circuitous travels of Air Force One after it left Sarasota.Air Force One was redirected throughout the day, first to Barksdale Air Force Base (AFB) in Louisiana and then on to Nebraska.The 911CR states that the reason for this wandering about the country was that the “Lead Secret Service agent…felt strongly that the situation in Washington was too unstable for the President to return there,” and although the Bush“strongly wanted to return to Washington,” the Secret Service won the argument.Again, the 9/11 Commission got its information on this subject from the unreleased 2004 interview with Edward Marinzel.

    Exactly why Edward Marinzel’s interview has not been made publicly available is not clear.Given that it was the primary basis for the official account with regard to the failure to protect the president, it seems that the public has a right to see it.Did the Secret Service know that the president was not in danger and, if so, how did it know that?

    Whatever the case might be, Marinzel’s actions or lack thereof were considered appropriate because his role in protecting the president continued.On Thanksgiving in 2003, Marinzel led the team that planned and executed President Bush’s covert visit to Baghdad which, at the time, “was the first operation in history that took a President of the United States into an active war zone.” [9]

    Today, Marinzel works at a consulting company with Ralph Basham, the former Director of the Secret Service (2003-2006), as well as another person who played a critical role in George W. Bush’s travel, communications and protection. This was Joseph W. Hagin, who was Bush’s deputy White House Chief of Staff for Operations (2001-2008). Mr. Hagin had previously been an assistant to Vice President George H.W. Bush, from 1981 to 1985, and then Assistant to President Bush from 1989 to 1991.

    Hagin came to the George W. Bush administration after eight years as a vice president for Chiquita Brands International.Formerly called United Fruit Company, the company was mired in scandal at the time of Hagin’s departure, due to an expose by the Cincinnati Enquirer which claimed that it mistreated the workers on its Central American plantations, polluted the environment, allowed cocaine to be brought to the United States on its ships, and bribed foreign officials.

    On 9/11, Mr. Hagin had oversight responsibility for Air Force One, the White House Communications Agency, and the Secret Service PPD.Despite these far reaching responsibilities, his name does not appear in the 911CR.Hagin was later “one of the principals responsible for planning the formation of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.” [10]When Hurricane Katrina occurred, Hagin was the White House point person in terms of overseeing response efforts.

    Either failure to protect the vice president, or reconstruction of the timeline

    The 911CR states that when the Secret Service first learned of the second plane hitting the World Trade Center, it immediately initiated a number of precautionary “security enhancements around the White House complex.” [11]This would have begun at 9:03, when the entire nation witnessed Flight 175 hit the south tower on live television.

    This information was obtained from the interview of Carl Truscott, who served as the Special Agent in Charge (SAIC) of the Presidential Protective Division (PPD).Truscott had primary responsibility for supervising all protective matters relating to the president, the first family and the White House. Although Truscott’s interview was not released in transcript form, a summary of the interview was made available as part of several random documents released via FOIA request to 9/11 researcher Aidan Monaghan. [12]

    When the second plane hit the WTC, the Secret Service agent responsible for coordinating with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Nelson Garabito, called his FAA counterpart, Terry Van Steenbergen.At the time, Garabito was at the Secret Service Joint Operations Center (JOC), located in the White House.

    It was reported that Van Steenbergen told Garabito that two other planes were possibly hijacked, which caused Garabito to ask someone to run upstairs and pass the information on to other Secret Service agents. The 911CR states that this information was “either not passed on or was passed on but not disseminated.”

    This failure relates to the question of when the vice president was evacuated from his office.If Van Steenbergen’s information, given to Garabito just after 9:03 am, was passed on to those protecting the vice president, then it would become important to know why the vice president was not moved to a safer location until 9:36, as stated by the 911CR.If the information was passed on immediately, and the vice president was moved to a secure location just after 9:00 as several witnesses have suggested, then his early presence at the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) would substantiate the important testimony of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta. According to Mineta, Cheney was being given regular updates on the progress of the hijacked Flight 77 as it came toward Washington. [13]

    The documents released by FOIA request include a timeline of “Actions of TSD” on 9/11.TSD is the Secret Service’s Technical Services Division which, among other things, operates the Secret Service’s Tigerwall air surveillance system.The TSD timeline states that at 9:18 am “SAIC Truscott learned that an aircraft had been identified en-route to the Washington area.” Therefore, we have officially prepared documentation that indicates Truscott was aware of a hijacked plane heading for Washington at least 18 minutes before the official account says the vice president was moved from his office.If this is true, the public deserves to know why the vice president not moved to safety immediately. On the other hand if he was moved earlier, that fact supports Mineta’s astonishing and important testimony.

    Failure to request interceptor jets in a timely manner

    As described by author Michael Ruppert, the Secret Service was getting information about the ongoing hijacking events at the same time, or before, the FAA was.This was because there was a “parallel command system in play.” [14]This parallel command system was also described by Richard Clarke, who was leading one of the response teams in the White House Situation Room (WHSR).Clarke later wrote that Brian Stafford, the Director of the Secret Service, was in the WHSR with him and was passing him information.That information, according to Clarke, came from the fact that the Secret Service had “a system that allowed them to see what FAA’s radar was seeing.”

    The authoritative command system appeared to be below ground in the PEOC, where Dick Cheney was leading the activities.The TSD document released by FOIA shows that when Assistant Division Chief Spriggs arrived in the PEOC, at 9:30 am, Cheney and Rice were already there along with ten other “Presidential and Vice Presidential staff.” [15]Carl Truscott was the lead Secret Service agent in the PEOC, the one who was in coordination with Garabito, and the one who was most closely coordinating with Dick Cheney.

    The FOIA-released 9/11 Commission summary of Truscott’s interview says that he escorted NSA Rice from the Situation Room to the “White House Shelter Area” where they met Cheney, who was on the phone, and Mrs. Cheney. [16]Interestingly, the official account gives a contradictory account, stating that Mrs. Cheney did not arrive at the White House for another 30 minutes or more. The FOIA documents say that Truscott led the Cheneys and Rice to the PEOC sometime before 9:30 am.SAIC Anthony Zotto, who was specifically responsible for the vice president’s safety, was in the PEOC at the time. This means that Cheney was in the PEOC at least 8 minutes before Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

    The documents released by the Secret Service via FOIA indicate that the Secret Service had knowledge of Flight 77 and Flight 93 and that those flights were headed toward Washington, DC.One of these documents, not well identified but apparently a timeline created by one agent to relate his experiences, indicates that the Secret Service had knowledge of “two more outstanding aircraft, not responding to the Tower, considered suspect and at least one was headed toward DC.”This was several minutes before the agent arrived at “Room 552 en route to the JOC” where the agent learned that “one of the two planes, believed to be hijacked, was approximately 5 minutes out from DC.”

    These documents confirm that the Secret Service knew that two hijacked planes were headed toward Washington during the time that Cheney and SAIC Truscott were in the PEOC, and well before Flight 77 was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon. Cheney seemed to confirm the same when he later said, on NBC’s Meet the Press — “The Secret Service has an arrangement with the FAA. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was…” — and then cut himself off.

    There remains some confusion over whether the Secret Service ordered, or had the authority to order, the scrambling of interceptor jets from Andrews AFB in response to the knowledge about the incoming hijacked aircraft.Author Lynn Spencer, who NORAD Commander General Ralph Eberhart says “tells it all and tells it well,” wrote that “the Secret Service also has certain authority over the military and, in this case, the DC Guard.” [17]That is, the Secret Service had the authority to order the scrambling of interceptor jets on 9/11. And of course, with the president indisposed for a brief period, the vice president was the commander in chief of the military.

    Official reports now suggest that the Secret Service made such a request, although very late in the chain of events, but that Andrews commander General David Wherley did not respond rapidly enough.The reason given is that Wherley did not recognize the Secret Service as having the authority to order jets to scramble and therefore he waited until someone in the military chain of command gave him the order.Unfortunately, General Wherley is no longer available for comment as he died in a freak train accident which was “the most deadly train crash in the history of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.” [18]

    However, it is clear that Andrews AFB staff reached out to the Secret Service well before Wherley ever got involved. [19]Just after 9:05, Major Daniel Caine, the supervisor of flying at Andrews AFB, called his Secret Service contact, Kenneth Beachamp.Caine asked “Are you guys going to need some help?”Agent Beauchamp replied “No, but I’ll call you back if that changes.”Beauchamp, whose 9/11-related interview is still “national security classified,” never called back.Nearly 30 minutes later, when Flight 77 was coming into Washington, someone else from the Secret Service finally returned Caine’s call to accept the offer of assistance.Upon answering the phone, Caine stated that he “could hear plain as day the vice president talking in the background.” [20]That was when Caine’s newly arrived superior, General Wherley, began spending another 80 minutes or more being confused about the chain of command, according to the official account.

    Interceptor jets did not launch from Andrews AFB, which was only ten miles from the Pentagon, until 10:38 am (and those were not armed).This was more than an hour after the Pentagon was hit, almost two and a half hours after the first plane was known to be hijacked, and approximately 90 minutes after Major Caine had first offered assistance to the Secret Service.

    SAIC Truscott continued as the leader of the Secret Service PPD through 2005, during the times when a gay prostitute came to the White House for overnight visits, and during the period when Jack Abramoff was visiting the White House.The White House later tried to hide the records for these visits. Truscott was also at the White House during the period when the Secret Service adopted its secretive processes for records management with regard to visitor records.

    Like Marinzel, Truscott’s performance on 9/11 was apparently well received as he was later promoted to Director of the ATF, another major agency of the U.S. Department of Treasury. In the end he was forced to resign in a scandal related to multiple abuses of power including sexist orders given to female employees. Truscott had friends in high places, however, and he was protected from prosecution by order of the White House. [21]Truscott went on to join ASERO Worldwide, an international security and risk management firm run by Doron Bergerbest-Eilon, who was formerly the most senior ranking security official at the Israeli Security Agency. [22]

    Overall, the response of the Secret Service to the 9/11 attacks suggests foreknowledge of the events in that the agency failed to protect the president from the obvious danger posed by terrorists. That foreknowledge, combined with the failure of the Secret Service to follow-up on the offer of air support from Andrews AFB, leads to the suspicion that the agency was complicit in the attacks.Revealing the truth behind these suspicions will require that the central role players from the Secret Service and the White House, including Edward Marinzel, Ari Fleischer, Joseph Hagin, Carl Truscott, Anthony Zotto, and Kenneth Beauchamp, be examined under oath by prosecutors with subpoena power.

    [1] Allan Wood and Paul Thompson, An Interesting Day: President Bush’s Movements and Actions on 9/11, History Commons Complete 9/11 Timeline, http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essayaninterestingday

    [2] Shoestring 9/11 Blog, The 90-Minute Stand Down on 9/11: Why Was the Secret Service’s Early Request for Fighter Jets Ignored?, December 20, 2009, http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2009/12/90-minute-stand-down-on-911-why-was.html

    [3] Tom Bayles, The Day Before Everything Changed, President Bush Touched Locals’ Lives, The Sarasota Herald-Tribune, September 10, 2002, http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/sarasotaheraldtribune091002.html

    [4] Allan Wood and Paul Thompson

    [5] Philip H. Melanson, Secret Service: The Hiddine History of an Enigmatic Agency, Carroll & Graf, 2002

    [6] Command Consulting, Bio for Edward Marrnizel, http://www.commandcg.com/en/edward-marinzel

    [7] For references to the 2004 Edward Marinzel interview, see The 9/11 Commission Report, footnotes 204 and 207 from Chapter 1, and footnotes 1 to 3 from Chapter 10

    [8] 911Research.wtc7.net, George W. Bush: Cover Stories of the People in Charge, http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/alibis/bush.html

    [9] Command Consulting, Bio for Edward Marrnizel

    [10] Command Consulting, Bio for Joseph Hagin, http://www.commandcg.com/en/joseph-w-hagin

    [11] The 9/11 Commission Report, page 36

    [12] FOIA documents released by the U.S. Secret Service to Aidan Monaghan on April 23, 2010.http://www.mediafire.com/?vydb4nxdmyy

    [13] George Washington’s Blog, Mineta’s testimony CONFIRMED, March 04, 2007, http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/03/minetas-testimony-confirmed.html

    [14] Michael C. Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon (chapter 24), New Society Publishers, 2004

    [15] FOIA documents released by the U.S. Secret Service

    [17] Lynn Spencer, Touching History: The untold story of the drama that unfolded in the skies over America on 9/11, Free Press, 2008

    [18] Christopher Conkey, Retired Major General Wherley Died in Crash, Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2009, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124581129913745441.html

    [19] Shoestring 9/11 Blog, The 90-Minute Stand Down on 9/11: Why Was the Secret Service’s Early Request for Fighter Jets Ignored?, December 20, 2009, http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2009/12/90-minute-stand-down-on-911-why-was.html

    [20] History Commons Complete 9/11 Timeline, Profile: Daniel Caine, http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=dan_caine

    [21] Empty Wheel, Who Is Carl Truscott and Why Did Bush’s DOJ Protect Him?, March 5, 2008, http://www.emptywheel.net/2008/03/05/who-is-carl-truscott-and-why-did-bushs-doj-protect-him/

    [22] Bloomberg Businessweek profile for ASERO Worldwide, http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=127598609

  14. Do We Need The CIA?

    The New York Times Opinion Pages: Room for Debate

    December 22, 2014

    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/12/21/do-we-need-the-cia

    The elite and owners/controllers of the NYT need CIA....the common man does not.

    =======================================================================

    A Timeline of CIA Atrocities

    By Steve Kangas

    2clorbar.JPG

    The following timeline describes just a few of the hundreds of atrocities and crimes committed by the CIA. (1)

    CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: "We'll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us." The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictator’s security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be "communists," but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.

    This scenario has been repeated so many times that the CIA actually teaches it in a special school, the notorious "School of the Americas." (It opened in Panama but later moved to Fort Benning, Georgia.) Critics have nicknamed it the "School of the Dictators" and "School of the Assassins." Here, the CIA trains Latin American military officers how to conduct coups, including the use of interrogation, torture and murder.

    The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that by 1987, 6 million people had died as a result of CIA covert operations. (2) Former State Department official William Blum correctly calls this an "American Holocaust."

    The CIA justifies these actions as part of its war against communism. But most coups do not involve a communist threat. Unlucky nations are targeted for a wide variety of reasons: not only threats to American business interests abroad, but also liberal or even moderate social reforms, political instability, the unwillingness of a leader to carry out Washington’s dictates, and declarations of neutrality in the Cold War. Indeed, nothing has infuriated CIA Directors quite like a nation’s desire to stay out of the Cold War.

    The ironic thing about all this intervention is that it frequently fails to achieve American objectives. Often the newly installed dictator grows comfortable with the security apparatus the CIA has built for him. He becomes an expert at running a police state. And because the dictator knows he cannot be overthrown, he becomes independent and defiant of Washington's will. The CIA then finds it cannot overthrow him, because the police and military are under the dictator's control, afraid to cooperate with American spies for fear of torture and execution. The only two options for the U.S at this point are impotence or war. Examples of this "boomerang effect" include the Shah of Iran, General Noriega and Saddam Hussein. The boomerang effect also explains why the CIA has proven highly successful at overthrowing democracies, but a wretched failure at overthrowing dictatorships.

    The following timeline should confirm that the CIA as we know it should be abolished and replaced by a true information-gathering and analysis organization. The CIA cannot be reformed — it is institutionally and culturally corrupt.

    1929

    The culture we lost — Secretary of State Henry Stimson refuses to endorse a code-breaking operation, saying, "Gentlemen do not read each other’s mail."

    1941

    COI created — In preparation for World War II, President Roosevelt creates the Office of Coordinator of Information (COI). General William "Wild Bill" Donovan heads the new intelligence service.

    1942

    OSS created — Roosevelt restructures COI into something more suitable for covert action, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Donovan recruits so many of the nation’s rich and powerful that eventually people joke that "OSS" stands for "Oh, so social!" or "Oh, such snobs!"

    1943

    Italy — Donovan recruits the Catholic Church in Rome to be the center of Anglo-American spy operations in Fascist Italy. This would prove to be one of America’s most enduring intelligence alliances in the Cold War.

    1945

    OSS is abolished — The remaining American information agencies cease covert actions and return to harmless information gathering and analysis.

    Operation PAPERCLIP – While other American agencies are hunting down Nazi war criminals for arrest, the U.S. intelligence community is smuggling them into America, unpunished, for their use against the Soviets. The most important of these is Reinhard Gehlen, Hitler’s master spy who had built up an intelligence network in the Soviet Union. With full U.S. blessing, he creates the "Gehlen Organization," a band of refugee Nazi spies who reactivate their networks in Russia. These include SS intelligence officers Alfred Six and Emil Augsburg (who massacred Jews in the Holocaust), Klaus Barbie (the "Butcher of Lyon"), Otto von Bolschwing (the Holocaust mastermind who worked with Eichmann) and SS Colonel Otto Skorzeny (a personal friend of Hitler’s). The Gehlen Organization supplies the U.S. with its only intelligence on the Soviet Union for the next ten years, serving as a bridge between the abolishment of the OSS and the creation of the CIA. However, much of the "intelligence" the former Nazis provide is bogus. Gehlen inflates Soviet military capabilities at a time when Russia is still rebuilding its devastated society, in order to inflate his own importance to the Americans (who might otherwise punish him). In 1948, Gehlen almost convinces the Americans that war is imminent, and the West should make a preemptive strike. In the 50s he produces a fictitious "missile gap." To make matters worse, the Russians have thoroughly penetrated the Gehlen Organization with double agents, undermining the very American security that Gehlen was supposed to protect.

    1947

    Greece — President Truman requests military aid to Greece to support right-wing forces fighting communist rebels. For the rest of the Cold War, Washington and the CIA will back notorious Greek leaders with deplorable human rights records.

    CIA created — President Truman signs the National Security Act of 1947, creating the Central Intelligence Agency and National Security Council. The CIA is accountable to the president through the NSC — there is no democratic or congressional oversight. Its charter allows the CIA to "perform such other functions and duties… as the National Security Council may from time to time direct." This loophole opens the door to covert action and dirty tricks.

    1948

    Covert-action wing created — The CIA recreates a covert action wing, innocuously called the Office of Policy Coordination, led by Wall Street lawyer Frank Wisner. According to its secret charter, its responsibilities include "propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct action, including sabotage, antisabotage, demolition and evacuation procedures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free world."

    Italy — The CIA corrupts democratic elections in Italy, where Italian communists threaten to win the elections. The CIA buys votes, broadcasts propaganda, threatens and beats up opposition leaders, and infiltrates and disrupts their organizations. It works -- the communists are defeated.

    1949

    Radio Free Europe — The CIA creates its first major propaganda outlet, Radio Free Europe. Over the next several decades, its broadcasts are so blatantly false that for a time it is considered illegal to publish transcripts of them in the U.S.

    Late 40s

    Operation MOCKINGBIRD — The CIA begins recruiting American news organizations and journalists to become spies and disseminators of propaganda. The effort is headed by Frank Wisner, Allan Dulles, Richard Helms and Philip Graham. Graham is publisher of The Washington Post, which becomes a major CIA player. Eventually, the CIA’s media assets will include ABC, NBC, CBS, Time, Newsweek, Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Copley News Service and more. By the CIA’s own admission, at least 25 organizations and 400 journalists will become CIA assets.

    1953

    Iran – CIA overthrows the democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh in a military coup, after he threatened to nationalize British oil. The CIA replaces him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran, whose secret police, SAVAK, is as brutal as the Gestapo.

    Operation MK-ULTRA — Inspired by North Korea’s brainwashing program, the CIA begins experiments on mind control. The most notorious part of this project involves giving LSD and other drugs to American subjects without their knowledge or against their will, causing several to commit suicide. However, the operation involves far more than this. Funded in part by the Rockefeller and Ford foundations, research includes propaganda, brainwashing, public relations, advertising, hypnosis, and other forms of suggestion.

    1954

    Guatemala — CIA overthrows the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz in a military coup. Arbenz has threatened to nationalize the Rockefeller-owned United Fruit Company, in which CIA Director Allen Dulles also owns stock. Arbenz is replaced with a series of right-wing dictators whose bloodthirsty policies will kill over 100,000 Guatemalans in the next 40 years.

    1954-1958

    North Vietnam — CIA officer Edward Lansdale spends four years trying to overthrow the communist government of North Vietnam, using all the usual dirty tricks. The CIA also attempts to legitimize a tyrannical puppet regime in South Vietnam, headed by Ngo Dinh Diem. These efforts fail to win the hearts and minds of the South Vietnamese because the Diem government is opposed to true democracy, land reform and poverty reduction measures. The CIA’s continuing failure results in escalating American intervention, culminating in the Vietnam War.

    1956

    Hungary — Radio Free Europe incites Hungary to revolt by broadcasting Khruschev’s Secret Speech, in which he denounced Stalin. It also hints that American aid will help the Hungarians fight. This aid fails to materialize as Hungarians launch a doomed armed revolt, which only invites a major Soviet invasion. The conflict kills 7,000 Soviets and 30,000 Hungarians.

    1957-1973

    Laos — The CIA carries out approximately one coup per year trying to nullify Laos’ democratic elections. The problem is the Pathet Lao, a leftist group with enough popular support to be a member of any coalition government. In the late 50s, the CIA even creates an "Armee Clandestine" of Asian mercenaries to attack the Pathet Lao. After the CIA’s army suffers numerous defeats, the U.S. starts bombing, dropping more bombs on Laos than all the U.S. bombs dropped in World War II. A quarter of all Laotians will eventually become refugees, many living in caves.

    1959

    Haiti — The U.S. military helps "Papa Doc" Duvalier become dictator of Haiti. He creates his own private police force, the "Tonton Macoutes," who terrorize the population with machetes. They will kill over 100,000 during the Duvalier family reign. The U.S. does not protest their dismal human rights record.

    1961

    The Bay of Pigs — The CIA sends 1,500 Cuban exiles to invade Castro’s Cuba. But "Operation Mongoose" fails, due to poor planning, security and backing. The planners had imagined that the invasion will spark a popular uprising against Castro -– which never happens. A promised American air strike also never occurs. This is the CIA’s first public setback, causing President Kennedy to fire CIA Director Allen Dulles.

    Dominican Republic — The CIA assassinates Rafael Trujillo, a murderous dictator Washington has supported since 1930. Trujillo’s business interests have grown so large (about 60 percent of the economy) that they have begun competing with American business interests.

    Ecuador — The CIA-backed military forces the democratically elected President Jose Velasco to resign. Vice President Carlos Arosemana replaces him; the CIA fills the now vacant vice presidency with its own man.

    Congo (Zaire) — The CIA assassinates the democratically elected Patrice Lumumba. However, public support for Lumumba’s politics runs so high that the CIA cannot clearly install his opponents in power. Four years of political turmoil follow.

    1963

    Dominican Republic — The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Juan Bosch in a military coup. The CIA installs a repressive, right-wing junta.

    Ecuador — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows President Arosemana, whose independent (not socialist) policies have become unacceptable to Washington. A military junta assumes command, cancels the 1964 elections, and begins abusing human rights.

    1964

    Brazil — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the democratically elected government of Joao Goulart. The junta that replaces it will, in the next two decades, become one of the most bloodthirsty in history. General Castelo Branco will create Latin America’s first death squads, or bands of secret police who hunt down "communists" for torture, interrogation and murder. Often these "communists" are no more than Branco’s political opponents. Later it is revealed that the CIA trains the death squads.

    1965

    Indonesia — The CIA overthrows the democratically elected Sukarno with a military coup. The CIA has been trying to eliminate Sukarno since 1957, using everything from attempted assassination to sexual intrigue, for nothing more than his declaring neutrality in the Cold War. His successor, General Suharto, will massacre between 500,000 to 1 million civilians accused of being "communist." The CIA supplies the names of countless suspects.

    Dominican Republic — A popular rebellion breaks out, promising to reinstall Juan Bosch as the country’s elected leader. The revolution is crushed when U.S. Marines land to uphold the military regime by force. The CIA directs everything behind the scenes.

    Greece — With the CIA’s backing, the king removes George Papandreous as prime minister. Papandreous has failed to vigorously support U.S. interests in Greece.

    Congo (Zaire) — A CIA-backed military coup installs Mobutu Sese Seko as dictator. The hated and repressive Mobutu exploits his desperately poor country for billions.

    1966

    The Ramparts Affair — The radical magazine Ramparts begins a series of unprecedented anti-CIA articles. Among their scoops: the CIA has paid the University of Michigan $25 million dollars to hire "professors" to train South Vietnamese students in covert police methods. MIT and other universities have received similar payments. Ramparts also reveals that the National Students’ Association is a CIA front. Students are sometimes recruited through blackmail and bribery, including draft deferments.

    1967

    Greece — A CIA-backed military coup overthrows the government two days before the elections. The favorite to win was George Papandreous, the liberal candidate. During the next six years, the "reign of the colonels" — backed by the CIA — will usher in the widespread use of torture and murder against political opponents. When a Greek ambassador objects to President Johnson about U.S. plans for Cypress, Johnson tells him: "xxxx your parliament and your constitution."

    Operation PHEONIX — The CIA helps South Vietnamese agents identify and then murder alleged Viet Cong leaders operating in South Vietnamese villages. According to a 1971 congressional report, this operation killed about 20,000 "Viet Cong."

    1968

    Operation CHAOS — The CIA has been illegally spying on American citizens since 1959, but with Operation CHAOS, President Johnson dramatically boosts the effort. CIA agents go undercover as student radicals to spy on and disrupt campus organizations protesting the Vietnam War. They are searching for Russian instigators, which they never find. CHAOS will eventually spy on 7,000 individuals and 1,000 organizations.

    Bolivia — A CIA-organized military operation captures legendary guerilla Che Guevara. The CIA wants to keep him alive for interrogation, but the Bolivian government executes him to prevent worldwide calls for clemency.

    1969

    Uruguay — The notorious CIA torturer Dan Mitrione arrives in Uruguay, a country torn with political strife. Whereas right-wing forces previously used torture only as a last resort, Mitrione convinces them to use it as a routine, widespread practice. "The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect," is his motto. The torture techniques he teaches to the death squads rival the Nazis’. He eventually becomes so feared that revolutionaries will kidnap and murder him a year later.

    1970

    Cambodia — The CIA overthrows Prince Sahounek, who is highly popular among Cambodians for keeping them out of the Vietnam War. He is replaced by CIA puppet Lon Nol, who immediately throws Cambodian troops into battle. This unpopular move strengthens once minor opposition parties like the Khmer Rouge, which achieves power in 1975 and massacres millions of its own people.

    1971

    Bolivia — After half a decade of CIA-inspired political turmoil, a CIA-backed military coup overthrows the leftist President Juan Torres. In the next two years, dictator Hugo Banzer will have over 2,000 political opponents arrested without trial, then tortured, raped and executed.

    Haiti — "Papa Doc" Duvalier dies, leaving his 19-year old son "Baby Doc" Duvalier the dictator of Haiti. His son continues his bloody reign with full knowledge of the CIA.

    1972

    The Case-Zablocki Act — Congress passes an act requiring congressional review of executive agreements. In theory, this should make CIA operations more accountable. In fact, it is only marginally effective.

    Cambodia — Congress votes to cut off CIA funds for its secret war in Cambodia.

    Wagergate Break-in — President Nixon sends in a team of burglars to wiretap Democratic offices at Watergate. The team members have extensive CIA histories, including James McCord, E. Howard Hunt and five of the Cuban burglars. They work for the Committee to Reelect the President (CREEP), which does dirty work like disrupting Democratic campaigns and laundering Nixon’s illegal campaign contributions. CREEP’s activities are funded and organized by another CIA front, the Mullen Company.

    1973

    Chile — The CIA overthrows and assassinates Salvador Allende, Latin America’s first democratically elected socialist leader. The problems begin when Allende nationalizes American-owned firms in Chile. ITT offers the CIA $1 million for a coup (reportedly refused). The CIA replaces Allende with General Augusto Pinochet, who will torture and murder thousands of his own countrymen in a crackdown on labor leaders and the political left.

    CIA begins internal investigations — William Colby, the Deputy Director for Operations, orders all CIA personnel to report any and all illegal activities they know about. This information is later reported to Congress.

    Watergate Scandal — The CIA’s main collaborating newspaper in America, The Washington Post, reports Nixon’s crimes long before any other newspaper takes up the subject. The two reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, make almost no mention of the CIA’s many fingerprints all over the scandal. It is later revealed that Woodward was a Naval intelligence briefer to the White House, and knows many important intelligence figures, including General Alexander Haig. His main source, "Deep Throat," is probably one of those.

    CIA Director Helms Fired — President Nixon fires CIA Director Richard Helms for failing to help cover up the Watergate scandal. Helms and Nixon have always disliked each other. The new CIA director is William Colby, who is relatively more open to CIA reform.

    1974

    CHAOS exposed — Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh publishes a story about Operation CHAOS, the domestic surveillance and infiltration of anti-war and civil rights groups in the U.S. The story sparks national outrage.

    Angleton fired — Congress holds hearings on the illegal domestic spying efforts of James Jesus Angleton, the CIA’s chief of counterintelligence. His efforts included mail-opening campaigns and secret surveillance of war protesters. The hearings result in his dismissal from the CIA.

    House clears CIA in Watergate — The House of Representatives clears the CIA of any complicity in Nixon’s Watergate break-in.

    The Hughes Ryan Act — Congress passes an amendment requiring the president to report nonintelligence CIA operations to the relevant congressional committees in a timely fashion.

    1975

    Australia — The CIA helps topple the democratically elected, left-leaning government of Prime Minister Edward Whitlam. The CIA does this by giving an ultimatum to its Governor-General, John Kerr. Kerr, a longtime CIA collaborator, exercises his constitutional right to dissolve the Whitlam government. The Governor-General is a largely ceremonial position appointed by the Queen; the Prime Minister is democratically elected. The use of this archaic and never-used law stuns the nation.

    Angola — Eager to demonstrate American military resolve after its defeat in Vietnam, Henry Kissinger launches a CIA-backed war in Angola. Contrary to Kissinger’s assertions, Angola is a country of little strategic importance and not seriously threatened by communism. The CIA backs the brutal leader of UNITAS, Jonas Savimbi. This polarizes Angolan politics and drives his opponents into the arms of Cuba and the Soviet Union for survival. Congress will cut off funds in 1976, but the CIA is able to run the war off the books until 1984, when funding is legalized again. This entirely pointless war kills over 300,000 Angolans.

    "The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence" — Victor Marchetti and John Marks publish this whistle-blowing history of CIA crimes and abuses. Marchetti has spent 14 years in the CIA, eventually becoming an executive assistant to the Deputy Director of Intelligence. Marks has spent five years as an intelligence official in the State Department.

    "Inside the Company" — Philip Agee publishes a diary of his life inside the CIA. Agee has worked in covert operations in Latin America during the 60s, and details the crimes in which he took part.

    Congress investigates CIA wrong-doing — Public outrage compels Congress to hold hearings on CIA crimes. Senator Frank Church heads the Senate investigation ("The Church Committee"), and Representative Otis Pike heads the House investigation. (Despite a 98 percent incumbency reelection rate, both Church and Pike are defeated in the next elections.) The investigations lead to a number of reforms intended to increase the CIA’s accountability to Congress, including the creation of a standing Senate committee on intelligence. However, the reforms prove ineffective, as the Iran/Contra scandal will show. It turns out the CIA can control, deal with or sidestep Congress with ease.

    The Rockefeller Commission — In an attempt to reduce the damage done by the Church Committee, President Ford creates the "Rockefeller Commission" to whitewash CIA history and propose toothless reforms. The commission’s namesake, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, is himself a major CIA figure. Five of the commission’s eight members are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations, a CIA-dominated organization.

    1979

    Iran — The CIA fails to predict the fall of the Shah of Iran, a longtime CIA puppet, and the rise of Muslim fundamentalists who are furious at the CIA’s backing of SAVAK, the Shah’s bloodthirsty secret police. In revenge, the Muslims take 52 Americans hostage in the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

    Afghanistan — The Soviets invade Afghanistan. The CIA immediately begins supplying arms to any faction willing to fight the occupying Soviets. Such indiscriminate arming means that when the Soviets leave Afghanistan, civil war will erupt. Also, fanatical Muslim extremists now possess state-of-the-art weaponry. One of these is Sheik Abdel Rahman, who will become involved in the World Trade Center bombing in New York.

    El Salvador — An idealistic group of young military officers, repulsed by the massacre of the poor, overthrows the right-wing government. However, the U.S. compels the inexperienced officers to include many of the old guard in key positions in their new government. Soon, things are back to "normal" — the military government is repressing and killing poor civilian protesters. Many of the young military and civilian reformers, finding themselves powerless, resign in disgust.

    Nicaragua — Anastasios Samoza II, the CIA-backed dictator, falls. The Marxist Sandinistas take over government, and they are initially popular because of their commitment to land and anti-poverty reform. Samoza had a murderous and hated personal army called the National Guard. Remnants of the Guard will become the Contras, who fight a CIA-backed guerilla war against the Sandinista government throughout the 1980s.

    1980

    El Salvador — The Archbishop of San Salvador, Oscar Romero, pleads with President Carter "Christian to Christian" to stop aiding the military government slaughtering his people. Carter refuses. Shortly afterwards, right-wing leader Roberto D’Aubuisson has Romero shot through the heart while saying Mass. The country soon dissolves into civil war, with the peasants in the hills fighting against the military government. The CIA and U.S. Armed Forces supply the government with overwhelming military and intelligence superiority. CIA-trained death squads roam the countryside, committing atrocities like that of El Mazote in 1982, where they massacre between 700 and 1000 men, women and children. By 1992, some 63,000 Salvadorans will be killed.

    1981

    Iran/Contra Begins — The CIA begins selling arms to Iran at high prices, using the profits to arm the Contras fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. President Reagan vows that the Sandinistas will be "pressured" until "they say ‘uncle.’" The CIA’s Freedom Fighter’s Manual disbursed to the Contras includes instruction on economic sabotage, propaganda, extortion, bribery, blackmail, interrogation, torture, murder and political assassination.

    1983

    Honduras — The CIA gives Honduran military officers the Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual – 1983, which teaches how to torture people. Honduras’ notorious "Battalion 316" then uses these techniques, with the CIA’s full knowledge, on thousands of leftist dissidents. At least 184 are murdered.

    1984

    The Boland Amendment — The last of a series of Boland Amendments is passed. These amendments have reduced CIA aid to the Contras; the last one cuts it off completely. However, CIA Director William Casey is already prepared to "hand off" the operation to Colonel Oliver North, who illegally continues supplying the Contras through the CIA’s informal, secret, and self-financing network. This includes "humanitarian aid" donated by Adolph Coors and William Simon, and military aid funded by Iranian arms sales.

    1986

    Eugene Hasenfus — Nicaragua shoots down a C-123 transport plane carrying military supplies to the Contras. The lone survivor, Eugene Hasenfus, turns out to be a CIA employee, as are the two dead pilots. The airplane belongs to Southern Air Transport, a CIA front. The incident makes a mockery of President Reagan’s claims that the CIA is not illegally arming the Contras.

    Iran/Contra Scandal — Although the details have long been known, the Iran/Contra scandal finally captures the media’s attention in 1986. Congress holds hearings, and several key figures (like Oliver North) lie under oath to protect the intelligence community. CIA Director William Casey dies of brain cancer before Congress can question him. All reforms enacted by Congress after the scandal are purely cosmetic.

    Haiti — Rising popular revolt in Haiti means that "Baby Doc" Duvalier will remain "President for Life" only if he has a short one. The U.S., which hates instability in a puppet country, flies the despotic Duvalier to the South of France for a comfortable retirement. The CIA then rigs the upcoming elections in favor of another right-wing military strongman. However, violence keeps the country in political turmoil for another four years. The CIA tries to strengthen the military by creating the National Intelligence Service (SIN), which suppresses popular revolt through torture and assassination.

    1989

    Panama — The U.S. invades Panama to overthrow a dictator of its own making, General Manuel Noriega. Noriega has been on the CIA’s payroll since 1966, and has been transporting drugs with the CIA’s knowledge since 1972. By the late 80s, Noriega’s growing independence and intransigence have angered Washington… so out he goes.

    1990

    Haiti — Competing against 10 comparatively wealthy candidates, leftist priest Jean-Bertrand Aristide captures 68 percent of the vote. After only eight months in power, however, the CIA-backed military deposes him. More military dictators brutalize the country, as thousands of Haitian refugees escape the turmoil in barely seaworthy boats. As popular opinion calls for Aristide’s return, the CIA begins a disinformation campaign painting the courageous priest as mentally unstable.

    1991

    The Gulf War — The U.S. liberates Kuwait from Iraq. But Iraq’s dictator, Saddam Hussein, is another creature of the CIA. With U.S. encouragement, Hussein invaded Iran in 1980. During this costly eight-year war, the CIA built up Hussein’s forces with sophisticated arms, intelligence, training and financial backing. This cemented Hussein’s power at home, allowing him to crush the many internal rebellions that erupted from time to time, sometimes with poison gas. It also gave him all the military might he needed to conduct further adventurism — in Kuwait, for example.

    The Fall of the Soviet Union — The CIA fails to predict this most important event of the Cold War. This suggests that it has been so busy undermining governments that it hasn’t been doing its primary job: gathering and analyzing information. The fall of the Soviet Union also robs the CIA of its reason for existence: fighting communism. This leads some to accuse the CIA of intentionally failing to predict the downfall of the Soviet Union. Curiously, the intelligence community’s budget is not significantly reduced after the demise of communism.

    1992

    Economic Espionage — In the years following the end of the Cold War, the CIA is increasingly used for economic espionage. This involves stealing the technological secrets of competing foreign companies and giving them to American ones. Given the CIA’s clear preference for dirty tricks over mere information gathering, the possibility of serious criminal behavior is very great indeed.

    1993

    Haiti — The chaos in Haiti grows so bad that President Clinton has no choice but to remove the Haitian military dictator, Raoul Cedras, on threat of U.S. invasion. The U.S. occupiers do not arrest Haiti’s military leaders for crimes against humanity, but instead ensure their safety and rich retirements. Aristide is returned to power only after being forced to accept an agenda favorable to the country’s ruling class.

    EPILOGUE

    In a speech before the CIA celebrating its 50th anniversary, President Clinton said: "By necessity, the American people will never know the full story of your courage."

    Clinton’s is a common defense of the CIA: namely, the American people should stop criticizing the CIA because they don’t know what it really does. This, of course, is the heart of the problem in the first place. An agency that is above criticism is also above moral behavior and reform. Its secrecy and lack of accountability allows its corruption to grow unchecked.

    Furthermore, Clinton’s statement is simply untrue. The history of the agency is growing painfully clear, especially with the declassification of historical CIA documents. We may not know the details of specific operations, but we do know, quite well, the general behavior of the CIA. These facts began emerging nearly two decades ago at an ever-quickening pace. Today we have a remarkably accurate and consistent picture, repeated in country after country, and verified from countless different directions.

    The CIA’s response to this growing knowledge and criticism follows a typical historical pattern. (Indeed, there are remarkable parallels to the Medieval Church’s fight against the Scientific Revolution.) The first journalists and writers to reveal the CIA’s criminal behavior were harassed and censored if they were American writers, and tortured and murdered if they were foreigners. (See Philip Agee’s On the Run for an example of early harassment.) However, over the last two decades the tide of evidence has become overwhelming, and the CIA has found that it does not have enough fingers to plug every hole in the dike. This is especially true in the age of the Internet, where information flows freely among millions of people. Since censorship is impossible, the Agency must now defend itself with apologetics. Clinton’s "Americans will never know" defense is a prime example.

    Another common apologetic is that "the world is filled with unsavory characters, and we must deal with them if we are to protect American interests at all." There are two things wrong with this. First, it ignores the fact that the CIA has regularly spurned alliances with defenders of democracy, free speech and human rights, preferring the company of military dictators and tyrants. The CIA had moral options available to them, but did not take them.

    Second, this argument begs several questions. The first is: "Which American interests?" The CIA has courted right-wing dictators because they allow wealthy Americans to exploit the country’s cheap labor and resources. But poor and middle-class Americans pay the price whenever they fight the wars that stem from CIA actions, from Vietnam to the Gulf War to Panama. The second begged question is: "Why should American interests come at the expense of other peoples’ human rights?"

    The CIA should be abolished, its leadership dismissed and its relevant members tried for crimes against humanity. Our intelligence community should be rebuilt from the ground up, with the goal of collecting and analyzing information. As for covert action, there are two moral options. The first one is to eliminate covert action completely. But this gives jitters to people worried about the Adolf Hitlers of the world. So a second option is that we can place covert action under extensive and true democratic oversight. For example, a bipartisan Congressional Committee of 40 members could review and veto all aspects of CIA operations upon a majority or super-majority vote. Which of these two options is best may be the subject of debate, but one thing is clear: like dictatorship, like monarchy, unaccountable covert operations should die like the dinosaurs they are.

    Related links:

    The Origins of the Overclass.

    Myth: Conservative think tanks are the answer to liberal academia.

    Endnotes:

    1. All history concerning CIA intervention in foreign countries is summarized from William Blum’s encyclopedic work, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions since World War II (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995). Sources for domestic CIA operations come from Jonathan Vankin and John Whalen’s The 60 Greatest Conspiracies of All Time (Secaucus, N.J.: Citadel Press, 1997).

    2. Coleman McCarthy, "The Consequences of Covert Tactics" Washington Post, December 13, 1987.

  15. Fukushima Thyroid Examination: Four Suspected of Cancer in Second Screening--These Children Had Normal Exam Results in First Screening

    =

    As with some of the previous committee meetings, thyroid cancer information was apparently leaked to the media the day before the 17th Prefectural Oversight Committee Meeting for Fukushima Health Management Survey, scheduled for December 25, 2014. Since the English edition of the Kyodo news article contained very little information, just as the online Japanese news articles, all based on the same Kyodo post, the paper edition of the Fukushima Minyu post was transcribed and translated as below. (See below the translation for the actual images of the post in the paper edition
  16. Exposing The Deception: How The US Economy "Grew" By $140 Billion As Americans Became Poorer (click link)

    Regular readers will recall that last month, at the same time as the US Bureau of Economic Analysis reported was a far better than expected 3.9% GDP (since revised to 5.0% on the back of the previously noted Obamacare spending surge), it also released its Personal Spending and Income numbers for the month of October, or rather revised numbers, because as we explained exactly one month ago "Americans Are Suddenly $80 Billion "Poorer"" thanks to (upward) revised spending data and (downward) revised income. What this meant a month ago is that as a result of a plunge in the imputed US savings rate, some $80 billion in personal savings was revised away from the average American household and right into the US economy.

    After all, something had to grow the US GDP by a massive amount in order to give the Fed the green light it needs to hike rates eventually, just so it can then ease when the global dry powders from all the other central banks is used up.



    Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/#ixzz3MpL2qNBt
  17. Unnamed people telling - ummm - 'incredible' stories?

    I'll wait for the accident investigation board.

    Mr. Burton you dont really follow the issue in a serious manner. You are waiting for the government to tell you what to think. (AS YOU ARE TRAINED TO DO) The rest of us ,who live in the real world will keep thinking...red link shows why you 'wait' in vain.

    ###################################################################################

    Another MH17 Cover-Up: Hiding a Key Autopsy (Click link)

    =

    Decisive evidence as to how the July 17th shooting-down of the MH17 Malaysian airliner occurred is being hidden by the four-nation team that’s doing the official ‘investigation’ into the plane-downing incident.

    This decisive evidence is the coroner’s report on the corpse of the airliner’s pilot. If the pilot was killed by bullets, then the standard ‘explanation’ of the downing (that the plane was downed by a ground-fired missile) isn’t just false, it’s an outright hoax. So: where’s the pilot’s autopsy?

    Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/#ixzz3MpDooev0

    #########################################

    =

    Global Research, November 21, 2014 ... There are only two suspects in the shoot

    -down of the MH-17 Malaysian airliner over Ukraine on July 17th:

  18. Poorest UK households pay almost half their income in tax (Click link)

    According to The Guardian: The poorest 10% of households pay almost half of their gross income in tax, analysis by a campaign group claims.

    The TaxPayers’ Alliance research found that direct and indirect taxes accounted for an average of 47% of the gross income of the poorest decile, with VAT accounting for the biggest share of the bill.



    Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/#ixzz3MpD1mqo0
  19. Actually Steve I am not familiar with the 'coincidences' you referred to. Can you fill me in a bit?

    • Bush and the JFK Hit, Part 4: Barbara's Hair-Raising Day ...
      whowhatwhy.com/.../bush-and-the-jfk-hit-part-4-barbaras-hair-raising-day/
      Oct 9, 2013 ... Thus it was that the first and only Bush family acknowledgment of where ... They [

      Al and Doris Ulmer] were here from England and they had been so nice to

      George in Greece. ... Mr. Zeppo off (we were on his plane) and flew back to

      Dallas. .... when Al Ulmer was station chief in Athens and Poppy Bush was ...

    • ###########################################################################
    • Barbara Bush and the JFK Assassination – LewRockwell.com
      www.lewrockwell.com/.../barbara-bush-and-the-jfk-assassination
/
      Oct 10, 2013 ... Bush And The JFK Hit, Part 4: Barbara's Hair-Raising Day ... They [Al and Doris

      Ulmer] were here from England and they had been so nice to George in Greece.

      ... Mr. Zeppo off (we were on his plane) and flew back to Dallas. .... early 1950s,

      when Al Ulmer was station chief in Athens and Poppy Bush was ...

    • #############################################################################
    • Russ Baker: Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty - JFK ...
      educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13858

      Barbaras letter mentions Al Ulmer of Greece CIA stations? ... including the

      deposed CIA head with a known grudge against JFK; ... "Poppy Bush was in

      Dallas on November 21 and most likely the morning of November 22.

      ====== see

      The Ultimate USAEC secrets on the JFK hit. - Page 3 - JFK ... Apr 3, 2014 Spider's Web - Page 4 - JFK Assassination Debate - The ... Feb 2, 2006
      ####################################################################################
      I believe the Walker info came from a Jack white Email. In the ED post link below Jack White connects Boatsman Bank to the CIA.
      =====
      From a 2007 posting by the late Rich DellaRosa on his forum:

      Norton for beginners...(posted with permission from Rich DellaRosa.)

      ..............

      Just a brief recap for the newbies:

      A person who identified himself as Donald Norton introduced himself to researchers

      Mae Brussell and John Judge in the early 1970s and told them he was Lee Oswald.

      For a more detailed account see:

      (Mae later told Judge that "Norton had been supporting her radio show by sending

      contributions he called CONSCIENCE MONEY...jw)

      Several, let's call them researchers, have been muddying the waters regarding this

      individual. I have a problem with folks who are careless with research and it has been

      demonstrated that when erroneous information gets on the internet it takes on a life

      of its own.

      In his comprehensive research on the 2 Oswalds, John Armstrong investigated Donald

      O. Norton. He spoke to people claiming to know Norton when he was growing up in

      Stowe, Ohio, outside of Akron and John traveled to a variety of locations where Norton

      had lived and was employed. Armstrong has done more research on Norton than

      anyone else I know.

      The question, as yet unanswered conclusively, is "Can Donald Oreste Norton be

      the man who was born Lee Harvey Oswald in 1939 in New Orleans??"

      In 2003, John Armstrong decided not to include Norton in his book Harvey & Lee

      because although his research was exhaustive he felt he was less than 100%

      certain that Norton is Oswald. John established high standards in performing

      his research. I wish all researchers followed suit.

      When last we left Lee Oswald in John's book, Lee Oswald was mistaken for Harvey on

      11/22/63 by Officer J.D. Tippit. Tippit ostensibly was supposed to locate and kill

      Harvey. Lee, in an act of self defense, shot Tippit before Tippit could shoot him.

      Lee then walked off into history.

      He then seemed to reappear to Judge and Brussell. When news of that encounter

      became known, various researchers began a search for Donald O. Norton. Some

      tracked him to various locales from Ohio to Florida.

      In a case where we find two Oswalds, two Marguerites, two Judyth Bakers (??),

      we have two Don Nortons. A Donald P. Norton turned up during the

      Garrison investigations in the late 1960s. Donald P. was a homosexual

      plant who performed a series of assignments for the CIA and who, while

      performing those duties, encountered Oswald and Clay Shaw. Donald P. was

      mentioned in Paris Flammonde's book on the Garrison investigation and

      it appears that Flammonde has written further about him in subsequent books

      and in an upcoming, yet to be released, book. Please note: Donald P. and

      Donald O. Norton are 2 separate people, unrelated except for similar names.

      John Armstrong last tracked Donald O. Norton to a residence in Jupiter, FL

      on the east coast area of Ft Lauderdale. Though John attempted numerous

      times to confront Norton, he never came face-to-face with him. It seemed

      that Norton kept one step ahead of Armstrong.

      In 2003 I ran a People Search report on Donald O. Norton. At that time,

      his current residence was listed as Avon Park, FL, about a 45 minute drive

      from here. When Armstrong was in my office, I asked him if he was aware

      that Norton had apparently moved from Jupiter to Avon Park. He wasn't.

      It is important to note that in the report, there was more than one residence

      listed for Norton in the past but where Norton never actually resided. One

      notable one was in Nevada which curiously had been a residence for

      Art Swanson, a self-admitted former CIA employee. That house was owned

      or financed by Boatman's bank in St Louis which is believed to be a CIA

      front company. Although Norton never actually lived at that address, he

      apparently listed that residence on a credit application. Armstrong discovered

      another address in Seattle but where neither Norton, nor his wife Lexie,

      ever resided.

      Now when we came upon this information, we shared it on the forum and a

      few individuals began to follow up on some leads and some began to post

      on other venues and mis-stated much of the above.

      One or two discovered that the Avon Park Norton had colored his hair red

      and had adopted the nickname "Red." They further discovered that Red

      operated a bait & tackle shop and booked deep sea fishing charters

      (a bit strange since Avon Park is not on either of Florida's coasts).

      Now one of those guys found an email address for Red and he sent him an

      email asking if he was Lee Harvey Oswald? And Red wrote back "No."

      Case closed, huh? If nothing else ol' Red knew we found him. Just imagine

      someone denying they had a part in a capital offense. Duh.

      Add to all this strangeness the fact that recently Red closed his tackle shop

      and left Avon Park almost literally over night. Norton has done that before.

      Donald O. Norton of Stowe, Ohio was born in 1949 -- which makes him

      10 years younger than Lee Oswald. And, it would have made him 14

      in 1963. That would seem to rule out Norton being the birth Oswald,

      right?

      Hmmmmmm, well no, not exactly. Suppose for a moment that a

      Donald O. Norton was born in 1949 in Stowe, Ohio in a dysfunctional

      family. He went to school there, and he had a real birth certificate and

      a real Social Security #. Then something happened -- perhaps he

      was killed or MIA in Viet Nam.

      If after Lee Oswald killed Tippit, he was to be given a new identity

      (name, birth certificate, SS#, etc) rather than given him a bogus,

      made up identity what if they gave him Donald O. Norton's ID? All

      "they" would need to do was obscure the details of Norton's death.

      Few researchers, it seems, are able to grasp this possibility.

      That being said, I think there are a few important issues:

      * Donald P. Norton and Donald O. Norton are not the same person and they should

      not be confused. There is no evidence presented that Donald P. ever impersonated Oswald.

      * I t has not been proven that the Avon Park Norton (Red) is the same Norton that

      Armstrong tracked to Jupiter, FL.

      * John Armstrong chose not to mention Donald O. Norton in his book Harvey &

      Lee. Any references to Donald Norton in Harvey & Lee are for Donald P. Norton.

      There now is quite a bit of bad info re: Norton floating around the internet and the back

      channels of the research community. As responsible researchers we must not add to

      the problem.
      ############################################################
      Locke Purnell handled the personal matters OF George W Bush
      .
      ==========================
      ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      A Leap of Faith - Daily Kos
      www
      .dailykos.com/story/2005/10/03/153776/-A-Leap-of-Faith
      Oct 3, 2005
      ...
      Today,
      President Bush
      demonstrates the folly of Senator Leahy. ...... Let the

      conservatives
      handle
      ideology.
      ..... She has previous knowledge of Bush's

      personal matters
      ,
      AND she's been privy to ...... MIERS, HARRIET ELLAN -

      DALLAS,TX 75229 -
      LOCKE
      &
      PURNELL
      - 9/23/1994 - $500 - Sessions, Pete.

  20. 'George Bush of the CIA', says J Edgar Hoover. It may be that Poppy, George DeM's friend, writing such a forward is an ironic historical twist of incomparable proportion.

    Paul so many odd things> Poppy in Dallas with former COS of Greece (Karamessines a Greek is Helms right hand man).

    Remember the guy out of Nevada that bothered Jack White about Harvey & Lee ?? Living in a house owned by a bank outa

    Missouri controlled by a family named "Walker". OR the parade route lawfirm the
    personal attorney
    of "W" that made a
    cocaine bust become just a alcohol bust ???
×
×
  • Create New...