God Rigs Election: It's Bush In A "blowout"
- Thread starter shereads
- Start date
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
minsue said:http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0743255976.01._PE20_PI_SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg
On my wish list...
edited to add:I finally got a thumbnail hyperlink to work!! (and I'm really way to excited about that, aren't I?)
I'm deeply envious. I still don't know how to post an image other than as an attachment.
sigh...
edited to add: And yet, I'm still smarter than the most powerful man in the free world. It gives one pause.
Last edited:
www.globalresearch.ca
Centre for Research on Globalisation
Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation
The Criminalization of the State
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Outlook, Issue 7, Spring 2004
www.globalresearch.ca 3 February 2004
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO402A.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America’s leaders in Washington and Wall Street firmly believe in the righteousness of war and authoritarian forms of government as a means to "safeguarding democratic values".
According to Homeland Security "the near-term attacks will either rival or exceed the 9/11 attacks".
An actual "terrorist attack" on American soil would lead to the suspension of civilian government and the establishment of martial law. In the words of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge: "If we go to Red [code alert]... it basically shuts down the country,"
"You ask, 'Is it serious?' Yes, you bet your life. People don't do that unless it's a serious situation." (Donald Rumsfeld)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are the criminals.
A terrorist attack on American soil of the size and nature of September 11, would lead ---according to former CENTCOM Commander, General Tommy Franks-- to the downfall of democracy in America. In an interview last December, which was barely mentioned in the US media, General Franks outlined with cynical accuracy a scenario, which would result in the suspension of the Constitution and the installation of military rule in America:
"a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event."1
Franks was alluding to a so-called "Pearl Harbor type event" which would be used to galvanise US public opinion in support of a military government and police state. The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" is presented by General Franks as a crucial political turning point. The resulting crisis and social turmoil is intended to facilitate a major shift in US political, social and institutional structures.
It is important to understand that General Franks was not giving a personal opinion on this issue. His statement very much reflects the dominant viewpoint both in the Pentagon and the Homeland Security department as to how events might unfold in the case of a national emergency.
The statement comes from a man who has been actively involved in military and intelligence planning at the highest levels. In other words, the "militarisation of our country" is an ongoing operational assumption. It is part of the broader "Washington consensus". It identifies the Bush administration's "roadmap" of war and Homeland defense.
The "war on terrorism" which constitutes the cornerstone of Bush’s national security doctrine, provides the required justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately with a view to "preserving civil liberties". In the words of David Rockefeller:
"We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."2
A similar statement, which no doubt reflects a consensus within the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), was made by former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand Chessboard:
"As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
Similarly, the NeoCons' Project for the New American Century (PNAC), published in September 2000, barely a few months before George W. Bush’s accession to the White House, called for:
"some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."3
What is terrifying in these assertions is that they emanate from the architects of US foreign policy. In other words, America’s leaders in Washington and Wall Street firmly believe in the righteousness of war and authoritarian forms of government as a means to "safeguarding democratic values".
The repeal of democracy is portrayed as a means to providing "domestic security" and upholding civil liberties. Truth is falsehood and falsehood is truth. Realities are turned upside down. Acts of war are heralded as "humanitarian interventions" geared towards upholding democracy. Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as "peace-keeping operations."
This dominant viewpoint is also shared by the mainstream media, which constitutes the cornerstone of the propaganda and disinformation campaign. Any attempt by antiwar critics to reveal the lies underlying these statements is defined as a "criminal act".
In other words, the "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals, supported by Wall Street, the "big five" defense contractors and the Texas oil giants, legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are the criminals.
From Orange to Red Code Alert
The "terrorist massive casualty producing event" has become an integral part of the Bush administration’s propaganda campaign. The Administration has put the country on "high risk" Orange Code terror alert five times since September 11, 2001. Without exception, Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda has been identified as "a threat to the Homeland". The official announcement invariably points to "significant intelligence reports" or "credible sources" of a terrorist attack "from the international terrorist group al-Qaeda".
Since 9/11, Americans have accepted these terrorist warnings at face value. Al Qaeda is viewed as an enemy of America. The terror alerts have become part of a routine: people have become accustomed in their daily lives to the Orange Code terror alerts. Moreover, they have also accepted the distinct possibility of a changeover from Orange to Red Code Alert (as stated time and again by Homeland Security) in the foreseeable future, which would result from an actual terrorist occurrence.
Needless to say, the disinformation campaign, which is fed on a daily basis into the news chain, supports this process of shaping US public opinion. The hidden agenda ultimately consists in creating an environment of fear and intimidation, which mobilizes public support for an actual national emergency situation, leading to the declaration of martial law.
The Terror Alerts were based on Fabricated Intelligence
The evidence suggests that the Orange Code "high risk" alerts on February 7, 2003, and December, 21, 2003 were based on fabricated intelligence.
Orange Code Alert had been ordered on 7 February 2003, one day after Colin Powell's flopped presentation on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction to the UN Security Council. Powell's intelligence dossier had been politely dismissed. The rebuttal came from UN Inspector Hans Blix, who showed that the intelligence used as a pretext to wage war on Iraq had been blatantly fabricated.
Colin Powell addressed the UN Security Council on the 6th. On the 7th, the Bush administration declared an ‘Orange Code’ Terror Alert. This "save face operation" contributed to appeasing an impending scandal, while also upholding the Pentagon's planned invasion of Iraq.
Media attention was immediately shifted from Colin Powell's blunders at the UN Security Council to an (alleged) impending terrorist attack on America. Anti-aircraft missiles were immediately deployed around Washington. The media became inundated with stories on Iraqi support to an impending Al Qaeda attack on America.
The objective was to present Iraq as the aggressor. According to the New York Post, (11 February 2003):
"The nation is now on Orange Alert because intelligence intercepts and simple logic both suggest that our Islamic enemies know the best way to strike at us is through terrorism on U.S. soil."
Another story allegedly emanating from the CIA on so-called ‘radioactive dirty bombs had been planted in the news chain.4 Secretary Powell warned that "it would be easy for terrorists to cook up radioactive ‘dirty’ bombs to explode inside the U.S. … ‘How likely it is, I can't say... But I think it is wise for us to at least let the American people know of this possibility.’" 5 Meanwhile, network TV had warned that "American hotels, shopping malls or apartment buildings could be al Qaeda's targets as soon as next week…"
The hidden agenda in the weeks leading up to the invasion of Iraq was to link Baghdad to Al Qaeda, muster unbending support for President Bush and weaken the anti-war protest movement. Following the announcement, tens of thousands of Americans rushed to purchase duct tape, plastic sheets and gas-masks.
It later transpired that the terrorist alert was fabricated by the CIA, in all likelihood in consultation with the upper echelons of the State Department. 6
The FBI, for the first time had pointed its finger at the CIA.
"This piece of that puzzle turns out to be fabricated and therefore the reason for a lot of the alarm, particularly in Washington this week, has been dissipated after they found out that this information was not true," said Vince Cannistraro, former CIA counter-terrorism chief and ABCNEWS consultant.
(...)
According to officials, the FBI and the CIA are pointing fingers at each other. An FBI spokesperson told ABCNEWS today he was "not familiar with the scenario," but did not think it was accurate. "7
While tacitly acknowledging that the alert was a fake, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge decided to maintain the ‘Orange Code’ alert:
"Despite the fabricated report, there are no plans to change the threat level. Officials said other intelligence has been validated and that the high level of precautions is fully warranted." 8
A few days later, in another failed propaganda initiative, a mysterious Osama bin Laden audio tape was presented by Sec. Colin Powell to the US Congress as ‘evidence’ that the Islamic terrorists "are making common cause with a brutal dictator". 9 Curiously, the audio tape was in Colin Powell's possession prior to its broadcast by the Al Jazeera TV Network.10
Tom Ridge’s Christmas Terror Alert
On December 21st, 2003 four days before Christmas, the Homeland Security Department, again raised the national threat level from "elevated" to "high risk" of terrorist attack. 11
In his pre-Christmas Press Conference, Homeland Security department Secretary Tom Ridge confirmed in much the same way as on February 7, 2003, that: "the U.S. intelligence community has received a substantial increase in the volume of threat-related intelligence reports". According to Tom Ridge, these "credible [intelligence] sources" raise "the possibility of attacks against the homeland, around the holiday season..."12
While the circumstances and timing were different, Secretary Tom Ridge's December 21 statement had all the appearances of a "copy and paste" (Déjà Vu) version of his February 7 announcement, which according to the FBI was a hoax, based on fabricated intelligence..
What is disturbing in the December 21 statement is the fact that an "actual" or "attempted" Al Qaeda terrorist attack seems already to be in the official pipeline. Al Qaeda is once again identified as "the Outside Enemy", without of course mentioning that Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA and an "intelligence asset" controlled by the US.13
Needless to say the atmosphere of fear and confusion created across America, contributed to breaking the spirit of Christmas. According to the media reports, the high-level terror alert is to "hang over the holidays and usher in the New Year".
"Terrorists still threaten our country and we remain engaged in a dangerous - to be sure - difficult war and it will not be over soon," warned Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. "They can attack at any time and at any place."
With America on high terror alert for the Christmas holiday season, intelligence officials fear al-Qaeda is eager to stage a spectacular attack - possibly hijacking a foreign airliner or cargo jet and crashing it into a high-profile target inside the United States." 14
The official Christmas announcement by the Homeland Security Department dispelled any lingering doubts regarding the threat level:
"the risk [during the Christmas period] is perhaps greater now than at any point since September 11, 2001;"
It also warned Americans, in no uncertain terms, but without supporting evidence, that there are:
"indications that [the] near-term attacks ... will either rival or exceed the [9/11] attacks".
"And it's pretty clear that the nation's capital and New York city would be on any list..."
Following Secretary Ridge's announcement, anti-aircraft missile batteries were set up in Washington:
. "And the Pentagon said today, more combat air patrols will now be flying over select cities and facilities, with some airbases placed on higher alert." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "You ask, 'Is it serious?' Yes, you bet your life. People don't do that unless it's a serious situation." 15
According to an official statement: "intelligence indicates that Al Qaeda-trained pilots may be working for overseas airlines and ready to carry out suicide attacks." 16
More specifically, Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists were, according to Homland Security, planning to hijack an Air France plane and "crash it on US soil in a suicide terror strike similar to those carried out on September 11, 2001."
Air France Christmas flights out of Paris were grounded. F-16 fighters were patrolling the skies.
Yet it turned out that the stand down orders on Air France's Christmas flights from Paris to Los Angeles, which were used to justify the Code Orange Alert during the Christmas holiday, were based on fabricated information.
According to the official version of events, Washington had identified six members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban on the Air France passenger list:
"U.S. counter-terrorism officials said their investigation was focusing on the "informed belief" that about six men on Air France Flight 68, which arrives in Los Angeles daily at 4:05 p.m., may have been planning to hijack the jet and crash it near Los Angeles, or along the way.
That belief, according to one senior U.S. counter-terrorism official, was based on reliable and corroborated information from several sources. Some of the men had the same names as identified members of Al Qaida and the Taliban, a senior U.S. official said. One of the men is a trained pilot with a commercial license, according to a senior U.S. official.
U.S. law-enforcement officials said the flights were canceled in response to the same intelligence that prompted… Homeland Security… to ratchet up the nation's terror-alert level to orange…
With that information, U.S. authorities contacted French intelligence ... They prevailed upon Air France to cancel [their flights], because the original intelligence information warned of more than one flight being commandeered." 17
Other media confirmed that "the reports gathered by American agencies were 'very, very precise'" Meanwhile Fox News pointed to the possibility that Al Qaeda was "trying to plant disinformation, among other things to cost us money, to throw people into panic and perhaps to probe our defenses to see how we respond?"18
"Mistaken Identity"
Needless to say these fabricated media reports served to create a tense atmosphere during the Christmas holiday. Los Angeles International airport was on "maximum deployment" with counter-terrorism and FBI officials working around the clock.
Yet following the French investigation, it turned out that the terror alert was a hoax. The information was not "very very precise" as claimed by US intelligence.
The six Al Qaeda men turned out to be a five year old boy, an elderly Chinese lady who used to run a restaurant in Paris, a Welsh insurance salesman and three French nationals.19
On January 2nd, the French government confirmed that the intelligence communicated by Washington was erroneous: There "was not a trace of Al Qaeda among the passengers."
Yet, these "inconsistencies" regarding US intelligence had already been uncovered on the 23d of December by France's antiterrorist services, which had politely refuted the so-called "credible sources" emanating out of the US intelligence apparatus.
France's counter-terrorism experts were extremely "sceptical" of their US counterparts:
We [French police investigators] showed [on 23 December] that their arguments simply did not make sense, but despite this the flights were cancelled... The main suspect [a Tunisian hijacker] turned out to be a child… We really had the feeling of unfriendly treatment [by US officials] (ils nous appliquent un traitement d'infamie). The information was not transmitted through normal channels. It wasn't the FBI or the CIA which contacted us, everything went through diplomatic channels..." 20
The decision to cancel the six Air France flights was taken after 2 days of intense negotiations between French and American officials. They were cancelled on the orders of the French Prime minister following consultations with Sec. Colin Powell. This decision was taken following the completion of the French investigation. Despite the fact that the information had been refuted, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge insisted on maintaining the stand-down order. If Air France had not complied, it would have been prevented from using US air space, namely banned from flying to the US.
It was only on January 2nd, once the holiday season was over that the US authorities admitted that they were in error, claiming that it was a unavoidable case of "mistaken identity." While tacitly acknowledging their error, Homeland Security insisted that "the cancellations were based on solid information."
Emergency Planning
Needless to say, had the flights not been cancelled, the Administration's justification for Orange Code Alert would no longer hold. In other words, Homeland Security needed to sustain the lie over the entire Christmas holiday. It also required an active Orange Alert to launch emergency planning procedures at the highest levels of the Bush Administration.
The day following Secretary Ridge's Christmas announcement (December 21st), President Bush was briefed by his "top anti-terror advisors" in closed door sessions at the White House. Later in the day, the Homeland Security Council (HSC) met, also at the White House. The executive body of the HSC, the so-called Principals Committee (HSC/PC), headed by Secretary Tom Ridge. includes Donald Rumsfeld, CIA Director George Tenet, Attorney General John Ashcroft , FBI Director Robert Mueller and Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, who overseas the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 21
In the wake of the HSC meeting held on 22 December, Secretary Ridge confirmed that:
"we reviewed the specific plans and the specific action we have taken and will continue to take" 22
According to the official statement, which must be taken seriously, an "actual terrorist attack" in the near future on American soil would lead to a Red Code Alert. The latter in turn, would create conditions for the (temporary) suspension of the normal functions of civilian government, as foreseen by General Tommy Franks. This scenario was envisaged by Secretary Tom Ridge in a CBS News Interview on December 22, 2003:
"If we simply go to red ... it basically shuts down the country," meaning that civilian government bodies would be closed down and taken over by an Emergency Administration. 23
Preparing for Martial Law
In preparation for a Red code Alert, the Homeland Security department had conducted in May 2003 a major "anti-terrorist exercise" entitled TOPOFF 2. The latter is described as "the largest and most comprehensive terrorism response and homeland security exercise ever conducted in the United States."
In a Strangelovian logic, this "national response capability" translated into a military style exercise by federal, State and local level governments, including Canadian participants, establishes various "scenarios" under a Red Code Alert. In essence, it was conducted on the same assumption as military exercises in anticipation of an actual theater war, in this case, to be waged by foreign terrorists, examining various WMD attack scenarios and the institutional response of State and local governments:
"It assessed how responders, leaders, and other authorities would react to the simulated release of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in two U. S. cities, Seattle, WA and Chicago, IL. The exercise scenario depicted a fictitious, foreign terrorist organization that detonated a simulated radiological dispersal device (RDD or dirty bomb) in Seattle and released the pneumonic plague in several Chicago metropolitan area locations. There was also significant pre-exercise intelligence play, a cyber-attack, and credible terrorism threats against other locations." 24
The terror exercise including the WMD scenarios is based on a big lie.
Let us be very clear on what is happening in America. We are no longer strictly dealing with a fear and disinformation campaign. Actual "terrorist massive casualty producing events" constitute the basic premise and driving force behind the Homeland Emergency response system, including its Ready.Gov instructions to citizens, its "anti-terrorist" legal framework under the Second Patriot Act, etc.
What we are dealing with is not only a criminal act, but a carefully engineered act of treason emanating from the highest levels of the US State apparatus. In short, what we are dealing with is "the Roadmap to a Police State" in America, to be implemented in the wake of an national emergency, either under a military form of government or under a police state, which maintains all the appearances of a functioning two party "Democracy".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
1. Tommy Franks Interview, Cigar Aficionado, December 2003
2. David Rockefeller, Statement to the United Nations Business Council, 1994
See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html
ABC News, 13 February 2003.
ABC News, 9 February. 2003.
ABC News, 13 February 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG302A.html .
Ibid
Ibid
US official quoted in The Toronto Star, 12 February. 2003.
Ibid
See Department of Homeland Security at http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/index.jsp
For complete statement of Secretary Tom Ridge, 21 December 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/
See Selected References at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/11SEPT309A.html
Boston Globe, 24 December 2003
ABC News, 23 December 2003
quoted by ABC News, 23 December 2003.
Seattle Post Intelligence, 25 December 2003.
Fox News, 28 December 2003.
Le Monde, Paris and RTBF TV, Bruxelles, 2 January 2004
quoted in Le Monde, 3 January 2003.
White House Briefing, 22 December 2003.
AFP, 23 December 2003.
The scenario is presented in detail at the Homeland department's Ready.Gov website at http://www.ready.gov/
For full text see, Department of Homeland Security, Summary Conclusions From National Exercise, Office of the Press Secretary, December 19, 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=2693
Centre for Research on Globalisation
Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation
The Criminalization of the State
by Michel Chossudovsky
Global Outlook, Issue 7, Spring 2004
www.globalresearch.ca 3 February 2004
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO402A.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America’s leaders in Washington and Wall Street firmly believe in the righteousness of war and authoritarian forms of government as a means to "safeguarding democratic values".
According to Homeland Security "the near-term attacks will either rival or exceed the 9/11 attacks".
An actual "terrorist attack" on American soil would lead to the suspension of civilian government and the establishment of martial law. In the words of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge: "If we go to Red [code alert]... it basically shuts down the country,"
"You ask, 'Is it serious?' Yes, you bet your life. People don't do that unless it's a serious situation." (Donald Rumsfeld)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are the criminals.
A terrorist attack on American soil of the size and nature of September 11, would lead ---according to former CENTCOM Commander, General Tommy Franks-- to the downfall of democracy in America. In an interview last December, which was barely mentioned in the US media, General Franks outlined with cynical accuracy a scenario, which would result in the suspension of the Constitution and the installation of military rule in America:
"a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event [will occur] somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event."1
Franks was alluding to a so-called "Pearl Harbor type event" which would be used to galvanise US public opinion in support of a military government and police state. The "terrorist massive casualty-producing event" is presented by General Franks as a crucial political turning point. The resulting crisis and social turmoil is intended to facilitate a major shift in US political, social and institutional structures.
It is important to understand that General Franks was not giving a personal opinion on this issue. His statement very much reflects the dominant viewpoint both in the Pentagon and the Homeland Security department as to how events might unfold in the case of a national emergency.
The statement comes from a man who has been actively involved in military and intelligence planning at the highest levels. In other words, the "militarisation of our country" is an ongoing operational assumption. It is part of the broader "Washington consensus". It identifies the Bush administration's "roadmap" of war and Homeland defense.
The "war on terrorism" which constitutes the cornerstone of Bush’s national security doctrine, provides the required justification for repealing the Rule of Law, ultimately with a view to "preserving civil liberties". In the words of David Rockefeller:
"We are on the verge of global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."2
A similar statement, which no doubt reflects a consensus within the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), was made by former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book, The Grand Chessboard:
"As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
Similarly, the NeoCons' Project for the New American Century (PNAC), published in September 2000, barely a few months before George W. Bush’s accession to the White House, called for:
"some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor."3
What is terrifying in these assertions is that they emanate from the architects of US foreign policy. In other words, America’s leaders in Washington and Wall Street firmly believe in the righteousness of war and authoritarian forms of government as a means to "safeguarding democratic values".
The repeal of democracy is portrayed as a means to providing "domestic security" and upholding civil liberties. Truth is falsehood and falsehood is truth. Realities are turned upside down. Acts of war are heralded as "humanitarian interventions" geared towards upholding democracy. Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as "peace-keeping operations."
This dominant viewpoint is also shared by the mainstream media, which constitutes the cornerstone of the propaganda and disinformation campaign. Any attempt by antiwar critics to reveal the lies underlying these statements is defined as a "criminal act".
In other words, the "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals, supported by Wall Street, the "big five" defense contractors and the Texas oil giants, legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide "who are the criminals", when in fact they are the criminals.
From Orange to Red Code Alert
The "terrorist massive casualty producing event" has become an integral part of the Bush administration’s propaganda campaign. The Administration has put the country on "high risk" Orange Code terror alert five times since September 11, 2001. Without exception, Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda has been identified as "a threat to the Homeland". The official announcement invariably points to "significant intelligence reports" or "credible sources" of a terrorist attack "from the international terrorist group al-Qaeda".
Since 9/11, Americans have accepted these terrorist warnings at face value. Al Qaeda is viewed as an enemy of America. The terror alerts have become part of a routine: people have become accustomed in their daily lives to the Orange Code terror alerts. Moreover, they have also accepted the distinct possibility of a changeover from Orange to Red Code Alert (as stated time and again by Homeland Security) in the foreseeable future, which would result from an actual terrorist occurrence.
Needless to say, the disinformation campaign, which is fed on a daily basis into the news chain, supports this process of shaping US public opinion. The hidden agenda ultimately consists in creating an environment of fear and intimidation, which mobilizes public support for an actual national emergency situation, leading to the declaration of martial law.
The Terror Alerts were based on Fabricated Intelligence
The evidence suggests that the Orange Code "high risk" alerts on February 7, 2003, and December, 21, 2003 were based on fabricated intelligence.
Orange Code Alert had been ordered on 7 February 2003, one day after Colin Powell's flopped presentation on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction to the UN Security Council. Powell's intelligence dossier had been politely dismissed. The rebuttal came from UN Inspector Hans Blix, who showed that the intelligence used as a pretext to wage war on Iraq had been blatantly fabricated.
Colin Powell addressed the UN Security Council on the 6th. On the 7th, the Bush administration declared an ‘Orange Code’ Terror Alert. This "save face operation" contributed to appeasing an impending scandal, while also upholding the Pentagon's planned invasion of Iraq.
Media attention was immediately shifted from Colin Powell's blunders at the UN Security Council to an (alleged) impending terrorist attack on America. Anti-aircraft missiles were immediately deployed around Washington. The media became inundated with stories on Iraqi support to an impending Al Qaeda attack on America.
The objective was to present Iraq as the aggressor. According to the New York Post, (11 February 2003):
"The nation is now on Orange Alert because intelligence intercepts and simple logic both suggest that our Islamic enemies know the best way to strike at us is through terrorism on U.S. soil."
Another story allegedly emanating from the CIA on so-called ‘radioactive dirty bombs had been planted in the news chain.4 Secretary Powell warned that "it would be easy for terrorists to cook up radioactive ‘dirty’ bombs to explode inside the U.S. … ‘How likely it is, I can't say... But I think it is wise for us to at least let the American people know of this possibility.’" 5 Meanwhile, network TV had warned that "American hotels, shopping malls or apartment buildings could be al Qaeda's targets as soon as next week…"
The hidden agenda in the weeks leading up to the invasion of Iraq was to link Baghdad to Al Qaeda, muster unbending support for President Bush and weaken the anti-war protest movement. Following the announcement, tens of thousands of Americans rushed to purchase duct tape, plastic sheets and gas-masks.
It later transpired that the terrorist alert was fabricated by the CIA, in all likelihood in consultation with the upper echelons of the State Department. 6
The FBI, for the first time had pointed its finger at the CIA.
"This piece of that puzzle turns out to be fabricated and therefore the reason for a lot of the alarm, particularly in Washington this week, has been dissipated after they found out that this information was not true," said Vince Cannistraro, former CIA counter-terrorism chief and ABCNEWS consultant.
(...)
According to officials, the FBI and the CIA are pointing fingers at each other. An FBI spokesperson told ABCNEWS today he was "not familiar with the scenario," but did not think it was accurate. "7
While tacitly acknowledging that the alert was a fake, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge decided to maintain the ‘Orange Code’ alert:
"Despite the fabricated report, there are no plans to change the threat level. Officials said other intelligence has been validated and that the high level of precautions is fully warranted." 8
A few days later, in another failed propaganda initiative, a mysterious Osama bin Laden audio tape was presented by Sec. Colin Powell to the US Congress as ‘evidence’ that the Islamic terrorists "are making common cause with a brutal dictator". 9 Curiously, the audio tape was in Colin Powell's possession prior to its broadcast by the Al Jazeera TV Network.10
Tom Ridge’s Christmas Terror Alert
On December 21st, 2003 four days before Christmas, the Homeland Security Department, again raised the national threat level from "elevated" to "high risk" of terrorist attack. 11
In his pre-Christmas Press Conference, Homeland Security department Secretary Tom Ridge confirmed in much the same way as on February 7, 2003, that: "the U.S. intelligence community has received a substantial increase in the volume of threat-related intelligence reports". According to Tom Ridge, these "credible [intelligence] sources" raise "the possibility of attacks against the homeland, around the holiday season..."12
While the circumstances and timing were different, Secretary Tom Ridge's December 21 statement had all the appearances of a "copy and paste" (Déjà Vu) version of his February 7 announcement, which according to the FBI was a hoax, based on fabricated intelligence..
What is disturbing in the December 21 statement is the fact that an "actual" or "attempted" Al Qaeda terrorist attack seems already to be in the official pipeline. Al Qaeda is once again identified as "the Outside Enemy", without of course mentioning that Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA and an "intelligence asset" controlled by the US.13
Needless to say the atmosphere of fear and confusion created across America, contributed to breaking the spirit of Christmas. According to the media reports, the high-level terror alert is to "hang over the holidays and usher in the New Year".
"Terrorists still threaten our country and we remain engaged in a dangerous - to be sure - difficult war and it will not be over soon," warned Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. "They can attack at any time and at any place."
With America on high terror alert for the Christmas holiday season, intelligence officials fear al-Qaeda is eager to stage a spectacular attack - possibly hijacking a foreign airliner or cargo jet and crashing it into a high-profile target inside the United States." 14
The official Christmas announcement by the Homeland Security Department dispelled any lingering doubts regarding the threat level:
"the risk [during the Christmas period] is perhaps greater now than at any point since September 11, 2001;"
It also warned Americans, in no uncertain terms, but without supporting evidence, that there are:
"indications that [the] near-term attacks ... will either rival or exceed the [9/11] attacks".
"And it's pretty clear that the nation's capital and New York city would be on any list..."
Following Secretary Ridge's announcement, anti-aircraft missile batteries were set up in Washington:
. "And the Pentagon said today, more combat air patrols will now be flying over select cities and facilities, with some airbases placed on higher alert." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "You ask, 'Is it serious?' Yes, you bet your life. People don't do that unless it's a serious situation." 15
According to an official statement: "intelligence indicates that Al Qaeda-trained pilots may be working for overseas airlines and ready to carry out suicide attacks." 16
More specifically, Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists were, according to Homland Security, planning to hijack an Air France plane and "crash it on US soil in a suicide terror strike similar to those carried out on September 11, 2001."
Air France Christmas flights out of Paris were grounded. F-16 fighters were patrolling the skies.
Yet it turned out that the stand down orders on Air France's Christmas flights from Paris to Los Angeles, which were used to justify the Code Orange Alert during the Christmas holiday, were based on fabricated information.
According to the official version of events, Washington had identified six members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban on the Air France passenger list:
"U.S. counter-terrorism officials said their investigation was focusing on the "informed belief" that about six men on Air France Flight 68, which arrives in Los Angeles daily at 4:05 p.m., may have been planning to hijack the jet and crash it near Los Angeles, or along the way.
That belief, according to one senior U.S. counter-terrorism official, was based on reliable and corroborated information from several sources. Some of the men had the same names as identified members of Al Qaida and the Taliban, a senior U.S. official said. One of the men is a trained pilot with a commercial license, according to a senior U.S. official.
U.S. law-enforcement officials said the flights were canceled in response to the same intelligence that prompted… Homeland Security… to ratchet up the nation's terror-alert level to orange…
With that information, U.S. authorities contacted French intelligence ... They prevailed upon Air France to cancel [their flights], because the original intelligence information warned of more than one flight being commandeered." 17
Other media confirmed that "the reports gathered by American agencies were 'very, very precise'" Meanwhile Fox News pointed to the possibility that Al Qaeda was "trying to plant disinformation, among other things to cost us money, to throw people into panic and perhaps to probe our defenses to see how we respond?"18
"Mistaken Identity"
Needless to say these fabricated media reports served to create a tense atmosphere during the Christmas holiday. Los Angeles International airport was on "maximum deployment" with counter-terrorism and FBI officials working around the clock.
Yet following the French investigation, it turned out that the terror alert was a hoax. The information was not "very very precise" as claimed by US intelligence.
The six Al Qaeda men turned out to be a five year old boy, an elderly Chinese lady who used to run a restaurant in Paris, a Welsh insurance salesman and three French nationals.19
On January 2nd, the French government confirmed that the intelligence communicated by Washington was erroneous: There "was not a trace of Al Qaeda among the passengers."
Yet, these "inconsistencies" regarding US intelligence had already been uncovered on the 23d of December by France's antiterrorist services, which had politely refuted the so-called "credible sources" emanating out of the US intelligence apparatus.
France's counter-terrorism experts were extremely "sceptical" of their US counterparts:
We [French police investigators] showed [on 23 December] that their arguments simply did not make sense, but despite this the flights were cancelled... The main suspect [a Tunisian hijacker] turned out to be a child… We really had the feeling of unfriendly treatment [by US officials] (ils nous appliquent un traitement d'infamie). The information was not transmitted through normal channels. It wasn't the FBI or the CIA which contacted us, everything went through diplomatic channels..." 20
The decision to cancel the six Air France flights was taken after 2 days of intense negotiations between French and American officials. They were cancelled on the orders of the French Prime minister following consultations with Sec. Colin Powell. This decision was taken following the completion of the French investigation. Despite the fact that the information had been refuted, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge insisted on maintaining the stand-down order. If Air France had not complied, it would have been prevented from using US air space, namely banned from flying to the US.
It was only on January 2nd, once the holiday season was over that the US authorities admitted that they were in error, claiming that it was a unavoidable case of "mistaken identity." While tacitly acknowledging their error, Homeland Security insisted that "the cancellations were based on solid information."
Emergency Planning
Needless to say, had the flights not been cancelled, the Administration's justification for Orange Code Alert would no longer hold. In other words, Homeland Security needed to sustain the lie over the entire Christmas holiday. It also required an active Orange Alert to launch emergency planning procedures at the highest levels of the Bush Administration.
The day following Secretary Ridge's Christmas announcement (December 21st), President Bush was briefed by his "top anti-terror advisors" in closed door sessions at the White House. Later in the day, the Homeland Security Council (HSC) met, also at the White House. The executive body of the HSC, the so-called Principals Committee (HSC/PC), headed by Secretary Tom Ridge. includes Donald Rumsfeld, CIA Director George Tenet, Attorney General John Ashcroft , FBI Director Robert Mueller and Michael D. Brown, Under Secretary, Emergency Preparedness and Response, who overseas the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 21
In the wake of the HSC meeting held on 22 December, Secretary Ridge confirmed that:
"we reviewed the specific plans and the specific action we have taken and will continue to take" 22
According to the official statement, which must be taken seriously, an "actual terrorist attack" in the near future on American soil would lead to a Red Code Alert. The latter in turn, would create conditions for the (temporary) suspension of the normal functions of civilian government, as foreseen by General Tommy Franks. This scenario was envisaged by Secretary Tom Ridge in a CBS News Interview on December 22, 2003:
"If we simply go to red ... it basically shuts down the country," meaning that civilian government bodies would be closed down and taken over by an Emergency Administration. 23
Preparing for Martial Law
In preparation for a Red code Alert, the Homeland Security department had conducted in May 2003 a major "anti-terrorist exercise" entitled TOPOFF 2. The latter is described as "the largest and most comprehensive terrorism response and homeland security exercise ever conducted in the United States."
In a Strangelovian logic, this "national response capability" translated into a military style exercise by federal, State and local level governments, including Canadian participants, establishes various "scenarios" under a Red Code Alert. In essence, it was conducted on the same assumption as military exercises in anticipation of an actual theater war, in this case, to be waged by foreign terrorists, examining various WMD attack scenarios and the institutional response of State and local governments:
"It assessed how responders, leaders, and other authorities would react to the simulated release of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in two U. S. cities, Seattle, WA and Chicago, IL. The exercise scenario depicted a fictitious, foreign terrorist organization that detonated a simulated radiological dispersal device (RDD or dirty bomb) in Seattle and released the pneumonic plague in several Chicago metropolitan area locations. There was also significant pre-exercise intelligence play, a cyber-attack, and credible terrorism threats against other locations." 24
The terror exercise including the WMD scenarios is based on a big lie.
Let us be very clear on what is happening in America. We are no longer strictly dealing with a fear and disinformation campaign. Actual "terrorist massive casualty producing events" constitute the basic premise and driving force behind the Homeland Emergency response system, including its Ready.Gov instructions to citizens, its "anti-terrorist" legal framework under the Second Patriot Act, etc.
What we are dealing with is not only a criminal act, but a carefully engineered act of treason emanating from the highest levels of the US State apparatus. In short, what we are dealing with is "the Roadmap to a Police State" in America, to be implemented in the wake of an national emergency, either under a military form of government or under a police state, which maintains all the appearances of a functioning two party "Democracy".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
1. Tommy Franks Interview, Cigar Aficionado, December 2003
2. David Rockefeller, Statement to the United Nations Business Council, 1994
See http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/NAC304A.html
ABC News, 13 February 2003.
ABC News, 9 February. 2003.
ABC News, 13 February 2003, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG302A.html .
Ibid
Ibid
US official quoted in The Toronto Star, 12 February. 2003.
Ibid
See Department of Homeland Security at http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/index.jsp
For complete statement of Secretary Tom Ridge, 21 December 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/
See Selected References at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/11SEPT309A.html
Boston Globe, 24 December 2003
ABC News, 23 December 2003
quoted by ABC News, 23 December 2003.
Seattle Post Intelligence, 25 December 2003.
Fox News, 28 December 2003.
Le Monde, Paris and RTBF TV, Bruxelles, 2 January 2004
quoted in Le Monde, 3 January 2003.
White House Briefing, 22 December 2003.
AFP, 23 December 2003.
The scenario is presented in detail at the Homeland department's Ready.Gov website at http://www.ready.gov/
For full text see, Department of Homeland Security, Summary Conclusions From National Exercise, Office of the Press Secretary, December 19, 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=2693
G
Guest
Guest
Selling The War Without Lying - VIEW FROM THE LEFT
Harley Sorensen, February 16, 2004 - ©2004 SF Gate
Last year, in his State of the Union Address, President George W. Bush appears to have been somewhat in error when he described the vast array of weapons controlled by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
With some qualifiers, Bush said Saddam had 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent and upward of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering those chemical and biological agents. He also said Saddam had several mobile biological-weapons labs, which could be moved from place to place to evade inspectors. And, for the pièce de résistance, Bush offered proof that Saddam was working on nuclear weapons.
As if that weren't enough, Bush also suggested strongly a link between Saddam and terrorist members of Al Qaeda.
It was a sobering report. Those of us listening to it had little reason to doubt its authenticity. And it became the foundation for the Bush administration's claim that Saddam was a threat to the United States of America, and it behooved us to get him before he got us.
So we went to war with Iraq and discovered in due time that Bush had used his reputation as a straight shooter to convince us of "facts" that just didn't exist.
When it became obvious that Bush was full of it, he and others in his administration switched gears. We had to conquer and occupy Iraq, they said, because Saddam was a horrible despot who had to be removed for the sake of Iraqis and all humankind.
That argument actually held water. It is hard to imagine a modern-day dictator more brutal than Saddam, though some might exist.
So the fear campaign out of the White House turned out to be just a marketing technique, a device used to sell a war that might not otherwise be tolerated by the American public. Richard Perle, a White House insider, has said as much. Bush himself has now admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, though he still uses those attacks to sell other unrelated policies.
What I'm wondering, through all this, is how Bush might have sold the war in Iraq if he had stuck with the truth. Perhaps it would have gone something like this:
"My fellow Americans, the world has a problem. Saddam Hussein runs the nation of Iraq with an iron fist, killing anyone who even mildly disagrees with him. He has killed tens of thousands of Iraqis and shows no sign of letting up.
"In his prolonged war with Iran, he used chemical weapons against both the Iranians and the Kurds living in his own country. As you know, chemical weapons are outlawed by international agreement. Had he used mere bombs and napalm and land mines and rockets and artillery shells and flame throwers, we would have no problem with him. But poison gas? Give me a break!
"As you know, we fought Saddam before, a dozen years ago. We drove his troops out of Kuwait and slaughtered a goodly number of them on the road to Basra. We can handle these people. They're no match for our size, our technology and our advanced equipment.
"As you also know, Saddam concocted a plot to assassinate my father when he traveled to the Middle East as president. It didn't work, thank God, but don't think for a minute that I'm forgetting it.
"Anyway, I think it's time to take out Saddam and see if we can install a democratic government in Iraq. Right now there's only one democratic nation in that part of the world, Israel, and for some odd reason other nations are not adopting Israel's form of government. But maybe when we force Iraq into becoming a democracy, other Arab and Persian nations will follow suit.
"Okay, now here's the catch. Nobody gets nothin' for nothin', as they say, and there will be a cost to our humanitarian mission in Iraq. I'm figuring about $200 billion up front. That works out to about $1,500 per taxpayer, which is mere chump change for most of you, I'm sure.
"And -- full disclosure here -- we'll have to borrow the money, because our treasury is empty. Yeah, we've had a string of bad luck in the last couple years, and the big surplus Bill Clinton left us is gone now and we're hopelessly mired in debt. But not to worry. We can borrow the money and pay later. Because of interest, that might double your cost, so, just to be on the safe side, figure your individual tab for ridding the world of Saddam to be about $3,000.
"Chump change.
"There's one other point I have to bring up, and that's casualties. War is hell, you know, and people die in wars. That's just the way it is. So we're going to have to sacrifice several hundred of your sons and daughters to bring Saddam down.
"Now I know for most of you, your sons and daughters will never see this war. They'll be in college or working in the family business or breaking into the legal profession or maybe even starting up a little oil business in Midland. Take it from me, there are all kinds of ways for young people to avoid going to war.
"But for those of you in a socioeconomic position where joining the military is the best financial opportunity available for your sons and daughters, well, we appreciate your sacrifice.
"Oh, dang, I almost forgot to mention the wounded. They are telling me that about one in 50 fighters over there will end up permanently damaged: loss of an arm or a leg or more, blindness, whatever -- it's war, and stuff happens. So I guess we have to factor that into the cost, including the fact that all these disabled young people will be pensioned off for the rest of their lives and will have to be treated at government expense.
"So, that's the deal, folks. We have to start banging away at that ol' Axis of Evil, and Iraq and Saddam seems like a good place to start. What do you think? Are you in, or out?"
Harley Sorensen, February 16, 2004 - ©2004 SF Gate
Last year, in his State of the Union Address, President George W. Bush appears to have been somewhat in error when he described the vast array of weapons controlled by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
With some qualifiers, Bush said Saddam had 25,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent and upward of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering those chemical and biological agents. He also said Saddam had several mobile biological-weapons labs, which could be moved from place to place to evade inspectors. And, for the pièce de résistance, Bush offered proof that Saddam was working on nuclear weapons.
As if that weren't enough, Bush also suggested strongly a link between Saddam and terrorist members of Al Qaeda.
It was a sobering report. Those of us listening to it had little reason to doubt its authenticity. And it became the foundation for the Bush administration's claim that Saddam was a threat to the United States of America, and it behooved us to get him before he got us.
So we went to war with Iraq and discovered in due time that Bush had used his reputation as a straight shooter to convince us of "facts" that just didn't exist.
When it became obvious that Bush was full of it, he and others in his administration switched gears. We had to conquer and occupy Iraq, they said, because Saddam was a horrible despot who had to be removed for the sake of Iraqis and all humankind.
That argument actually held water. It is hard to imagine a modern-day dictator more brutal than Saddam, though some might exist.
So the fear campaign out of the White House turned out to be just a marketing technique, a device used to sell a war that might not otherwise be tolerated by the American public. Richard Perle, a White House insider, has said as much. Bush himself has now admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, though he still uses those attacks to sell other unrelated policies.
What I'm wondering, through all this, is how Bush might have sold the war in Iraq if he had stuck with the truth. Perhaps it would have gone something like this:
"My fellow Americans, the world has a problem. Saddam Hussein runs the nation of Iraq with an iron fist, killing anyone who even mildly disagrees with him. He has killed tens of thousands of Iraqis and shows no sign of letting up.
"In his prolonged war with Iran, he used chemical weapons against both the Iranians and the Kurds living in his own country. As you know, chemical weapons are outlawed by international agreement. Had he used mere bombs and napalm and land mines and rockets and artillery shells and flame throwers, we would have no problem with him. But poison gas? Give me a break!
"As you know, we fought Saddam before, a dozen years ago. We drove his troops out of Kuwait and slaughtered a goodly number of them on the road to Basra. We can handle these people. They're no match for our size, our technology and our advanced equipment.
"As you also know, Saddam concocted a plot to assassinate my father when he traveled to the Middle East as president. It didn't work, thank God, but don't think for a minute that I'm forgetting it.
"Anyway, I think it's time to take out Saddam and see if we can install a democratic government in Iraq. Right now there's only one democratic nation in that part of the world, Israel, and for some odd reason other nations are not adopting Israel's form of government. But maybe when we force Iraq into becoming a democracy, other Arab and Persian nations will follow suit.
"Okay, now here's the catch. Nobody gets nothin' for nothin', as they say, and there will be a cost to our humanitarian mission in Iraq. I'm figuring about $200 billion up front. That works out to about $1,500 per taxpayer, which is mere chump change for most of you, I'm sure.
"And -- full disclosure here -- we'll have to borrow the money, because our treasury is empty. Yeah, we've had a string of bad luck in the last couple years, and the big surplus Bill Clinton left us is gone now and we're hopelessly mired in debt. But not to worry. We can borrow the money and pay later. Because of interest, that might double your cost, so, just to be on the safe side, figure your individual tab for ridding the world of Saddam to be about $3,000.
"Chump change.
"There's one other point I have to bring up, and that's casualties. War is hell, you know, and people die in wars. That's just the way it is. So we're going to have to sacrifice several hundred of your sons and daughters to bring Saddam down.
"Now I know for most of you, your sons and daughters will never see this war. They'll be in college or working in the family business or breaking into the legal profession or maybe even starting up a little oil business in Midland. Take it from me, there are all kinds of ways for young people to avoid going to war.
"But for those of you in a socioeconomic position where joining the military is the best financial opportunity available for your sons and daughters, well, we appreciate your sacrifice.
"Oh, dang, I almost forgot to mention the wounded. They are telling me that about one in 50 fighters over there will end up permanently damaged: loss of an arm or a leg or more, blindness, whatever -- it's war, and stuff happens. So I guess we have to factor that into the cost, including the fact that all these disabled young people will be pensioned off for the rest of their lives and will have to be treated at government expense.
"So, that's the deal, folks. We have to start banging away at that ol' Axis of Evil, and Iraq and Saddam seems like a good place to start. What do you think? Are you in, or out?"
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Count me out. So far, all the signs point to an Islamic state. As a woman, I won't get to participate in this new democracy.
I may have been better off before. Provided I stayed under the radar, I had legal rights and could go to school and hold a job.
Under the new world order, I'm just one more sweaty babe under a bhurkha. But thanks for the thought.
-- Sleepless in Baghdad
Last edited:
lucky-E-leven
Aphrodisiaddict
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
- Posts
- 17,241
Colly shared this with me today and I got a kick out of it...figured you might as well.
Dishonest Dubya Lying Action Figure
(interactive and giggle inspiring)
Don't leave without clicking on:
Peeance Freeance
The Point
Old Saying
Hold us Hostile
And the choke on pretzel function is quite satisfying as well.
Enjoy!
courtesy CT
Dishonest Dubya Lying Action Figure
Dishonest Dubya Lying Action Figure
(interactive and giggle inspiring)
Don't leave without clicking on:
Peeance Freeance
The Point
Old Saying
Hold us Hostile
And the choke on pretzel function is quite satisfying as well.
Enjoy!
courtesy CT
Dishonest Dubya Lying Action Figure
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Min, if he's anatomically correct, I think Barbie might consider doing it with the lights off as long as he agreed not to say anything. She's dated Ken and two dozen different G.I. Joe's and no luck yet.
Meanwhile, in keeping with my new vow to keep my temper under control in these political threads, I'm emulatiing Somme and simply posting stories of interest, sans comment. Here's one from today's Miami Herald:
------------------
U.S. paying group that gave false leads
The Bush administration continues to pay millions to the group that provided some questionable prewar intelligence on Iraq.
BY JONATHAN S. LANDAY, WARREN P. STROBEL AND JOHN WALCOTT
jlanday@krwashington.com
WASHINGTON - The Department of Defense is continuing to pay millions of dollars for information from the former Iraqi opposition group that produced some of the exaggerated and fabricated intelligence President Bush used to argue his case for war.
The Pentagon has set aside between $3 million and $4 million this year for the Information Collection Program of the Iraqi National Congress, or INC, led by Ahmed Chalabi, said two senior U.S. officials and a U.S. defense official.
They spoke on condition of anonymity because intelligence programs are classified.
The continuing support for the INC comes amid seven separate investigations into prewar intelligence that Iraq was hiding illicit weapons and had links to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. A probe by the Senate Intelligence Committee is now examining the INC's role.
The decision not to shut off funding for the INC's information gathering effort could become another liability for Bush as the presidential campaign heats up. It also suggests that some within the administration are intent on securing a key role for Chalabi in Iraq's political future.
CLOSE TIES
Chalabi, who built close ties to officials in Vice President Dick Cheney's office and among top Pentagon officials, is on the Iraqi Governing Council, a body of 25 Iraqis installed by the United States to help administer the country following the ouster of Saddam Hussein last April.
The former businessman, who lobbied for years for a U.S.-backed military effort to topple Hussein, is publicly committed to making peace with Israel and providing bases in the heart of the oil-rich Middle East for use by U.S. forces fighting the war on terrorism.
The INC's Information Collection Program started in 2001 and was ''designed to collect, analyze and disseminate information'' from inside Iraq, according to a letter the group sent in June 2002 to the staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Some of the INC's information alleged that Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program, which was destroyed by U.N. inspectors after the 1991 Gulf War, and was stockpiling banned chemical and biological weapons, according to the letter.
The letter, a copy of which was obtained by Knight Ridder newspapers, said the information went directly to ''U.S. government recipients'' who included William Luti, a senior official in Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld's office, and John Hannah, a top national security aide to Cheney.
The letter appeared to contradict denials made last year by top Pentagon officials that they were receiving intelligence on Iraq that bypassed established channels and vetting procedures.
The INC also supplied information from its collection program to leading news organizations in the United States, Europe and the Middle East, according to the letter to the Senate committee staff.
DUBIOUS CHARGES
The State Department and the CIA, which soured on Chalabi in the 1990s, viewed the INC's information as highly unreliable because it was coming from a source with a strong self-interest in convincing the United States to topple Hussein.
The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has concluded since the invasion that defectors turned over by the INC provided little worthwhile information, and that at least one of them, the source of an allegation that Hussein had mobile biological warfare laboratories, was a fabricator. A defense official said the INC did provide some valuable material on Hussein's military and security apparatus.
Even so, dubious INC-supplied information found its way into the Bush administration's arguments for war, which included charges that Hussein was concealing illicit arms stockpiles and was supporting al Qaeda.
No illicit weapons have yet been found, and senior U.S. officials say there is no compelling evidence that Hussein cooperated with al Qaeda to attack Americans.
Meanwhile, in keeping with my new vow to keep my temper under control in these political threads, I'm emulatiing Somme and simply posting stories of interest, sans comment. Here's one from today's Miami Herald:
------------------
U.S. paying group that gave false leads
The Bush administration continues to pay millions to the group that provided some questionable prewar intelligence on Iraq.
BY JONATHAN S. LANDAY, WARREN P. STROBEL AND JOHN WALCOTT
jlanday@krwashington.com
WASHINGTON - The Department of Defense is continuing to pay millions of dollars for information from the former Iraqi opposition group that produced some of the exaggerated and fabricated intelligence President Bush used to argue his case for war.
The Pentagon has set aside between $3 million and $4 million this year for the Information Collection Program of the Iraqi National Congress, or INC, led by Ahmed Chalabi, said two senior U.S. officials and a U.S. defense official.
They spoke on condition of anonymity because intelligence programs are classified.
The continuing support for the INC comes amid seven separate investigations into prewar intelligence that Iraq was hiding illicit weapons and had links to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. A probe by the Senate Intelligence Committee is now examining the INC's role.
The decision not to shut off funding for the INC's information gathering effort could become another liability for Bush as the presidential campaign heats up. It also suggests that some within the administration are intent on securing a key role for Chalabi in Iraq's political future.
CLOSE TIES
Chalabi, who built close ties to officials in Vice President Dick Cheney's office and among top Pentagon officials, is on the Iraqi Governing Council, a body of 25 Iraqis installed by the United States to help administer the country following the ouster of Saddam Hussein last April.
The former businessman, who lobbied for years for a U.S.-backed military effort to topple Hussein, is publicly committed to making peace with Israel and providing bases in the heart of the oil-rich Middle East for use by U.S. forces fighting the war on terrorism.
The INC's Information Collection Program started in 2001 and was ''designed to collect, analyze and disseminate information'' from inside Iraq, according to a letter the group sent in June 2002 to the staff of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Some of the INC's information alleged that Hussein was rebuilding his nuclear weapons program, which was destroyed by U.N. inspectors after the 1991 Gulf War, and was stockpiling banned chemical and biological weapons, according to the letter.
The letter, a copy of which was obtained by Knight Ridder newspapers, said the information went directly to ''U.S. government recipients'' who included William Luti, a senior official in Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld's office, and John Hannah, a top national security aide to Cheney.
The letter appeared to contradict denials made last year by top Pentagon officials that they were receiving intelligence on Iraq that bypassed established channels and vetting procedures.
The INC also supplied information from its collection program to leading news organizations in the United States, Europe and the Middle East, according to the letter to the Senate committee staff.
DUBIOUS CHARGES
The State Department and the CIA, which soured on Chalabi in the 1990s, viewed the INC's information as highly unreliable because it was coming from a source with a strong self-interest in convincing the United States to topple Hussein.
The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has concluded since the invasion that defectors turned over by the INC provided little worthwhile information, and that at least one of them, the source of an allegation that Hussein had mobile biological warfare laboratories, was a fabricator. A defense official said the INC did provide some valuable material on Hussein's military and security apparatus.
Even so, dubious INC-supplied information found its way into the Bush administration's arguments for war, which included charges that Hussein was concealing illicit arms stockpiles and was supporting al Qaeda.
No illicit weapons have yet been found, and senior U.S. officials say there is no compelling evidence that Hussein cooperated with al Qaeda to attack Americans.
KenJames
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Posts
- 394
Has anyone created a "Barbie and Ken Split Up" thread yet? I'm afraid to look. It must be extremely difficult to maintain a long-term physical / emotional relationship without genitals.shereads said:
It's probably a good idea to keep one's temper under control in political threads (I'm talking to myself more than to you, she), but not commenting somehow feels like a cop-out to me.
Svenskaflicka
Fountain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Posts
- 16,142
shereads said:
If you HADN'T been smarter than the most powerful man in the world, you'd have been given a personal assistent by the socia services, to help you remember such important daily tasks as getting dressed before leaving the house, wipe front to back, not talking with your mouth full - of water...
I liked the Dubya-doll. Has anyone contacted Mattel yet?
lucky-E-leven
Aphrodisiaddict
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
- Posts
- 17,241
shereads said:
Funny you should ask, Sher:
There’s Drama in the Dream House: Is Barbie the L word?
Thu Feb 19,12:28 PM ET Add Fashion - Fashion Wire Daily to My Yahoo!
Chip Cordelli
Fashion Wire Daily February 19, 2004 - New York - The toy box must be crowded because Barbie needs her space. After 43 years of twisting & turning with Malibu Ken, Mattel announced on February 13th that there’s drama at the Dream House, and the former Mr. Plastic Fantastic has gotten his walking papers. “It’s time to spend some quality time---apart,” said a newly emancipated Barbie through PR reps at the International Toy Fair. And while Ken’s future is uncertain---Mattel insists he’s sticking around, but we’ll see---the concurrent launch of Australian surfer dude “Blaine” suggests that perhaps there just isn’t enough room on the shelf for the both of them. Curse you, Wal-Mart!
Fashion Wire Daily Photo
Oddly, there was no jazzy Mattel press conference in 1967 when Ken was dismissed from the Dream House along with Barbie’s best friend Midge. According to author Billy Boy, who penned Barbie: Her Life and Times (Crown, 1987) Ken blew the scene without warning. “1967 was a pretty extraordinary year for Barbie herself,” wrote Billy Boy. “Ken left the scene. Whether he hitchhiked to Haight-Ashbury or Canada, or just went off to grow his hair, he left Barbie to fend for herself.” And fend for herself she did, going to Love-Ins and wearing fringed bellbottoms with newcomers Stacey and African-American Christie, whose Nubian charms opened Barbie’s eyes to the goings on of the civil rights era. But just like television’s Port Charles, where soap characters die in plane crashes en route to sex-change operations, only to reappear years later back from the dead with amnesia about the afterlife, Ken showed up again in ’69 with a new hairstyle, a mod attitude, and a new lease on life.
Not so for Midge, Barbie’s freckle-faced best friend who came on the scene in ’63, only to disappear from the shelves four years later, much to the chagrin of the legions of sporty pre-teens who related to her jaunty tomboyishness more than high-fashion Barbie. “Midge was always the bridesmaid, never the bride,” wrote Billy Boy of Barbie’s unthreatening confidante with a flatter chest and chunkier midsection. When thousands of irate young girls wrote to Mattel to express their anger, just like General Hospital’s Port Charles, Midge returned (at least her head did, which Mattel reused) in ’69 minus the quaint freckles and field hockey figure, and with a new identity, P.J. “And loyal Midge in the guise of P.J. returned to Barbie’s world,” wrote Billy Boy of the reincarnated doll who grabbed Barbie’s arm in ’69. As P.J., said Billy Boy, “Midge had combed out her flip, and dyed it platinum. Needless to say, Barbie was thrilled.” So let’s get this straight: In order for rebirth in Barbie’s world Midge had to give P.J. head. Something smells fishy.
A poll of women outside of the popular New York nightclub Henrietta Hudson’s offered some insight. “There was no Ken in my dollhouse, and my Barbie’s all slept together,” said one patron. Another, citing a news item from last June involving a 14-year old New York City high school student who ignited a national media frenzy for being suspended for wearing a “Barbie is a Lesbian” t-shirt, insisted that Barbie has some serious skeletons in her closet. “It was always about Barbie and Midge. Barbie thought she was the bomb,” she said. “Look at the pattern---men were always leaving Barbie,” she added. Is Barbie the L word?
The legal team at Mattel fights hard to make it very clear that Barbie would have no such proclivities, but just like Paris Hilton, there’s a damning videotape; a 2002 film from Argentina called “Even Barbie Gets Sad,” in which Barbie rocks the Dream House bed with her cleaning lady. A GOOGLE search reveals that the mysterious guerilla group, the Barbie Disinformation Organization (not to be confused with the Barbie Liberation Organization) is convinced that Mattel bounced Midge out of the Dream House because they both love K.D. Lang. The group, who alter Barbie packaging in toy stores changed the “Barbie’s Stylin’ Salon” to read “Barbie Lesbian Barber Shop” where “Dyke Haircuts” are available. I’m not making this up.
So perhaps Ken is off to find himself again, giving Barbie the space she needs. We’ll see what Blaine, the surfer dude has to offer. He’ll no doubt have the same “metrosexual” leanings of Ken, just surf style. But wait, Francie, another of Barbie’s friends introduced just a year before Midge got her head chopped off, was a surfer; in fact, according to Billy Boy, Francie was almost directly inspired by 1960s surf movie idol “Gidget.” And wasn’t it her popularity in ’66 that helped push Midge off the shelf by ‘67? The way heads move around at Mattel, it would make perfect sense that Blaine might actually be long lost Midge reincarnated as a man. Maybe Barbie and Midge are going to be back together again. We’ll just have to check for the Adam’s Apple.
Svenskaflicka
Fountain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Posts
- 16,142
shereads said:
Midge? Theresa? Christy?
Svenskaflicka
Fountain
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Posts
- 16,142
My, oh my... First TinkyWinky, now Barbie... I think the ultra-conservative-hyper-christian-right-wingers are right: there really IS a gay conspiracy out there, plotting to turn all kids away from heterosexuality!
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
Svenskaflicka said:My, oh my... First TinkyWinky, now Barbie... I think the ultra-conservative-hyper-christian-right-wingers are right: there really IS a gay conspiracy out there, plotting to turn all kids away from heterosexuality!
I had just been catching up at the "Your homework assignment" thread and thinking, we'll know that homosexuality is fully accepted when Wedding Barbie has the option of Ken or Christie.
Does Barbie also infest Europe? Did you get the one in the early 90's with a soundchip that said, among other cute girlie things, "Girls aren't good at math."
Seriously.
edited to add: There was also a cock-ring Ken. True. A friend of mine has one of the few that were sold before someone at Mattel found out what the ring worn on the chain around Ken's neck represented.
Last edited:
KenJames
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2003
- Posts
- 394
Ken too? I thought it was the "Gay Bob" doll sporting the cock ring. What did he and Ken have going?shereads said:
I prefer "Biker Barbie" to "Wedding Barbie," but that's just me.
On a serious note, in grade school, I preferred to team up with girls in science and math because they were better at it than most boys. In Wyoming, age groups tended to stay together through high school and even college. It really distressed me when the same girls turned "dumb," because that was the behavior that was rewarded.
On a lighter note, I recently saw a woman driving a jeep with a bumper sticker reading, "I want to be just like Barbie. The bitch has everything."
On an ambiguous note, I had lunch at an expensive restaurant today. My "heterosexual queen" companion commented that one of the women at the next table had a $2500 purse and another was wearing a $10,000 diamond ring. There's probably a moral there, but I don't know what it is.
shereads
Sloganless
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2003
- Posts
- 19,242
KenJames said:
Not everything. A friend who has a frighteningly precocious 9-year-old boy dragged him along to Toys R Us to buy a girl's birthday gift. The mom was admiring all of Barbie's stuff and said pretty much what your bumper sticker said, but without the "bitch" part. Her son said, "She thinks she has everything, but she doesn't have Ken."
Scary kid.
Nether Ken nor barbi would have this, I think...
http://www.linkcrusader.com/
Just to aid research, of course....
http://www.linkcrusader.com/
Just to aid research, of course....
Colleen Thomas
Ultrafemme
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2002
- Posts
- 21,545
For Sher, Min and the rest of my Anti-bush friends.
http://www.stephenasmith.com/stuff/BushUnmasked.html
-Colly
http://www.stephenasmith.com/stuff/BushUnmasked.html
-Colly
lucky-E-leven
Aphrodisiaddict
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2004
- Posts
- 17,241
Colleen Thomas said:
That's awesome. There's also an entire site that has side by side photos of the cumquat in chief beside his evolutionary counterpart. The resemblences are near exact and uncanny as all get out.
Thanks for sharing. Got a good tickle.
~lucky
