Chickens coming home to roost



Founder of Delta Force:

"There is no real threat to the US in the world""Bush has formented world war three"

"Americans voted for a second Bush administration out of fear, so fear is what they're going to have from now on."

Prisonplanet article to follow...
David Kronke / LA Daily News March 26 2006

Eric Haney, a retired command sergeant major of the U.S. Army, was a founding member of Delta Force, the military's elite covert counter-terrorist unit. He culled his experiences for "Inside Delta Force" (Delta; $14), a memoir rich with harrowing stories, though in an interview, Haney declines with a shrug to estimate the number of times he was almost killed. (Perhaps the most high-profile incident that almost claimed his life was the 1980 failed rescue of the hostages in Iran.) Today, he's doing nothing nearly as dangerous: He serves as an executive producer and technical adviser for "The Unit," CBS' new hit drama based on his book, developed by playwright David Mamet. Even up against "American Idol," "The Unit" shows muscle, drawing 18 million viewers in its first two airings.
Since he has devoted his life to protecting his country in some of the world's most dangerous hot spots, you might assume Haney is sympathetic to the Bush administration's current plight in Iraq (the laudatory cover blurb on his book comes from none other than Fox's News' Bill O'Reilly). But he's also someone with close ties to the Pentagon, so he's privy to information denied the rest of us.
We recently spoke to Haney, an amiable, soft-spoken Southern gentleman, on the set of "The Unit."

Q: What's your assessment of the war in Iraq?

A: Utter debacle. But it had to be from the very first. The reasons were wrong. The reasons of this administration for taking this nation to war were not what they stated. (Army Gen.) Tommy Franks was brow-beaten and ... pursued warfare that he knew strategically was wrong in the long term. That's why he retired immediately afterward. His own staff could tell him what was going to happen afterward.
We have fomented civil war in Iraq. We have probably fomented internecine war in the Muslim world between the Shias and the Sunnis, and I think Bush may well have started the third world war, all for their own personal policies.

Q: What is the cost to our country?

A: For the first thing, our credibility is utterly zero. So we destroyed whatever credibility we had. ... And I say "we," because the American public went along with this. They voted for a second Bush administration out of fear, so fear is what they're going to have from now on.
Our military is completely consumed, so were there a real threat - thankfully, there is no real threat to the U.S. in the world, but were there one, we couldn't confront it. Right now, that may not be a bad thing, because that keeps Bush from trying something with Iran or with Venezuela.
The harm that has been done is irreparable. There are more than 2,000 American kids that have been killed. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed ñ which no one in the U.S. really cares about those people, do they? I never hear anybody lament that fact. It has been a horror, and this administration has worked overtime to divert the American public's attention from it. Their lies are coming home to roost now, and it's gonna fall apart. But somebody's gonna have to clear up the aftermath and the harm that it's done just to what America stands for. It may be two or three generations in repairing.

Q: What do you make of the torture debate? Cheney ...

A: (Interrupting) That's Cheney's pursuit. The only reason anyone tortures is because they like to do it. It's about vengeance, it's about revenge, or it's about cover-up. You don't gain intelligence that way. Everyone in the world knows that. It's worse than small-minded, and look what it does.
I've argued this on Bill O'Reilly and other Fox News shows. I ask, who would you want to pay to be a torturer? Do you want someone that the American public pays to torture? He's an employee of yours. It's worse than ridiculous. It's criminal; it's utterly criminal. This administration has been masters of diverting attention away from real issues and debating the silly. Debating what constitutes torture: Mistreatment of helpless people in your power is torture, period. And (I'm saying this as) a man who has been involved in the most pointed of our activities. I know it, and all of my mates know it. You don't do it. It's an act of cowardice. I hear apologists for torture say, "Well, they do it to us." Which is a ludicrous argument. ... The Saddam Husseins of the world are not our teachers. Christ almighty, we wrote a Constitution saying what's legal and what we believed in. Now we're going to throw it away.

Q: As someone who repeatedly put your life on the line, did some of the most hair-raising things to protect your country, and to see your country behave this way, that must be ...

A: It's pretty galling. But ultimately I believe in the good and the decency of the American people, and they're starting to see what's happening and the lies that have been told. We're seeing this current house of cards start to flutter away. The American people come around. They always do.



Abramoff Gets Almost 6 Years in Prison
By CURT ANDERSON, Associated Press Writer

MIAMI - Disgraced former lobbyist Jack Abramoff and a business partner were sentenced Wednesday to five years and 10 months in federal prison, the minimum they faced for fraud related to their 2000 purchase of the SunCruz Casinos gambling fleet.
Abramoff and Adam Kidan both pleaded guilty to conspiracy and wire fraud, but they won't have to report to prison immediately.
The judge postponed their reporting date for at least 90 days so the two can continue cooperating in a Washington corruption investigation and a Florida probe into the killing of former SunCruz owner Konstantinos Boulis. Both deny roles in the killing. Abramoff pleaded guilty in connection with the corruption probe but has yet to be sentenced.
In court Wednesday, Abramoff said the fraud case was "incredibly painful" for himself, his family and his friends.
"In the past two years I have started the process of becoming a new man," he said.
Under their plea agreement, both men had faced a sentence of between five years, 10 months, and seven years, three months in federal prison. U.S. District Judge Paul C. Huck also ordered them Wednesday to pay restitution of more than $21 million.
Abramoff and Kidan admitted concocting a fake $23 million wire transfer to make it appear they had made a large cash contribution to the $147.5 million purchase of SunCruz Casinos. Based on that fake transfer, lenders provided the pair with $60 million in financing.
The same week Abramoff pleaded guilty to the SunCruz fraud, he entered guilty pleas to three federal charges as part of a wide-ranging corruption probe that could involve up to 20 members of Congress and aides, including former House Majority Leader
Tom DeLay' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> Tom DeLay, R-Texas.
In addition to assisting in that investigation, Abramoff, 47, and Kidan, 41, are expected to give statements in the investigation into the Feb. 6, 2001, slaying of Boulis, who was gunned down at the wheel of his car amid a power struggle over the gambling fleet. Three men face murder charges, including one who worked for Kidan as a consultant at SunCruz and who allegedly has ties to New York's Gambino crime family.
Both Abramoff and Kidan have repeatedly denied any role in or knowledge of the Boulis murder. But prosecutors say Kidan has not been ruled out as a suspect and defense attorneys say Abramoff could provide critical inside information about the dispute with Boulis, who also founded the Miami Subs restaurant chain.
Ultimately, cooperation in those investigations could reduce Abramoff's and Kidan's sentences.
Abramoff, who was wearing a tan baseball-style cap, didn't speak to reporters as he and his lawyers left court after the sentencing.
Before the hearing, more than 260 people — including rabbis, military officers and even a professional hockey referee — wrote letters on the men's behalf asking the judge for leniency.
The letters, obtained by The Associated Press, put a new spin on the foibles and crimes of a man who became the face of Washington's latest corruption scandal.
"Jack is a good person, who in his quest to be successful, lost sight of the rules," National Hockey League referee Dave Jackson wrote, describing the time Abramoff brought 14 youngsters to his dressing room before a game.
Kidan, in his own letter to the judge, said he knew the SunCruz deal was wrong but said he "was very caught up in the fast paced world of my partner and the high profile that came along with it." He added, "I am not the horrible person that the media has written about."
___
Associated Press writer John Solomon in Washington contributed to this report





March 27, 2006

Bush Was Set on Path to War, British Memo Says

By DON VAN NATTA Jr.
LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.
But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.
"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.
"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."
The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.
Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.
Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.
Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.
The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.
The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.
Those proposals were first reported last month in the British press, but the memo does not make clear whether they reflected Mr. Bush's extemporaneous suggestions, or were elements of the government's plan.
Consistent Remarks
Two senior British officials confirmed the authenticity of the memo, but declined to talk further about it, citing Britain's Official Secrets Act, which made it illegal to divulge classified information. But one of them said, "In all of this discussion during the run-up to the Iraq war, it is obvious that viewing a snapshot at a certain point in time gives only a partial view of the decision-making process."
On Sunday, Frederick Jones, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said the president's public comments were consistent with his private remarks made to Mr. Blair. "While the use of force was a last option, we recognized that it might be necessary and were planning accordingly," Mr. Jones said.
"The public record at the time, including numerous statements by the President, makes clear that the administration was continuing to pursue a diplomatic solution into 2003," he said. "Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to comply, but he chose continued defiance, even after being given one final opportunity to comply or face serious consequences. Our public and private comments are fully consistent."
The January 2003 memo is the latest in a series of secret memos produced by top aides to Mr. Blair that summarize private discussions between the president and the prime minister. Another group of British memos, including the so-called Downing Street memo written in July 2002, showed that some senior British officials had been concerned that the United States was determined to invade Iraq, and that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war.
The latest memo is striking in its characterization of frank, almost casual, conversation by Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair about the most serious subjects. At one point, the leaders swapped ideas for a postwar Iraqi government. "As for the future government of Iraq, people would find it very odd if we handed it over to another dictator," the prime minister is quoted as saying.
"Bush agreed," Mr. Manning wrote. This exchange, like most of the quotations in this article, have not been previously reported.
Mr. Bush was accompanied at the meeting by Condoleezza Rice, who was then the national security adviser; Dan Fried, a senior aide to Ms. Rice; and Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff. Along with Mr. Manning, Mr. Blair was joined by two other senior aides: Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff, and Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide and the author of the Downing Street memo.
By late January 2003, United Nations inspectors had spent six weeks in Iraq hunting for weapons under the auspices of Security Council Resolution 1441, which authorized "serious consequences" if Iraq voluntarily failed to disarm. Led by Hans Blix, the inspectors had reported little cooperation from Mr. Hussein, and no success finding any unconventional weapons.
At their meeting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks, the memo said. The president spoke as if an invasion was unavoidable. The two leaders discussed a timetable for the war, details of the military campaign and plans for the aftermath of the war.
Discussing Provocation
Without much elaboration, the memo also says the president raised three possible ways of provoking a confrontation. Since they were first reported last month, neither the White House nor the British government has discussed them.
"The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."
It also described the president as saying, "The U.S. might be able to bring out a defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam's W.M.D," referring to weapons of mass destruction.
A brief clause in the memo refers to a third possibility, mentioned by Mr. Bush, a proposal to assassinate Saddam Hussein. The memo does not indicate how Mr. Blair responded to the idea.
Mr. Sands first reported the proposals in his book, although he did not use any direct quotations from the memo. He is a professor of international law at University College of London and the founding member of the Matrix law office in London, where the prime minister's wife, Cherie Blair, is a partner.
Mr. Jones, the National Security Council spokesman, declined to discuss the proposals, saying, "We are not going to get into discussing private discussions of the two leaders."
At several points during the meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, there was palpable tension over finding a legitimate legal trigger for going to war that would be acceptable to other nations, the memo said. The prime minister was quoted as saying it was essential for both countries to lobby for a second United Nations resolution against Iraq, because it would serve as "an insurance policy against the unexpected."
The memo said Mr. Blair told Mr. Bush, "If anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning the oil wells, killing children or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq, a second resolution would give us international cover, especially with the Arabs."
Running Out of Time
Mr. Bush agreed that the two countries should attempt to get a second resolution, but he added that time was running out. "The U.S. would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would twist arms and even threaten," Mr. Bush was paraphrased in the memo as saying.
The document added, "But he had to say that if we ultimately failed, military action would follow anyway."
The leaders agreed that three weeks remained to obtain a second United Nations Security Council resolution before military commanders would need to begin preparing for an invasion.
Summarizing statements by the president, the memo says: "The air campaign would probably last four days, during which some 1,500 targets would be hit. Great care would be taken to avoid hitting innocent civilians. Bush thought the impact of the air onslaught would ensure the early collapse of Saddam's regime. Given this military timetable, we needed to go for a second resolution as soon as possible. This probably meant after Blix's next report to the Security Council in mid-February."
Mr. Blair was described as responding that both countries would make clear that a second resolution amounted to "Saddam's final opportunity." The memo described Mr. Blair as saying: "We had been very patient. Now we should be saying that the crisis must be resolved in weeks, not months."
It reported: "Bush agreed. He commented that he was not itching to go to war, but we could not allow Saddam to go on playing with us. At some point, probably when we had passed the second resolutions — assuming we did — we should warn Saddam that he had a week to leave. We should notify the media too. We would then have a clear field if Saddam refused to go."
Mr. Bush devoted much of the meeting to outlining the military strategy. The president, the memo says, said the planned air campaign "would destroy Saddam's command and control quickly." It also said that he expected Iraq's army to "fold very quickly." He also is reported as telling the prime minister that the Republican Guard would be "decimated by the bombing."
Despite his optimism, Mr. Bush said he was aware that "there were uncertainties and risks," the memo says, and it goes on, "As far as destroying the oil wells were concerned, the U.S. was well equipped to repair them quickly, although this would be easier in the south of Iraq than in the north."
The two men briefly discussed plans for a post-Hussein Iraqi government. "The prime minister asked about aftermath planning," the memo says. "Condi Rice said that a great deal of work was now in hand.
Referring to the Defense Department, it said: "A planning cell in D.O.D. was looking at all aspects and would deploy to Iraq to direct operations as soon as the military action was over. Bush said that a great deal of detailed planning had been done on supplying the Iraqi people with food and medicine."
Planning for After the War
The leaders then looked beyond the war, imagining the transition from Mr. Hussein's rule to a new government. Immediately after the war, a military occupation would be put in place for an unknown period of time, the president was described as saying. He spoke of the "dilemma of managing the transition to the civil administration," the memo says.
The document concludes with Mr. Manning still holding out a last-minute hope of inspectors finding weapons in Iraq, or even Mr. Hussein voluntarily leaving Iraq. But Mr. Manning wrote that he was concerned this could not be accomplished by Mr. Bush's timeline for war.
"This makes the timing very tight," he wrote. "We therefore need to stay closely alongside Blix, do all we can to help the inspectors make a significant find, and work hard on the other members of the Security Council to accept the noncooperation case so that we can secure the minimum nine votes when we need them, probably the end of February."
At a White House news conference following the closed-door session, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair said "the crisis" had to be resolved in a timely manner. "Saddam Hussein is not disarming," the president told reporters. "He is a danger to the world. He must disarm. And that's why I have constantly said — and the prime minister has constantly said — this issue will come to a head in a matter of weeks, not months."
Despite intense lobbying by the United States and Britain, a second United Nations resolution was not obtained. The American-led military coalition invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003, nine days after the target date set by the president on that late January day at the White House



Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center
'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact
By Randy Lavello

By now the misinformation and ignored findings surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks have evaporated the official version into the land of fiction. Didn’t it seem strange that we learned everything of the government version by the next day? Much has been learned about the attacks, yet the official version has never changed; it seems as though our government thinks the point moot since it used this excuse to pass unconstitutional laws and wage wars resulting in oil profits. The time has come to admit the sorry truth as a nation, so that we can move on - as a nation. The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did. So why use planes? It seems they were a diversionary tactic- a grand spectacle. Who would want to divert our attention from the real cause of the collapse of those towers? It must be those who benefited most from these attacks. Let’s recount some facts of that dreadful day. Any time an aircraft deviates from it’s course, the air traffic controller requests a military intercept according to military response code 7610-4J. This was the first time interceptors were not sent up in the history of this policy. The intercept pilots are trained to make a visual check of the cockpit… could this be the reason these interceptors were intercepted? Planes were sent to the New York area, after unprecedented delay, from Falmouth, Massachusetts rather than nearby Ft. Dix or Laguardia. Of course, they didn’t arrive in time - there was no visual scan of the cockpits. Captain Kent Hill, retired from the Air Force, explained that the U.S. had flown unmanned aircraft, similar in size to a Boeing 737, on preprogrammed flight paths from Edwards Air Force Base, California to Australia on several occasions. He believes the airliners used in the attacks had their on board computers knocked out and were subsequently choreographed by an Airborne Warning and Control System. Along side Captain Hill, an Air Force officer with more than 100 sorties in Vietnam stated, ‘Those birds either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being maneuvered by remote control.’ We know that the technology exists to fly hijacked commercial airliners by remote control - it’s called ‘Globalhawk.’ We also know that the military has had an unmanned drone aircraft known as the ‘Predator,’ since 1994. A saboteur would merely have to reprogram the controls to switch from manual to remote; those airliners practically fly themselves already with the autopilot. This would require electronic security codes… acquisition of electronic codes would also explain the lapse of interceptor response due to sabotage. Furthermore, it’s a fact that Air Force One codes were known and punched in by a rogue source on 9/11, proving the presence of an inside, subversive element. As usual, it’s not a good conspiracy, if it doesn’t involve a Bush! Introducing Marvin Bush - brother of George Jr. Marvin is a substantial shareholder and was on the Board of Directors until 2000 of a security company aptly named Securacom. This is not an ordinary security force with canvas badges and walkie-talkies; it’s an electronic security company, which was ‘coincidentally’ involved with Dulles Airport until 1998. Handling electronic security at Dulles seems like an excellent way to gain access to Air Traffic Control communication codes with NORAD, which is in charge of intercept missions. According to CEO Barry McDaniel, the company ‘handled some of the security at the World Trade Center up to the day the buildings fell down.’ How convenient, huh? Bombs were in those towers… Bush’s presidency was saved by these attacks - just something to think about. Five of the twenty ‘suicide hijackers’ are alive and well according to the BBC and they want their names cleared. So who was flying those planes? We may never know exactly what happened with those jets; what we do know is that the official version crumbles under scrutiny. These planes were merely a diversion, as proven by the presence of bombs… that’s right, PROVEN! Before beginning this article, I met Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr. at the World Trade Center Memorial. Paul, along with many other firemen, is very upset about the obvious cover-up and he is on a crusade for answers and justice. He was stationed at Engine 10, across the street from the World Trade Center in 1998 and 99; Engine 10 was entirely wiped out in the destruction of the towers. He explained to me that, “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department’s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. “There were definitely bombs in those buildings,” he told me. He explained to me that, if the building had ‘pancaked’ as it’s been called, the falling floors would have met great resistance from the steel support columns, which would have sent debris flying outward into the surrounding blocks. I asked him about the trusses, and quoted the history channel’s ‘don’t trust a truss’ explanation for the collapses. He responded in disbelief, and told me, “You could never build a truss building that high. A slight wind would knock it over! Those buildings were supported by reinforced steel. Building don’t just implode like that; this was a demolition.” Just after the disaster, Firefighter Louie Cacchioli said, “We think there were bombs set in the building.” Notice he said ‘we’. At 9:04, just after flight 175 collided with the South Tower, a huge explosion shot 550 feet into the air from the U.S. Customs House known as WTC 6. A huge crater scars the ground where this building once stood. Something blew up WTC 6 - it wasn’t a plane; it must have been a bomb of some sort. The seismic record from Columbia University’s observatory in Palisades, NY (21 miles away) provides indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down those towers. At the precise moment the South Tower began collapsing, a 2.1 earthquake registered on the seismograph. At the precise moment the North Tower began collapsing, a 2.3 earthquake registered; however, as the buildings started to crumble these waves disappeared. The two ‘spikes’on the seismograph, which both occurred at the exact instants the collapses began, are twenty times the amplitude, or more than 100 times the force of the other waves. If the buildings had simply collapsed, the largest jolts would have occurred when the massive debris struck the earth, not at the beginnings of the collapses. Seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam of Columbia University stated, “Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion. The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small.” In other words, the collapsing did not cause 2.1 and 2.3 magnitude earthquakes. Furthermore, a ‘sharp spike of short duration’ is how underground nuclear explosions register on seismographs. Underground explosions, where the steel columns meet Manhattans granite would account for both the demolition-style implosions and these ‘spikes’ on the seismograph. Another seismologist at the Palisades observatory, Won Young Kim said the 1993 truck bomb did not even register on their seismographs because the explosion was ‘not coupled’ to the ground. Imagine the magnitude of explosions it would take to register the two earthquakes, when the truck bomb didn’t even show up. The American Free Press reported that in the basements of the collapsed towers, where 47 central support columns (per building) connected with the bedrock, hot spots of ‘literally molten steel’ were discovered more than a month after the attack. There is only one explanation for this: An explosion of unprecedented magnitude destroyed the bases of the columns, then the massive structures buried the impact points, trapping the intense heat below for all that time. The tower which was struck second suffered less damage from the plane because it was a less direct hit and most of the jet fuel was seen ignited outside the structure… yet this tower collapsed first. Just before this collapse, the firefighters were up on the burning levels and were heard saying, “Battalion seven… Ladder fifteen, we’ve got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines.” How could two isolated pockets of fire destroy the bases of the support columns causing the buildings to implode? Paul Isaac told me, “Based on video footage of the collapse of the South Tower, the structural collapse is not consistent with the angle the building was struck.” Why was no investigation permitted of the debris? Dr W. Gene Corley headed the FEMA sponsored engineering assessment of the World Trade Center collapse, which performed no tests on the steel for traces of explosives. When asked about this process known as ‘twinning,’ he responded, “I am not a metallurgist.” Dr. Corley also ‘investigated’ the debris at Waco and Oklahoma City… and we all know how thoroughly those ‘investigations’ were performed. No government agency performed forensic examinations of the rubble; no effort was made to validate their official story. The rubble was quickly loaded onto ships and delivered to China for smelting. These are the actions of criminals disposing of evidence! By these actions, FEMA proves itself to be a subversive element in our government! Former Deputy Director of the FBI, John P. O’Neil stated, “The main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it.” Can you think of anyone (Bush) linked to both wealthy Saudi Arabians and U.S. corporate oil? John O’Neil resigned from the FBI after 31 years of service after Barbara Bodine, currently part of the Iraqi transition team, barred him from following up his investigation of the attack on the U.S.S Cole. He took a job heading security at the World Trade Center… his first day of work - September 11, 2001. John O’Neil received the job from Jerome Howard, Former Director of the New York Office of Emergency Management, who happened to have the day off on 9/11. We may only speculate on the case of Mr. O’Neil, but he does seem to be a person which U.S. oil corporate interests would want out of the way… especially during these wars for oil and power in Iraq and Afghanistan. The top FBI officials in Minneapolis called off investigations of Zacarais Moussaoui, causing bitter resentment among field agents. The man who made the decision not to investigate was promoted! Israeli intelligence agents lived next to the alleged hijackers in Hollywood, Florida. The ‘hijackers’ were trained at U.S. government flight schools. Insider training on United Airlines leads to the conclusion that there was foreknowledge of these attacks; it also establishes that those with this foreknowledge are, at least, relatively wealthy. Another suspicious finding is that the World Trade Center was sold to Vornado Realty Trust in February, seven months prior to the attacks for 3.25 billion dollars… this doesn’t prove anything, it’s merely suspicious. Who gained the most from the attacks of September 11th? Who had the motive? An Israeli expert on terrorism at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Ehud Sprinzak said, “From the perspective of Jews, it is the most important public relations act ever committed in our favor.” David Stern, an expert on Israeli intelligence operations stated, “This attack required a high level of military precision and the resources of an advanced intelligence agency. In addition, the attackers would have needed to be extremely familiar with both Air Force One flight operations, civil airline flight paths, and aerial assault tactics on sensitive U.S. cities like Washington.” He elaborated that the attacks “serve no Arab group or nation’s interest, but their timing came in the midst of international condemnation of Israel…” He goes on to claim “A U.S. military intelligence report revealed details of an international intelligence memo linking Mossad to the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. The memo was in circulation three weeks before the attacks.” Furthering the suspicion of Mossad involvement, five Israelis were seen atop a van smiling and celebrating, while taking videos of the disaster from across the Hudson River. These five were arrested by the FBI and detained for two months before being deported back to Israel. Two of these men were positively identified as Israeli intelligence agents. Eighty-one nations are represented among the World Trade Center’s dead - Israel is not one of these nations even though approximately 1200 of its citizens worked there. As if that wasn’t enough, an instant messaging firm in Israel, named Odigo, received warnings about the towers two hours before the attacks. Everyone who points out the wrongdoings of Israel is immediately labeled ‘anti-Semitic’… well, the truth knows no race or religion - it’s just the truth. These aren’t Jews carrying out these plans; it’s merely sick animals who hide behind the Jews! WorldTradeCenter.com describes David Rockefeller as the ‘Visionary behind the World Trade Center.’ He pushed the construction of these towers through major opposition with the aid of his brother, then governor, Nelson Rockefeller. David has been quoted as saying, “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.” Was this the ‘right major crisis’ to advance the aims of a global government? There is overwhelming evidence to support the findings that these alleged Arab terrorists were merely scapegoats used to advance the World Government agend. During the attacks, ‘President’ George Jr. was reading a book with school children about goats! (Scapegoats?) Arab terrorists did not carry out these attacks which were detrimental to the Muslim world. All evidence points to elements inside, high atop the governments of Israel and the United States. Those wishing to implement their world government through their control over finance, media and militaries are guilty of these most heinous crimes. This atrocity is proving to advance the domestic police state agendas and consolidate the Middle East’s oil reserves. The people who most benefited from these attacks are the wealthiest, most privileged and powerful men on earth who feel they will finally be able to hold dominion over the nations of the world through their New World Order. For some of these globalists, these attacks were merely a means to an end - a huge step toward ruling a world socialist system. But for others, likely the planners of such a vile crime, this was a mass sacrifice to themselves. This mass ritual sacrifice of the vulnerable and the heroes who tried to save them was perpetrated by power crazed freaks who are simply - satanic.The World Trade Center Demolition and the So-Called War on Terrorism



Details emerge in latest round of plame emails ‘found’ by the White House
by Jason Leopold
March 3, 2006
The White House confirmed Tuesday that it recently turned over to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald 250 pages of emails from the Office of Vice President Dick Cheney related to covert CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a vocal critic of the Bush administration's pre-war Iraq intelligence. The emails were not submitted three years ago when then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales ordered White House staffers to turn over all documents that contained any reference to Valerie and Joseph Wilson. Gonzales's directive in October 2003 came 12 hours after he was told by the Justice Department that it was launching an investigation to find out who leaked Plame Wilson's undercover CIA status to reporters in what appeared to be an attempt to discredit and silence her husband from speaking out against the administration's rationale for war. Gonzales spent two weeks with other White House attorneys screening emails and other documents his office received before turning them over to Justice Department investigators. News of the 250 pages of emails was revealed to Libby's attorneys during a court hearing Friday. In addition to witness testimony, investigators working with Fitzgerald are said to have discovered the existence of the emails from computers that investigators had confiscated from the Office of the Vice President, people familiar with developments in the investigation said. Attorneys for Libby and the US District Court reporter in the Libby case, William McAllister, reading from Friday's transcript of the hearing, confirmed that Libby's defense attorneys were told during Friday's hearing that the emails were recently turned over by the White House to Fitzgerald. According to a copy of the transcript from Friday's hearing, Libby's attorney, Ted Wells, said he was "told that there are an additional approximately 250 pages of documents that are emails from the office of the vice president," the transcript states. Your Honor, may recall that in earlier filings it was represented or alluded to that certain e-mails had not been preserved in the White House. That turns out not to be true. There were some e-mails that weren't archived in the normal process but the office of the vice president or the office of administration I guess it is has been able to recover those e-mails. Gave those to special counsel I think only on February 6 and those again are going to be produced to us. We don't know what's in there. We've been led to believe it's probably not anything startling in those e-mails. A spokesman for Cheney would only confirm the accuracy of what was said in court: that the White House recently turned over the emails. The spokesman would not comment further. Remarkably, other than a brief citation buried inside an Associated Press story, Friday's development about the White House's "discovery" of the 250 pages of emails was not covered by any major news media. But that particular bit of courtroom dialogue between Libby's attorneys and Specials Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald was an explosive development in the three year-old criminal probe. For one thing, it raises numerous questions: why weren't the emails located in late 2003, when Gonzales enjoined roughly 2,000 White House staffers to turn over any communication about Plame Wilson and her husband, as so ordered by a Justice Department subpoena? Do the emails provide greater insight into the campaign to discredit Wilson and identify the officials who unmasked his wife's undercover CIA status to reporters? A spokesperson for Gonzales did not return numerous calls for comment. But sources close to the investigation said that unnamed senior officials in Cheney's office had deleted some of the emails before Fitzgerald learned of their existence earlier this year, and others never turned them over to Gonzales as requested. Separately, according to people close to Fitzgerald's probe, there are some emails that Gonzales has refused to turn over to Fitzgerald, citing "executive privilege" and "national security." It's unclear whether a formal subpoena was issued to the White House for the emails or whether the request came in the form of a letter from Fitzgerald. Sources said the White House did not voluntarily turn them over to Fitzgerald's staff. The emails from Cheney's office that were turned over to Fitzgerald earlier this month were written by senior aides and sent to various officials at the State Department, the National Security Council, and the Office of the President. The emails were written as early as March 2003 - four months before Plame Wilson's cover was blown in a report written by conservative columnist Robert Novak. The contents of the emails are said to be damning, according to sources close to the investigation who are familiar with their substance. The emails are said to implicate Cheney in a months-long effort to discredit Wilson - a fact that Cheney did not disclose when he was interviewed by federal investigators in early 2004, these sources said. The emails also show I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's former chief of staff who was indicted in October on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators related to his role in the leak, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove, and then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, as well as former Under Secretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton and other top officials in the vice president's office also took part in discussions about ways in which the administration could respond to Wilson's public criticism about the Bush administration's use of intelligence that claimed Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Niger. Wilson had traveled to Niger in February 2002 on behalf of the CIA to investigate those claims and reported back that there was no substance to the allegations. But the Niger uranium claims made it into President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address and Wilson had accused the administration of "twisting" intelligence on the Iraqi threat to win public support for the war. Cheney and his senior aides did not disclose to federal investigators the fact that they either received or sent emails about either Joseph Wilson or Valerie Plame Wilson when they were first questioned about their knowledge and/or role in the leak in early 2004, people close to the investigation said. Witnesses who work or worked at the CIA, the National Security Council, and the State Department who have been interviewed in the case, and some of who are cooperating with the probe, said they told Fitzgerald that they had received or sent emails to senior aides in Vice President Cheney's office, the State Department and the National Security Council as early as March 2003 about Joseph Other emails show that in mid-June 2003 these officials had sent emails that mentioned "Valerie Wilson" - not Valerie Plame - and her employment with the CIA, sources close to the leak investigation said. One email about Wilson and his wife is said to have been sent by Libby to an unknown senior individual at the National Security Council in early June 2003, after Libby was told by Marc Grossman, then Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA and that Grossman's colleagues told him that Plame Wilson was involved in organizing Wilson's trip to Niger in February 2002 to investigate whether Iraq had tried to purchase uranium from the African country. However, copies of the emails were never found in the more than 10,000 documents that Fitzgerald's staff has collected during the course of their investigation, the sources said. Rove and Libby both testified that they learned about Plame Wilson from reporters - a fact disputed by the emails and witness testimony - and that they were not involved in a campaign to discredit Wilson. Rove remains under scrutiny. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, did not return calls for comment. Hadley's role in the leak is also being closely looked at by Fitzgerald and his staff, sources said, adding that new evidence has surfaced showing that the National Security Adviser played an intimate role in the effort to discredit Wilson and that he may be one of the still unnamed administration officials who spoke to reporters about Plame Wilson's work for the CIA.


Congressman writes White House: Did President knowingly sign law that didn't pass?
03/15/2006 @ 12:58 pmFiled by RAW STORY

Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA) has alleged in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card that President Bush signed a version of the Budget Reconciliation Act that, in effect, did not pass the House of Representatives.
Further, Waxman says there is reason to believe that the Speaker of the House called President Bush before he signed the law, and alerted him that the version he was about to sign differed from the one that actually passed the House. If true, this would put the President in willful violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The full text of the letter follows:
March 15, 2006
The Honorable Andrew Card
Chief of Staff
The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. Card:
On February 8, 2006, President Bush signed into law a version of the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005 that was different in substance from the version that passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Legal scholars have advised me that the substantive differences between the versions - which involve $2 billion in federal spending - mean that this bill did not meet the fundamental constitutional requirement that both Houses of Congress must pass any legislation signed into law by the President.
I am writing to learn what the President and his staff knew about this constitutional defect at the time the President signed the legislation.
Detailed background about the legislation and its constitutional defects are contained in a letter I sent last month to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, which I have enclosed with this letter.[1] In summary, the House-passed version of the legislation required the Medicare program to lease "durable medical equipment," such as wheelchairs, for seniors and other beneficiaries for up to 36 months, while the version of the legislation signed by the President limited the duration of these leases to just 13 months. As the Congressional Budget Office reported, this seemingly small change from 36 months to 13 months has a disproportionately large budgetary impact, cutting Medicare outlays by $2 billion over the next five years.[2]
I understand that a call was made to the White House before the legislation was signed by the President advising the White House of the differences between the bills and seeking advice about how to proceed. My understanding is that the call was made either by the Speaker of the House to the President or by the senior staff of the Speaker to the senior staff of the President.
I would like to know whether my understanding is correct. If it is, the implications are serious.
The Presentment Clause of the U.S. Constitution states that before a bill can become law, it must be passed by both Houses of Congress.[3] When the President took the oath of office, he swore to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States," which includes the Presentment Clause. If the President signed the Reconciliation Act knowing its constitutional infirmity, he would in effect be placing himself above the Constitution.
I do not raise this issue lightly. Given the gravity of the matter and the unusual circumstances surrounding the Reconciliation Act, Congress and the public need a straightforward explanation of what the President and his staff knew on February 8, when the legislation was signed into law.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman Ranking Minority Member
Enclosure
[1] See Letter from Rep. Henry A. Waxman to Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (Feb. 14, 2006).
[2] See Letter from CBO Acting Director Donald Marron to Rep. John M. Spratt, Jr. (Feb. 13, 2006).
[3] U.S. Constitution, Article I, 7.


Operation Overblown

BAGHDAD — Operation Swarmer is turning out to be much less than meets the eye, or the television camera, for that matter.
Iraqi and Coalition forces launched Operation Iraqi Freedom’s largest air assault operation in southern Salah Ad Din province March 16. Named Operation Swarmer, the joint operation’s mission was to clear a suspected insurgent operating area northeast of Samarra.
Operation Swarmer included more than 1,500 troops from the Iraqi Army’s 4th Division, the U.S. 101st Airborne Division and 101st Combat Aviation Brigade. The Soldiers isolated the objective area in a combined air and ground assault.
More than 50 Attack and assault aircraft and 200 tactical vehicles participated in the operation. Troops from the Iraqi Army’s 4th Division, the “Rakkasans” from the 187th Infantry Regiment and the “Hunters” from the 9th Cavalry Regiment assaulted multiple objectives. Forces from the Iraqi 2nd Commando Brigade then completed a ground infiltration to secure numerous structures in the area.Initial reports indicate a number of weapons caches were captured, containing artillery shells, IED-making materials and military uniforms. Iraqi and Coalition troops also detained 41 suspected insurgents.
That sounds exciting! But according to a colleague of mine from TIME who traveled up there today on a U.S. embassy-sponsored trip, there are no insurgents, no fighting and 17 of the 41 prisoners taken have already been released after just one day. The “number of weapons caches” equals six, which isn’t unusual when you travel around Iraq. They’re literally everywhere.
(Digression: Just to clear some things up, “air assault” does not equal air strikes. There are no JDAMs being dropped, and there are no fixed-wing aircraft involved at all, except maybe for surveillance. An air assault is the 101st Airborne’s way of inserting troops into a battlespace. There is so far no evidence of bombardment of any kind. Also, it’s a telling example of how “well” things are going in Iraq that after three years, the U.S. is still leading the fight and conducting sweeps in an area that has been swept/contained/pacfied/cleared five or six times since 2004. How long before the U.S. has to come back again?)
As noted, about 1,500 troops were involved, 700 American and 800 Iraqi. But get this: in the area they’re scouring there are only about 1,500 residents. According to my colleague and other reporters who were there, not a single shot has been fired.
“Operation Swarmer” is really a media show. It was designed to show off the new Iraqi Army — although there was no enemy for them to fight. Every American official I’ve heard has emphasized the role of the Iraqi forces just days before the third anniversary of the start of the war. That said, one Iraqi role the military will start highlighting in the next few days, I imagine, is that of Iraqi intelligence. It was intel from the Iraqi military intelligence and interior ministry that the U.S. says prompted this Potemkin operation. And it will be the Iraqi intel that provides the cover for American military commanders to throw up their hands and say, “well, we thought bad guys were there.”
It’s hard to blame the military, however. Stations like Fox and CNN have really taken this and ran with it, with fancy graphics and theme music, thanks to a relatively slow news day. The generals here also are under tremendous pressure to show off some functioning Iraqi troops before the third anniversary, and I won’t fault them for going into a region loaded for bear. After all, the Iraqi intelligence might have been right.
But Operation Overblown should raise serious questions about how good Iraqi intelligence is. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by earnest lieutenants that the Iraqis are valiant and necessary partners, “because they know the area, the people and the customs.” But when I spoke to grunts and NCOs, however, they usually gave me blunter — and more colorful — reasons why the Iraqi intelligence was often, shall we say, useless. Tribal rivalries and personal feuds are still a major reason why Iraqis drop a dime on their neighbors.
So I guess it’s fitting that on the eve of the third anniversary of a war launched on — oh, let’s be generous — “faulty” intelligence, a major operation is hyped and then turns out to be less than what it appeared because of … faulty intelligence.
UPDATE 2400 GMT +0300: Time.com has posted the magazine’s official version by Brian Bennett, my colleague who was on the operation today.