The Nature of the US Military-Industrial-Financial Warplex -- "AGAINST" IS BETTER
senhor san
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Just received:
Forwarding mail from Ms Eman of Occupation Watch Center in Bagdad
through Mr. Asai Kenji, a journalist in Japan.
akira
******************************************
Iraqi cities are being sieged and bombed by missiles and tanks. Sadr,
Adamiya, Kufa, Falloja, Shula and others. Civilians are being killed.
The high way to Falluja is closed. News from Falluja say that bodies
are lying in the streets, no ambullances, no water, no electricity.
Journalists are not allowed in, cameras are smashed. They say this
will go on for days. pls help.
Eman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Rice Before the Committee Tomorrow? Don't even bother!
Dick Eastman
On Thrusday you will watch a scripted show in which Condoleezza Rice before
a handpicked cast of softball-playing obstruction-of-justice accomplices, in
a morality play in which the national security adviser assures the committee
that the Bush Administration was competently alert in the days before the
Bush Administration perpetrated -- she will not say this -- the 9-11-01
mass-murder frameup devised by the Neo-Khan Perle-Wolfowitz Pentagon. That
will take all of fifteen minutes. Rice will fill the rest of the two and
a half hours engaged in mock conflict responding on the dance floor to
stage setting layed out by co-conspirator RIchard Clarke, the "limited
hangout" spin agent whose successfully executed job has been to define the
hearings in the public mind as an inquiry into whether 9-11 "could have been
prevented," and away from the much more potentially precipitating topic of
"what went wrong"," or, the topic that could lead the entire bi-partisan
ruling oligarchy into free fall to the center of the earth, "what actually
happened on September 11, 2001?"
Remember, Al Falzenberg has directed all information offered by citizen
investigators working from the photographic evidence to "black-hole"
oblivion -- blacking out entirely, for example, the Pentagon pictures
showing too-small a plane, the distinctive trail of missile smoke followed
by a hugh white-hot explosion characteristic only of military explosives of
the type packed in missile warheads; the damage to the Pentagon wall that
is inconsistent with the crash of a two- engine 757 jetliner; the path of
downed lampposts that is not thethe same path as that witnesses saw the
Boeing take, and much besides, none of which will Condoleezza Rice have to
take questions on -- nor will anyone else in the administration take
quesitons on this so-obvious and so-conclusive evidence -- The evasion will
simply be proof that by tacit consent the only evidence that matters,
proving the only fact that matters (the guilt of the Administration in the
9-11 freameup -- will not be admitted for consideration by criminal
political investigators of a criminal adminstration guilty of the most
horrible and profitable mass-murder in American history.
And what of the unfortunate Sibel Edmonds? An FBI translator who saw
documents specifically warning of airplanes used as weapons in acts of
terror against skyscrapers and government buildings in New York and
Washington D.C. and observed an administration brushing aside the
information, Edmonds naming names, as if, I conclude, it might interfer
with other things they had going on -- a real risk, which if diligently
guarded against would have interfered with the real frameup in the works --
Edmonds remarks are going to be given the last 15 minutes and they will be
put by a questioner who will make more statements puffing the committee than
actually asking pointed questions -- Rice will say she did not know about
it and she will infer that untracable human error led to her not being
informed and then the bell will ring and by signed agreement Condoleezza
will be free for the rest of her life from any further questioning by
Congress on the topic of 9-11.
And yes, the entire Commission report will be censored line by line by the
White House -- not that that is necessary with a commission headed by Thomas
Kean and Lee Hamilton and the sleezy crooked and perverse characters cast in
this charade directed by Al Falzenberg who actually controlled the input so
that there will be very little output that the Whitehouse will have to vet.
The Adminstrations guilt has been proven by citizen investigators working
with the ample photo evidence and witness accounts already in the pubic
domaine -- the Committee is merely your tax dollars spent to keep you from
bothering to look at the easily comprehended conclusive evidence
presented, for example, here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/5
and here:
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/Eastman/m18h05.html
========
Meeting fierce resistance from Iraqi fighters, U.S. occupation forces
bombarded late Tuesday, April6 , the western city of Fallujah with tanks and
warplanes, killing scores of Iraqi citizens. At least ten Iraqis died when
American forces shelled the Golan neighborhood, reported the Doha-based
Aljazeera television. Hospital doctors said another 15 civilians had been
killed and dozens injured in the American offensive over the past 48 hours.
The U.S. army reported six Iraqis killed in fighting Monday, though
residents said five of them were killed when helicopters hit a residential
area.
http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2004-04/06/article01.shtml
Supporters of radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr ringed the Polish-led
military force's headquarters south of Baghdad for several hours Tuesday
before withdrawing peacefully, Polish media reported. Some 150 cars
surrounded Camp Bablyon, the headquarters of the 9,500-strong force and
remained there. No shots were exchanged, Polish news reports said.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3948241,00.html
Fighting has erupted between Italian troops and Iraqi gunmen in the southern
city of Nasiriyah (nah-sih-REE'-uh). A coalition spokeswoman tells Italian
media that at least 15 Iraqis were killed. She says insurgents used
civilians as human shields, and two children and a woman are among the dead.
(Human shields don't mean much to Italian soldiers, apparently -- or did a
coalition order come from the top?)
http://www.arkansasnbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=1765394
The American dream to bridge ancient Iraqi sectarian rivalries turned
nightmarish Tuesday as Shiite and Sunni religious and tribal figures put
aside their differences and publicly aligned against the occupation, vowing
to rid Iraq of the American-led invaders.
In the past 72 hours over 18 U.S. soldiers and well over 100 Iraqis have
died in vicious fighting across Iraq. U.S. aligned coalition forces also
took significant casualties of an unconfirmed number in fighting in four
southern cities. Before last week the primary forces resisting the U.S.
occupation were a combination of former Baath Party members and Sunni
religious figures, but after fighting broke out between the coalition and a
militia led by a young radical Shiite cleric, much of Iraq turned to
complete chaos.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040406-035654-
Paul Wolfowitz: "There 's not going to be any difference in our military
posture on July 1st from what it is on June 30th, except that we will be
there then at the invitation of a sovereign Iraqi government, which I am
quite sure will want us to stay there until killers like the ones who
perpetrated these atrocities in Fallujah are brought under control. Thank
you."
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2004/tr20040402-depsecdef0577.html
On the streets of Baghdad neighborhoods long defined by differences of faith
and politics, signs are emerging that resistance to the U.S. occupation may
be growing from a sporadic, underground effort to a broader insurrection by
militiamen who claim to be fighting in the name of their common faith,
Islam. On Monday, residents of Adhamiya, a largely Sunni section of
northern Baghdad, marched with followers of Moqtada Sadr, the militant
Shiite cleric whose call for armed resistance was answered by local Sunnis
the same afternoon, residents said. As protesters chanted anti-occupation
slogans in Abu Hanifa Square, militants were seen hustling toward the site
carrying AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, residents said. The
guerrillas opened fire on the U.S. armor deployed near the demonstration,
attacking from positions in a neighborhood where militants appear to be not
just tolerated but encouraged.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56091-
Almost a year ago, the Shiites of Sadr City threw flowers at the American
tanks that rumbled into Baghdad and ended the rule of their oppressor,
Saddam Hussein. This week, however, many Iraqis were filling plain wooden
coffins with the corpses of their kin, killed in a firefight with the U.S.
forces that now patrol their impoverished neighborhood.
"After American forces ended the regime, we wanted to welcome them," Mohsin
Ghassab, a 42-year-old unemployed resident of the district, said Monday.
"But now there is no stability. They have to withdraw."
Eight U.S. soldiers and about two dozen Iraqis died in the firefight that
erupted on Sunday in the teeming district of Sadr City, which lies on
Baghdad's northeastern rim and is home to more than two million Shiites.
http://www.iht.com/articles/513577.html
Armed followers of the firebrand Shi'ite leader Moqtada al-Sadr took full
control of the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala yesterday as the radical
cleric sought to broaden support for his uprising among fellow Muslim
leaders. With Sadr's supporters demanding the withdrawal of all foreign
forces from the country, coalition troops remained outside the cities to
avoid provoking clashes, while Iraqi police withdrew in fear of his
well-organised and heavily armed fighters. Last night they took over all
government buildings in Najaf.
"Sadr demands the withdrawal of all coalition forces from Iraq - or face
destruction," said Sheikh Qasi al-Khazali, Sadr's representative in the
city.
http://tinyurl.com/36e3n
The word went out on Tuesday at noon, with the blast of the call to prayer:
American soldiers had raided an office of Moktada al-Sadr, the radical
Shiite cleric, and torn up a poster of his father, one of Iraq's most
revered martyrs. The Khadamiya bazaar exploded in a frenzy. Shopkeepers
reached beneath stacks of sandals for Kalashnikov rifles. Boys wrapped their
faces in black cloth. Men raced through the streets, kicking over crates and
setting up barriers. Some handed out grenades. Within minutes this entire
Shiite neighborhood in central Baghdad had mobilized for war. "We're going
to attack a tank!" yelled Majid Hamid, 32, waving an assault rifle.
http://tinyurl.com/2fg88
Shiite radical cleric Moqtada Sadr, wanted by coalition forces in Iraq,
ended his sit-in at a mosque in Kufa and travelled to the holy city of Najaf
"to prevent more bloodshed".
"I have taken it upon myself to prevent more bloodshed," he said in a
statement, expressing concern the "sacred site of the mosque not be violated
... by people who do not back down from anything" out of respect for holy
places.
Sadr said his decision to "observe a peaceful sit-in" at the mosque was
taken to protest against "the aggressions committed by the infidel occupier
against civilians".
http://tinyurl.com/2v79w
Iraqi forces were in full control Wednesday of Ramadi, west of Baghdad, a
day after 12 US marines were killed and two dozen wounded in fighting with
anti-coaliton insurgents, a marine statement said. In Washington Tuesday, a
Defense Department official who requested anonymity said: "We had about 12
dead and a couple dozen wounded at the governor's palace in Ar Ramadi," some
50 miles (80 kilometers) west of the Iraqi capital.
http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040407074754.s4rj7lzg.html
Iraq is worse off now, after the U.S.-led invasion, than it was under Saddam
Hussein, Hans Blix told a Danish newspaper Tuesday.
http://tinyurl.com/377hf
Since the US invaded Iraq, the US Congress has approved about $US100 billion
to pay for military operations, as well as $US23 billion for Iraqi
reconstruction. Centre for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments defence
analyst Steven Kosiak said the war had already cost far more than the 1991
Gulf War - which cost about $US84 billion and was paid for largely by US
allies.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/06/1081222465066.html
-------------
China, Iran, the United States and Vietnam were the world's top users of the
death penalty in 2003, accounting for 84 percent of known executions, human
rights body Amnesty International said Tuesday.
More than half of known executions were in China, where the true toll could
be more than 10 times higher, according to the British-based Amnesty's
annual report.
But during the year, six countries either abolished capital punishment or
suspended it, bringing the total who have halted executions to 117 out of a
total of 195, the report said.
"This year's figures show that the majority of countries follow an
abolitionist path, while others choose to remain on the wrong side of the
justice divide," spokeswoman Judit Arenas Licea told a news briefing.
The report said the number of known executions world-wide last year had
dropped to 1,146 in a total of 28 countries from 1,526 in 31 countries in
2002. China was known to have executed at least 726, Iran 108, the United
States 65 and Vietnam 64, according to the group.
But Amnesty cautioned that its numbers -- based largely on official figures,
media monitoring and private reports -- might be showing only the tip of an
iceberg, especially in countries where the statistics were a closely-guarded
secret.
The report quoted an unidentified senior Chinese parliamentarian as saying
last month that his country executed nearly 10,000 people annually.
Arenas told the news briefing, called during the annual six-week session of
the United Nations Human Rights Commission, that Amnesty was especially
concerned at the introduction of "mobile units" to speed up executions in
China.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0406-10.htm
============
War Crimes
A few years after the genocide in Rwanda, Daniel Pipes writing in the
National Post (7/18/2001), recommended that the Israeli government
intensify the brutality of the occupation. His specific recipe for new
forms of collective punishment against the residents of the West Bank and
Gaza was to accelerate the pace of economic warfare against the population
and "permit no transportation of people or goods beyond basic necessities.
Shut off utilities to the PA. Raze the PA's illegal offices in Jerusalem,
its security infrastructure, and villages from which attacks are launched."
Read that again and notice that he was advocating 'razing villages' a la
Lidice.
Not to be outdone by Daniel Pipes, Cal Thomas recommended the mass
expulsion of Palestinians. "It should now be clear that Israel cannot
tolerate a huge Arab population within its borders, so a political decision
must be made. Most Arabs and Palestinians appear to be nonviolent but it
can be difficult to tell the difference...Israel should declare its
intention to transfer large numbers of its Palestinian residents to Arab
nations...Eviction is a better avenue to stability. Will it happen?
Probably not. Should it? Yes." (June 6, 2001, Jewish World Review).
In 1946, Julius Streicher, the Editor of Der Sturmer, an anti- Semitic
paper, was sentenced to hang by the Nuremberg International Military
Tribunal for Nazi War Crimes. In sentencing him, the tribunal gave as cause
the evidence that "with knowledge of the extermination of the Jews in the
Occupied Eastern Territory, this defendant continued to write and publish
his propaganda of death." Streicher was convicted of conspiracy to commit
crimes against peace and crimes against humanity. His partner in media
crimes, Joseph Goebbels, managed to avoid a similar sentence by committing
suicide after first killing his wife and children.
Half a century later, the Streicher case was cited as a precedent for
convicting three Hutus of using the media to incite genocide against
Tutsis. The three judges presiding over the International Criminal Tribunal
for Rwanda set another precedent by declaring that "those who control the
media are accountable for its consequences". According to the BBC, the
chief prosecutor, Hassan Bubacar Jallow, said that "The tribunal has
established an international precedent that those who use media to target a
racial or ethnic group for destruction will face justice." He also stated
that "the verdict would serve as a warning for journalists and editors in
other conflicts".
The Nuremberg Tribunal sent Streicher to the hangman's noose, even though
it found that "there is no evidence that he was ever within Hitler's inner
circle of advisers, nor during his career was he closely connected with the
formulation of policies that led to war." One of the Hutus convicted by the
Rwanda Tribunal was Hassan Ngeze, the editor of Kangura, an extremist
magazine. He was convicted based on articles that were written several
years prior to the onset of the Rwanda genocide. The court found that he
had participated in creating a psychological environment that made the
genocide possible.
Then you have the editors of the Los Angeles Times who, shortly after
Sharon's election, published an article by Edward Luttwak urging Sharon to
use his Sabra and Shatila 'talents.' "Sharon will now turn to his earlier
talents to direct the most effective uses of force, rather than confining
himself to the least provocative." (Los Angeles Times, 6/5/2001).
Three years on, we see the results of Sharon's latest war crime spree. What
we are witnessing in the West Bank and Gaza is another Sabra and Shatila
massacre on the installment plan. It appears that Sharon has resurrected
Unit 101, the notorious death squad that he commanded in the massacre at
Qibya in 1953. Hardly a day goes by, without a few unarmed Palestinians
getting shot by Israeli occupation soldiers. A suspicious percentage of the
casualties are shot in the back. Sharon knows that, at least for now, he
needs to keep his daily kill count in the single digits. Over the last
three years, his goon squads have killed 2,500 Palestinians and seriously
wounded thousands of others. He has razed enough homes to satisfy the
'Lidice' fantasies of Daniel Pipes and has systematically destroyed much of
the infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza. Now, collective punishment is
the daily lot of the Palestinians and Israel is using starvation as a
weapon of repression.
In a more just world, the unequivocal support given to Sharon by the lords
of the mass media should end up costing them their franchise. Ultimately,
it is publishers like Rupert Murdoch, Conrad Black, Arthur Sulzberger and
Donald Graham who should be held to account for giving free reign to
journalists who cheered Israeli war crimes. Granted, both the Nuremberg and
Rwanda tribunals had limited jurisdiction to only prosecute atrocities
committed by Hutus and Nazis. But international law is a ticking time bomb
for media moguls who allowed their properties to be used as weapons by
those who advocate repression, collective punishment, expulsion and other
war crimes against civilian populations. One precedent leads to another.
As the law evolves over the next decade or two, it might very well extend
the extra-territorial jurisdiction of international courts.
Even in the absence of extra-territorial jurisdiction, the domestic laws of
sovereign nations is moving in the direction set by Belgium. It should be
recalled that the war crime charges against Sharon were not dropped because
of his innocence, but because he wasn't resident in Belgium. At the very
least, Rupert Murdoch, Sulzberger and Graham can be driven from the Belgian
media markets. Current French, Canadian and German laws, if properly
applied, might result in a shut down of the International Herald Tribune, a
joint operation run by Sulzberger of the New York Times and Graham of the
Washington Post. The Yahoo precedent, involving the sale of Nazi
memorabilia, can be quite useful in tackling and neutralizing these war
mongering media outlets.
Israel's partisans, the media cabal that controls much of the corporate
press in America and the English speaking world, need to have their day in
court. We need to recognize that we live in a world where media controlled
states give journalist and publishers the power to instigate war and
applaud war crimes. Their ability to goad vicious serial war criminals like
Sharon to use their 'talents' can have horrible consequences. The
Israeli/Palestinian conflict might well have been resolved had it not been
for the Likudnik bigots who hold sway at FOX, CNN, The New York Times, The
Washington Post and the LA Times.
At the very minimum, the course to take at this time is to compile the body
of evidence that will be needed to conduct successful prosecution when
international laws evolve to the point where journalists and publishers can
be tried as war criminals. International and National Associations of
concerned journalists need to be encouraged to join the fray by conducting
mock trials of these culprits. The evidence against them is irrefutable and
their crimes against the Palestinians are easy enough to document. The
Internet makes their archives readily available for detailed studies of
their conduct. A vast body of literature from the alternative press and
mass media critics can be used to gather incriminating evidence. Even
without the jurisdiction of handing down enforceable sentences, the results
of such proceedings, if properly circulated through alternative media
outlets, will have the salutary effect of damaging their media monopoly
franchise. Perhaps concerned citizens could set up a 'Journalist Hall of
Shame' in Europe or Canada. Nominees for the dubious privilege of having
their names permanently enshrined as criminals or racists would be judged
by a panel of judges from countries that are certified as having a free
press.
If all this seems far-fetched, one needs only review the history of the
environmental movement. What started out as a fringe 'flower children'
enterprise a couple of decades ago has now become gospel even in developing
countries. Journalists and publishers can pollute our minds to the point
where ordinary people are driven to extraordinary bloodshed. In the case of
the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, a few media moguls have managed to create
an American constituency that actively incites murderous repression in the
Holy Land. We can bring a little justice to their victims by holding them
accountable for collaborating in the crimes of Ariel Sharon.
Ahmed Amr is the editor of NileMedia.com. This article can be published at
will.
http://www.nilemedia.com/Columnists/Ahmed/2004/January/The_Journalist.html
senhor san
following distinction
corrective lens: discriminate true friend from foe in economics
note: this is a memo -- not polished prose -- but the ideas here are key
to our survival and I don't know the problem has been stated in this way
before -- and I think it is a good way to look at things because it
immediately suggests the kind of remedy needed. Please read it as such.
The memo is to spark your own thinking -- not to create a marketable essay,
but just a hint to activist reformers as to the functioning evil that should
behacked down and the good growth that should be left to flourish,
bettering the human condition. --Dick Eastman
corrective lens: discriminate friend from foe in economics.
I find the biggest problem in starting the needed reform is the inability of
people to discriminate from capitalists of the good type and capitalists of
the bad type.
The truth is that the communist is wrong that the conflict has been between
the capitalist and the proletarian. The real war is between the
international finance capitalist whose rule is plunder and contribution is
death on the one hand, and middle-class entrepreneurship which creates value
for life and whose "industrialists" are focused on the good of the people
(yes, such men have really existed in our history!).
The real war is between the industrialist and the financier-monopolist --
between Henry Ford and John D. Rockefeller as archetypes.
I. Friends: Industrialist, Inventor, Single-branch state bank lending
officer, importers and exporters of goods and services
Goal: Profit from creating value to life -- labor saving, life improving,
Value: Serving mankind -- success in doing good.
Production: Goods and services to make goods that improve life. That sells
its goods and services abroad, but does not lend money abroad or attempt to
control foreign governments or their own government for their own gain etc.
Examples: Andrew Carnegie (built up steel, used his vast weath to put a
public libarary in every community); Henry Ford (his Model T car put the
automobile in every middle class household -- and he tried to stop World War
One with his own money, as Woodrow Wilson ( controlled by Bernard Baruch who
was an accomplice in the World War One world scam and who became economic
Tsar over the entire US economy and by Col. House) was definitely not
doing) ); Edison (light bulb, phonograph, etc.), Bell (telephone); Marconni,
Walt Disney (the man, not the the corporation his creations have become);
Gates (outlook express etc.)
II. Foes: Financier, Speculator, Monopolist Merchant Banker,
Goal: Cornering the market. Raising prices by cutting supply of
value-to-life production (monopoly control). Lending to governments for
wars, arms races, wars on terror.
Value: Maintaining class distinction -- superiority of the cunning and
aggressive as "natural rulers" over the "inferior"
Production, so-called: Financial services. Holding companies and other
arrangements to fix prices, destroy competitors by non-economic competition
(corrupt government for this purpose -- spotted owl preservation to shut
down lumber industry to raise the price of lumber and paper for example) --
DEFENSE INDUSTRY -- and creation of wars to speed along demand.
Examples: Rockefeller (monopolization of oil, monopoly finance), Harriman
(civil war profiteering and profiteering in all other wars - the Bush family
has traditionally served as agents of the Harrimans), Baruch (arranged WWI
war profiteering, arranged the great depression and centralization of
government over enterprise, invented the cold war in which keeping atomic
power was deployed for military purposes (A-bomb, H-bomb, atomic submarine
engines, atomic aircraft carrier engines) but not cheap power for mankind
that would eclipse the oil monopoly); Buffett (one of many who exploited
financial deregulaion for leveraged buyouts, "junk" investment of nation's
savings); Soros (one of those who currency control and international
investment control can bring boom and bust to entire nations making the
inflaiton and deflation his own personal seed-time and harvest at the
expense of millions of families livlihood, standard of living, quality of
life).
Turner -- the consummate produce nothing monopolist -- all those old movies,
the herigage of a generation, somehow he as "ownership" of the work of film
makers long dead -- as if copyright laws like this serve to increase
incentive for new production -- what a tragic joke -- while today Turner has
anti-war movies on moratorium -- just one example -- the original "CHeaper
by the Dozen" with actor Clifton Web where the father was an efficiency
expert and really gave a role model of fatherhood and living versus
prostitute clown Steve Martin movie of the "Daddy Day Care" genre etc. ---
but I digress -- who gave Turner the right to control this vast heritage of
our society???, to withhold films from the public, and to charge $19.95 for
a copy of a movie made in the 1930's, 40's, 50's -- THE PATENT AND
COPYRIGHT LAWS ARE MECHANISMS OF MONOPOLY AND NOT BY ANY STRETCH OF THE
IMAGINATION SYSTEMS FOR ENSURING THAT INVENTORS AND CREATORS WILL PROFIT
FROM THEIR INVENTIONS AND CREATIONS. Today if a man has a good invention
his patent will be held up for years until the minute he sells out to a
corporation (and even then the good idea may never be employed because it
would upset some monopoly arrangement, i.e., interfere with the
oil-dominated economy )
Note: The "Foes" are, as mentioned, self-anointed aristocracy, and their
ideology is the doctrine of Malthusianism.
They say that if you give the common man any more than bare minimum of
wealth (they only let American have wealth and knowledge after sputnik when
they were afraid that true communism (represented by Khruschev, before the
western bribery-induced coup, that put corrupt Brezhnev who also believed in
a "new class" aristocracy, the nomenclatura, (forgive me if I don't look up
spellings -- this is just a memo to get across a concept because we are
all in a hurry)
Malthus taught that if you give common people too much wealth they will just
use it to have more babies or else will spend the extra on alcohol and
ce -- but then the question must be asked, if people are really like this,
then who made them that way?????
Is the problem really unemployment and surplus population -- or is it
monopolists cutting the production of value that people are capable of
creating this strange thing "unemployment" where men go from corporation to
corporation seeking work (or to whatever small-businesses still exist when
there are left in town) -- how many potential Leonardo DaVincis are today
selling shoes or making spy satellites and death lasers -- only to be turned
away with the message that they are "worthless" and unwanted by the world of
work, that they have nothing to contribute to humanities needs and
betterment?
IS THERE REALLY NOTHING WORTHWHILE LEFT TO DO FOR SOCIETY THAT WE CAN AFFORD
TO HAVE PHDs DRIVNG TAXIS, MEN WITH DOUBLE MASTERS DEGREES CLEANING SHELVES
AT THE VIDEO STORES -- AND YES, DAMN IT, MEN SMARTER AND MORE VIRTUOUS THAN
EITHER OF THESE WHO NEVER WERE GIVEN REAL EDUCATION, BUT WERE BROKEN AND
DUMBED DOWN BY A SYSTEM DEVISED FOR BREAKING AND DUMBING DOWN -- AFFIRMING
THE INCOMPETENT, THE CORRUPT TO TAKE OVER THE INSITUTIONS OF SOCIETY.
The Malthusians insist that war, plague and famine are necessary in nature
to control breeding humanity and that giving them a share of the wealth
they, as beasts of burden, create would only add to their numbers and the
strain on the resources of the earth. Better, "our betters" say, to have an
elite keeping the resources and productive wealth in their own safe keeping,
letting them be lords of the global plantation -- creating wars, weather
disasters (weather has been controlable since the early 1990's), and
famines (through control of seed supplies, weather, commodities markets
etc.) since these remove the surplus population that spoils the earth etc.
Whereas the truth is that man is the best keeper of the garden, that if
permitted to, if allowed to develope intellectually and ethically as we did
in "early American history -- all men woujld become middle class and mindful
of the quality of life in their local habitat (neighborhood, community
etc.), creating, inventing, landscapiong, husbanding, managing,
onserving -- taking all costs and potential gains into account etc. --
because there is always work that can be done to improve things and the
existence of "unemployed" merely shows the extent of monopoly power in the
culture -- the restraint on production for betterment of life in order to
raise prices for wealth monopolization by the Malthusian elite.
Is the problem really too many unneeded men in the economy, or is it that
there is too much to be done, which doing is prevented by a criminally
insane moneyed aristocracy?
--------
The thinking I am suggesting to you is more in line with Jefferson and
Hamilton, Buckminster FUller, Lyndon Larouche -- in its trust of man as a
good and creative thing of great unrealized potential in the universe --
and not the views of the Marquis de Sade (who originally put forth the idea
that man helps nature by devising ways to destroy people), Malthus, and the
reigning Bilderberg-CFR-Trilateral Commission --WTO-World-Bank Club of
Rome -Globalization - Zero growth etc. thinking bankrolled by the people who
brought us the 9-11 mass-murder frame-up and the most recent genocidal wars
for profit and population control.
Dear reader, who has gotten this far -- you are my brother and I love you
and thank you for hearing me out.
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
Substantiation of some claims made above regarding Bernard Baruch:
--
More information on the birth and history of the corporation warplex is
available here:
Eastman describes the role of financier Bernard Baruch as mastermind
operative of the big London and Wall Street banks, the man who, more than
any other hundred men, shaped the defense-industry-debt-financing warplex
that ruined the entire 20th century and still is ruining lives of the masses
of every nation today. Here is an audio link to a broadcast of Radio Free
America (Tom Valentine) from 2002 in which Eastman discusses Baruch's
handiwork, providing at the same time quoted historical references
substantiating every claim made:
Substantiation of some claims made above regarding Bernard Baruch:
Interview with Tom Valentine regarding Bernard Baruch and the reign of
for-profit evil throughout the 20th Century.
Oct. 6, 2002 - Bernard Baruch - Dick Eastman talks about this famous figure.
(Streaming) http://arc3.m2ktalk.com/val1002/6.ram
Quoted references: Bernard Baruch master war-profiteer and architect of
depressions, world wars, cold war and the nuclear arms race my quoted
references -- 104 pages of research findings (adobe acrobat reader will
work)
http://www.rfausa.com/Bernard_Baruch.pdf
---
The US power elite did 9-11. The proof is the Pentagon evidence shown here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/5
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/Eastman/m18h05.html
========
Clandestine Weather Modification (CWM):
letter to Alex Merklinger
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/weather_ops/message/22
Pentagon/CIA weaponized weather modification and their dire coverup
"predictions" of all-of-a-sudden super "climate: catastrophes over the next
20 years!!
senhor san
than perhaps she intended
As Prepared for Delivery
NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR DR. CONDOLEEZZA RICE
OPENING REMARKS
April 8, 2004
THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON TERRORIST ATTACKS
UPON THE UNITED STATES
Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC
[Rice takes up a large portion of her 2 1/2 hours with this statement,
none of which is relevant to the defenses of the US nor an explanation
of why defense took the inadequate form that it did on the morning
of 9-11-01. ]
I thank the Commission for arranging this special session.
Thank you for helping to find a way to meet the Nation's need to
learn all we can about the September 11th attacks, while
preserving important Constitutional principles.
[She is part of the administration that is withholding information,
yet speaks of "our" need as a Nation to learn all we can.]
This Commission, and those who appear before it, have a
vital charge. We owe it to those we lost, and to their loved
ones, and to our country, to learn all we can about that tragic
day, and the events that led to it. Many families of the
victims are here today, and I thank them for their contributions
to the Commission's work.
[Again identifying herself with those seeking to learn all they can -- no
wonder she was hugged by a victim family member.]
The terrorist threat to our Nation did not emerge on
September 11th, 2001. Long before that day, radical, freedomhating
terrorists declared war on America and on the civilized
world. The attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983,
the hijacking of the Achille Lauro in 1985, the rise of al-Qaida
and the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the attacks
on American installations in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, the
East Africa embassy bombings of 1998, the attack on the USS Cole
in 2000, these and other atrocities were part of a sustained,
systematic campaign to spread devastation and chaos and to
murder innocent Americans.
[Laying the presupposition that terrorists motivated by hatred of freedom
did 9-11.]
2
The terrorists were at war with us, but we were not yet at
war with them. For more than 20 years, the terrorist threat
gathered, and America's response across several administrations
of both parties was insufficient. Historically, democratic
societies have been slow to react to gathering threats, tending
instead to wait to confront threats until they are too dangerous
to ignore or until it is too late. Despite the sinking of the
Lusitania in 1915 and continued German harassment of American
shipping, the United States did not enter the First World War
until two years later. Despite Nazi Germany's repeated
violations of the Versailles Treaty and its string of
provocations throughout the mid-1930s, the Western democracies
did not take action until 1939. The U.S. Government did not act
against the growing threat from Imperial Japan until the threat
became all too evident at Pearl Harbor. And, tragically, for
all the language of war spoken before September 11th, this
country simply was not on a war footing.
[Laying in all the great established lies of the past. The truth about
World War one and the Wilson administration is too involved for comment
here. Rice is giving out discredited establishmentarian history.]
Since then, America has been at war. And under President
Bush's leadership, we will remain at war until the terrorist
threat to our Nation is ended. The world has changed so much
that it is hard to remember what our lives were like before that
day.
[there is not terrorist threat -- 9-11 has been proven to be an inside-job
set-up]
But I do want to describe the actions this Administration
was taking to fight terrorism before September 11th, 2001.
[Note that she sets the stage set by Richard Clarke for talking about prior
clues to the alleged attack -- and not the much more important information
concerning the response to the attack after the first indication of a
hijacking.]
After President Bush was elected, we were briefed by the
Clinton Administration on many national security issues during
the transition. The President-elect and I were briefed by
George Tenet on terrorism and on the al-Qaida network. Members
of Sandy Berger's NSC staff briefed me, along with other members
of the new national security team, on counterterrorism and
al-Qaida. This briefing lasted about one hour, and it reviewed
the Clinton Administration's counterterrorism approach and the
various counterterrorism activities then underway. Sandy and I
personally discussed a variety of other topics, including North
Korea, Iraq, the Middle East, and the Balkans.
Because of these briefings and because we had watched the
rise of al-Qaida over the years, we understood that the network
posed a serious threat to the United States. We wanted to
ensure there was no respite in the fight against al-Qaida. On
an operational level, we decided immediately to continue
pursuing the Clinton Administration's covert action authorities
and other efforts to fight the network. President Bush retained
George Tenet as Director of Central Intelligence, and Louis
Freeh remained the Director of the FBI. I took the unusual step
of retaining Dick Clarke and the entire Clinton Administration's
counterterrorism team on the NSC staff.
[This is tantamount to tieing the Clinton administration to the
Bush administration in the perpetration of 9-11]
I knew Dick to be an expert in his field, as well as
an experienced crisis manager. Our goal was to
ensure continuity of operations while we
developed new and more aggressive policies.
[In other words the Bush team were busy on another
project and couldn't be bother with the routine stuff.
It was Democrats who dropped the ball, she is saying,
and if Democrats want to press the issue they will
turn responsibility back unto them. -- Interesting.
Has anyone else commented on this?]
At the beginning of the Administration, President Bush
revived the practice of meeting with the Director of Central
Intelligence almost every day in the Oval Office -- meetings
which I attended, along with the Vice President and the Chief of
Staff. At these meetings, the President received up-to-date
intelligence and asked questions of his most senior intelligence
officials. From January 20 through September 10, the President
received at these daily meetings more than 40 briefing items on
al-Qaida, and 13 of these were in response to questions he or
his top advisers had posed. In addition to seeing DCI Tenet
almost every morning, I generally spoke by telephone every
morning at 7:15 with Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld. I also
met and spoke regularly with the DCI about al-Qaida and
terrorism.
[ So the Administration was planning more aggressive policies,
while meeting frequently with Tenet and Cheney almost every day.
The agenda of these talks is not mentioned -- certainly they were
not all there to familiarize Bush with the details of their jobs -- that
is what Rice was for. Yet none of the content of these meetings
has been shared -- does that mean that they were not discussing
means of prevention, but rather ways to be aggressive?]
Of course, we also had other responsibilities. President
Bush had set a broad foreign policy agenda. We were determined
to confront the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
We were improving America's relations with the world's great
powers. We had to change an Iraq policy that was making no
progress against a hostile regime which regularly shot at U.S.
planes enforcing U.N. Security Council Resolutions.
[She does not discuss what meansures they were considering
for "changing an Iraq policy" to make it so planes couldn't be
shot at any more. Was this also part of the more aggressive
measures that were being discussed each day with Cheney and
Tenet?
And we had
to deal with the occasional crisis, for instance, when the crew
of a Navy plane was detained in China for 11 days.
[Quite the distraction that -- and yet a month later CHina allows
the US to conquer one country on its eastern boarder and boast
of soon going after South Korea on its eastern boarder -- is that
how improvement in relations with the other super powers was
effected -- by taking out the Moslems of Afganistan so they could
not support the captive Moslem peoples of western China?]
We also moved to develop a new and comprehensive strategy
to eliminate the al-Qaida terrorist network. President Bush
understood the threat, and he understood its importance. He
made clear to us that he did not want to respond to al-Qaida one
attack at a time. He told me he was "tired of swatting flies."
This new strategy was developed over the Spring and Summer
of 2001, and was approved by the President's senior national
security officials on September 4. It was the very first major
national security policy directive of the Bush Administration --
not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination
of al-Qaida.
[Condoleezza is admitting here at the outset what investigators
have discovered -- that detailed plans were being made for
the "war on terror" against the al Qa'eda before 9-11. Presumably
this would have been a topic in the "almost daily" talks with
Cheney and Tenet. Thus she escapes embarrassing admission
of this when questioned under oath.]
Although this National Security Presidential Directive was
originally a highly classified document, we arranged for
portions to be declassified to help the Commission in its work,
and I will describe some of those today. The strategy set as
its goal the elimination of the al-Qaida network. It ordered
the leadership of relevant U.S. departments and agencies to make
4
the elimination of al-Qaida a high priority and to use all
aspects of our national power -- intelligence, financial,
diplomatic, and military -- to meet this goal. And it gave
Cabinet Secretaries and department heads specific
responsibilities. For instance:
· It directed the Secretary of State to work with other
countries to end all sanctuaries given to al-Qaida.
· It directed the Secretaries of the Treasury and State to
work with foreign governments to seize or freeze assets and
holdings of al-Qaida and its benefactors.
· It directed the Director of Central Intelligence to prepare
an aggressive program of covert activities to disrupt
al-Qaida and provide assistance to anti-Taliban groups
operating against al-Qaida in Afghanistan.
· It tasked the Director of OMB with ensuring that sufficient
funds were available in the budgets over the next five
years to meet the goals laid out in the strategy.
· And it directed the Secretary of Defense to -- and I quote
-- "ensure that the contingency planning process include
plans: against al-Qaida and associated terrorist
facilities in Afghanistan, including leadership, commandcontrol-
communications, training, and logistics facilities;
against Taliban targets in Afghanistan, including
leadership, command-control, air and air defense, ground
forces, and logistics; to eliminate weapons of mass
destruction which al-Qaida and associated terrorist groups
may acquire or manufacture, including those stored in
underground bunkers." This was a change from the prior
strategy -- Presidential Decision Directive 62, signed in
1998 -- which ordered the Secretary of Defense to provide
transportation to bring individual terrorists to the U.S.
for trial, to protect DOD forces overseas, and to be
prepared to respond to terrorist and weapons of mass
destruction incidents.
[Is she saying that the new directive made before 9-11
contained the decision to not bring accussed terrorists
to trial in the United States -- or is she saying that the
1990 directive contained that order?]
More importantly, we recognized that no counterterrorism
strategy could succeed in isolation. As you know from the
Pakistan and Afghanistan strategy documents that we made
available to the Commission, our counterterrorism strategy was
part of a broader package of strategies that addressed the
complexities of the region.
[In other words they had plans to alter the geopolitical
complexion of the region -- who could they have done
this but by projection of force?]
5
Integrating our counterterrorism and regional strategies
was the most difficult and the most important aspect of the new
strategy to get right. Al-Qaida was both client of and patron
to the Taliban, which in turn was supported by Pakistan. Those
relationships provided al-Qaida with a powerful umbrella of
protection, and we had to sever them.
[Why separate Pakistan from the Taliban and al Qa'eda? Why
not spearate al Qa'eda from the Taliban and Pakistan? Remember,
Mohammed Omar offered to extradite bin Laden immediately as
soon as Bush provided evidence showing probable cause. There
was not need to go after the Taliban, unless there were other, unspoken
reasons afoot.]
This was not easy.
Not that we hadn't tried. Within a month of taking office,
President Bush sent a strong, private message to President
Musharraf urging him to use his influence with the Taliban to
bring Bin Laden to justice and to close down al-Qaida training
camps. Secretary Powell actively urged the Pakistanis,
including Musharraf himself, to abandon support for the Taliban.
[But again, there was not evidence that the bin Laden group
was involved in teh two embassy attacks or the attack on the
USS Cole. The world has the example of the Israeli false-flag
attack on the USS Liberty. And I think it was clear that bin Laden
could have sanctuary as long as he behaved himself and did
not bring the Americans on the heads of the Taliban. ]
I met with Pakistan's Foreign Minister in my office in June of
2001. I delivered a very tough message, which was met with a
rote, expressionless response.
[What does she want when she delivers a "very tough" message.
And what was the very tought threat that she presented?]
America's al-Qaida policy wasn't working because our
Afghanistan policy wasn't working. And our Afghanistan policy
wasn't working because our Pakistan policy wasn't working. We
recognized that America's counterterrorism policy had to be
connected to our regional strategies and to our overall foreign
policy.
[The failed in diplomacy -- didn't even try it -- and so proceeded
with the aggressive policy that Cheney and Tenet were working
on each morning -- when we all thought the concern for the country
was economics back in those innocent days prior to 9-11, right?"
To address these problems, I made sure to involve key
regional experts. I brought in Zalmay Khalilzad, an expert on
Afghanistan who, as a senior diplomat in the 1980s, had worked
closely with the Afghan Mujahedeen, helping them to turn back
the Soviet invasion. I also ensured the participation of the
NSC experts on South Asia, as well as the Secretary of State and
his regional specialists. Together, we developed a new
strategic approach to Afghanistan. Instead of the intense focus
on the Northern Alliance,
[Rice has just here told us that the US was focusing on the
Northern Alliance (opium drug lords) and not the Taliban,
and that they then decided to get tough with the Taliban --
and this at a time when the Taliban had that very year,
erradicated most of the opium production even in northern
regions -- hurting the flow of opium to China where it
is used to make the heroin which provided -- until the Taliban
stopped the flow -- $2 trillion per year laundered into
Wall Street and City of London banks where it has financed
Chinas industrialization -- we see very clearly from Rice's
statment what is really going on here!!!!]
we emphasized the importance of the
south -- the social and political heartland of the country. Our
new approach to Pakistan combined the use of carrots and sticks
to persuade Pakistan to drop its support for the Taliban. And
we began to change our approach to India, to preserve stability
on the subcontinent.
[Powell actually went to India and spoke of impending war
between the US and Afganistan and sought to enlist India's
cooperation. "Stability" is certainly a euphemism for
what was really a plan to use the US military for a drug hit
on the anti-drug regime of Mohammed Omar, the real target
of 9-11.]
While we were developing this new strategy to deal with
al-Qaida, we also made decisions on a number of specific antial-
Qaida initiatives that had been proposed by Dick Clarke.
Many of these ideas had been deferred by the last
Administration, and some had been on the table since 1998. We
increased counterterror assistance to Uzbekistan; we bolstered
the Treasury Department's activities to track and seize
terrorist assets; we increased funding for counterterrorism
activities across several agencies; and we moved quickly to arm
[In otherwords, knowing that the freedom of governments
to steal was coming with the advent of war -- they made
arrangements to seize assets and bolster the budgets of
Mr. Tenet's CIA (the same CIA that was caught shipping
cocaine through Mena Arkansas and into California etc.
free of all consequences.)
6
Predator unmanned surveillance vehicles for action against
al-Qaida.
When threat reporting increased during the Spring and
Summer of 2001, we moved the U.S. Government at all levels to a
high state of alert and activity. Let me clear up any confusion
about the relationship between the development of our new
strategy and the many actions we took to respond to threats that
summer. Policy development and crisis management require
different approaches. Throughout this period, we did both
simultaneously.
[In other words there was more compartmentalization of
secrecy, allowing the plans for war and exploiting attendant
opportunities to go forward.]
For the essential crisis management task, we depended on
the Counterterrorism Security Group chaired by Dick Clarke to be
the interagency nerve center. The CSG consisted of senior
counterterrorism experts from CIA, the FBI, the Department of
Justice, the Defense Department (including the Joint Chiefs),
the State Department, and the Secret Service. The CSG had met
regularly for many years, and its members had worked through
numerous periods of heightened threat activity. As threat
information increased, the CSG met more frequently, sometimes
daily,
[So we have Tentet and CHeney meeting the president almost daily
(every morning, i.e., prime time, every day!) at the same time
this Counter Terrorism Security Group was meeting also almost
daily -- not to guard against current threats, but to plan the architecture
of this new "aggessive" pro-active plan that would replace the current
system.]
to review and analyze the threat reporting and to
coordinate actions in response.
[Assess the threat and coordinate actions in response?
But remember, Bush was tired of "swatting flies" and
Condoleezza was threatinging toughly Pakistan (the
Afganistan government of Mohammed Omar not
worth even a warning, but simply on the hit list, from
what Rice is saying here.]
CSG members also had ready
access to their Cabinet Secretaries and could raise any concerns
they had at the highest levels.
So in addition to Cheney and Tenet meeting with the President
on this, and the planners working on it, the planners also had
open access to Cheney and Tenet during the rest of the day.
Obviously this new focus that was to be more than swatting flies
and would take out the whole terrorist problem in one
major response -- was a lot of attention to devote when
no 9-11 had taken place and acts of terrorism had been so
minor (and possibly were Israeli balck-op false flag operations
and not Arab terrorism at all.]
The threat reporting that we received in the Spring and
Summer of 2001 was not specific as to time, nor place, nor
manner of attack. Almost all of the reports focused on al-Qaida
activities outside the United States, especially in the Middle
East and North Africa. In fact, the information that was
specific enough to be actionable referred to terrorist
operations overseas. More often, it was frustratingly vague.
["Frustratingly vague" means sketchy and unreliable.
She is saying that intelligence was not indicating the
US was to be the target -- how odd then that Wolfowitz
and others should call for invasion of Afganistan and
Iraq the very day of the attack? Why not blame
or anti-globalists -- or any nation that has been destroyed
by World Trade?]
and his anarchist buddies in Seattle?
Let me read you some of the actual chatter that we picked up
that Spring and Summer:
· "Unbelievable news in coming weeks"
· "Big event ... there will be a very, very, very, very big
uproar"
· "There will be attacks in the near future"
[Condoleezza does not tell the COmmission that all
of this field intelligence came from Israel, from
Mossad agents -- the US had not field agents in
Central Asia -- and Israel claimed that it had -- and
it claimed that its reports like this -- all so vague and
indefinite and suggestive of a threat without giveing
any specifics that would be of use in anticipating and
repelling the danger -- this is consistent with the
spy agency feeding information that should have been
supsected and checked, both as a possible impending
attack by Arabs as claimed but also as a possible new
Israeli false-flag terrorism frame-up.]
Troubling, yes. But they don't tell us when; they don't
tell us where; they don't tell us who; and they don't tell us
how.
In this context, I want to address in some detail one of
the briefing items we received, since its content has frequently
7
been mischaracterized. On August 6, 2001, the President's
intelligence briefing included a response to questions he had
earlier raised about any al-Qaida intentions to strike our
homeland. The briefing item reviewed past intelligence
reporting, mostly dating from the 1990s, regarding possible
al-Qaida plans to attack inside the United States. It referred
to uncorroborated reporting from 1998 that terrorists might
attempt to hijack a U.S. aircraft in an attempt to blackmail the
government into releasing U.S.-held terrorists who had
participated in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
[And if there were any Arab terrorists involved they were
proably set up by Israel to think that this was the kind
of operation they were doing -- remember that it
appeared that some writings in diaries found in the van
afterwards indicated the hijacker expecting to do jail time
for his deed.]
This
briefing item was not prompted by any specific threat
information. And it did not raise the possibility that
terrorists might use airplanes as missiles.
Despite the fact that the vast majority of the threat
information we received was focused overseas, I was also
concerned about possible threats inside the United States. On
July 5, Chief of Staff Andy Card and I met with Dick Clarke, and
I asked Dick to make sure that domestic agencies were aware of
the heightened threat period and were taking appropriate steps
to respond, even though we did not have specific threats to the
homeland.
[Thus she takes credit for doing this and for anything
priaseworthy Clarke might have done as well. ALthough
Clarke is obviously part of the operation -- even his
testimoney prior to RIce testifying was intended to frame
the subject of Rice's testimony and the line of questioning:
"Was there sufficient prior warning to have justified steps
that could have prevented the crashbombings?" But,
earlier she said that Clinton's old crew was in charge of
right-now defenses as these planes for the "big-swat"
were being formulated by Cheney and Tenet and the
other CSG multi-agnecy task force.
Later that same day, Clarke convened a special
meeting of his CSG, as well as representatives from the FAA, the
INS, Customs, and the Coast Guard. At that meeting, these
agencies were asked to take additional measures to increase
security and surveillance.
[To increase efforts to keep people away from certain places and
information.]
Throughout this period of heightened threat information, we
worked hard on multiple fronts to detect, protect against, and
disrupt any terrorist plans or operations that might lead to an
attack. For instance:
· The Department of Defense issued at least five urgent
warnings to U.S. military forces that al-Qaida might be
planning a near-term attack, and placed our military forces
in certain regions on heightened alert.
[In "certain regions?" But not Washington D.C. apparently.
And who followed up on this point? No one.]
· The State Department issued at least four urgent security
advisories and public worldwide cautions on terrorist
threats, enhanced security measures at certain embassies,
and warned the Taliban that they would be held responsible
for any al-Qaida attack on U.S. interests.
[So they have threatened Pakistan, they have been planning
an "aggressive" response to the general problem of terrorism
that involves a once-and-for-all 'single-swat' answer to the
problem -- and a problem focused on dealing with Southern
Afganistan (the Taliban) without actually dealing with them
diplomatically with them -- and now they make their policy
committment so they will be able to invade Afganistan as
a "trip-wire" response as soon as any terrorist event occurs.]
· The FBI issued at least three nationwide warnings to
Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, and
specifically stated that, although the vast majority of the
information indicated overseas targets, attacks against the
8
homeland could not be ruled out. The FBI also tasked all
56 of its U.S. Field Offices to increase surveillance of
known or suspected terrorists and reach out to known
informants who might have information on terrorist
activities.
[This is a logical thing to do if you expect Arabs sympathetic
to Palestine and Iraq etc. might be inspired by the 9-11
false-flag attack to go off and do some free-lance
terrorism of their own in the moment of exhilaration.
This is a step that would have to be taken, before undertaking
the frame-up that elicits the "big swat."
· The FAA issued at least five Civil Aviation Security
Information Circulars to all U.S. airlines and airport
security personnel, including specific warnings about the
possibility of hijackings.
[Alerts, with no change of procedure -- as one could expect --
but who would deny seats to persons with Arab names etc.?
They must have known that their hijackers (if any) would not
raise suspicion -- and remember, no airport video of the actual
boarding of any of the crashed planes has ever been released --
only one of a "hijacker" but on another day at another airport.]
· The CIA worked round the clock to disrupt threats
worldwide. Agency officials launched a wide-ranging
disruption effort against al-Qaida in more than 20
countries.
[How do you disrupt what you can't locate or identify?]
· During this period, the Vice President, DCI Tenet, and the
NSC's Counterterrorism staff called senior foreign
officials requesting that they increase their intelligence
assistance and report to us any relevant threat
information.
[You mean that had not been doing this until then? Or do
they mean they had not been notifying the Vice President
direclty?]
This is a brief sample of our intense activity over the Summer
of 2001.
Yet, as your hearings have shown, there was no silver
bullet that could have prevented the 9/11 attacks. In
hindsight, if anything might have helped stop 9/11, it would
have been better information about threats inside the United
States, something made difficult by structural and legal
impediments that prevented the collection and sharing of
information by our law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
[Rice is saying that no security would have been possible
without Homeland Security and the Patriot Act in place --
that there were laws and institutions that prevented the
Patriot Act and Homeland Security power necessary
to have done the job. In other words, she is telling the
Commission that without these powers the US would
be vulnerable to more attacks on skyscrapers etc.
But how does Homeland Security and the Patriot Act,
speed up the time it takes air defences to intercept
a jetliner headed for Washington or Manhattan?]
So the attacks came. A band of vicious terrorists tried to
decapitate our government, destroy our financial system, and
break the spirit of America.
[ Quit a girl, isn't she? Decapitate our government? On
what basis does she claim this -- she has already stated
how sketchy everything was. And how does she explain
the fact that the specific hijackers were identified in a matter
of hours and the Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld knew that
al Qa'eda and Afganistan and Iraq were all involved
and needed to be taken down?]
As an officer of government on
duty that day, I will never forget the sorrow and the anger I
felt. Nor will I forget the courage and resilience shown by the
American people and the leadership of the President that day.
[Rice here exhibits her value to the Oligarchy as a front.]
Now, we have an opportunity and an obligation to move
forward together. Bold and comprehensive changes are sometimes
only possible in the wake of catastrophic events -- events which
create a new consensus that allows us to transcend old ways of
thinking and acting.
[Except that both she, Henry Kissinger, and Zbignew Brzezinsk have
made similar statements before 9-11. This is the Machiavellian
club's way of moving their agendas ahead, by making the events
that they require to pursue the policies they determine.]
Just as World War II led to a fundamental
reorganization of our national defense structure and to the
creation of the National Security Council, so has September 11th
9
made possible sweeping changes in the ways we protect our
homeland.
[A coup based on a mass-murder false-flag frame-up. And
Arab terrorism against the US has never existed and even
now, even after the provocation of Afganistan and Iraq, it
still does not exist. ANd of course, Pearl Harbor 12-07-41
has been under a cloud as well -- but we won't go into that here.]
President Bush is leading the country during this time of
crisis and change. He has unified and streamlined our efforts
to secure the American Homeland by creating the Department of
Homeland Security, established a new center to integrate and
analyze terrorist threat information, directed the
transformation of the FBI into an agency dedicated to fighting
terror, broken down the bureaucratic walls and legal barriers
that prevented the sharing of vital threat information between
our domestic law enforcement and our foreign intelligence
agencies, and, working with the Congress, given officials new
tools, such as the USA PATRIOT Act, to find and stop terrorists.
And he has done all of this in a way that is consistent with
protecting America's cherished civil liberties and with
preserving our character as a free and open society.
[In Russia during the Soviet dictatorship the governemnt
functionaries would talk about the freedoms Russians
enjoyed.]
But the President also recognizes that our work is far from
complete. More structural reform will likely be necessary. Our
intelligence gathering and analysis have improved dramatically
in the last two years, but they must be stronger still. The
President and all of us in his Administration welcome new ideas
and fresh thinking.
[Rice is asking for the Commission to suggest new invasions
of privacy -- more power to intimidate people from expressing
political views. New ideas and fresh thinking -- like the 9-11
mass-murder frame-up.]
We are eager to do whatever is necessary to
protect the American people. And we look forward to receiving
the recommendations of this Commission.
[Their goal is to protect the American people. Remember, they
said Afganistan had to be invaded to get bin Laden to protect
the American people. Iraq had to be invaded to get those
weapons of mass destruction that could be deployed in
45 minutes. Homeland security and the Patriot Act were
necessary to keep cells of al Qa'eda in the US from
killing more thousands. BUT MORE IS NECESSARY,
RICE SAYS, AND SHE WANTS THE COMMISSION TO GIVE
SANCTION TO THE NEXT ROUND OF PATRIOTIC
HOMELAND SECURITY MEASURES?]
We are at war and our security as a nation depends on
winning that war.
[Fighting whom? The perpetrators of the 9-11 black-op?
The people who shut down Congress with anthrax traced
to US military lab facilities?]
We must and we will do everything we can to
harden terrorist targets within the United States. Dedicated
law enforcement and security professionals continue to risk
their lives every day to make us all safer, and we owe them a
debt of gratitude.
[So, the next step is for every federal builidng to be turned
into a military pill box with concret barriers and guards with
machine guns -- so we can have real security to pursue the
kind of governance called for by a war on terror.]
And, let's remember, those charged with
protecting us from attack have to succeed 100 percent of the
time. To inflict devastation on a massive scale, the terrorists
only have to succeed once, and we know they are trying every
day.
[ And what does this mean? Have they thwarted any
new 9-11s? What has been tried? Was there no follow-up
on this question either?]
That is why we must address the source of the problem. We
must stay on offense, to find and defeat the terrorists wherever
they live, hide, and plot around the world.
[In other words, whenever international drug dealers are having
troulbe with some government, the United States will declare
that that government is harboring terrorists -- the drug lords
will arrange the terrorism frame-ups) and so Americans can
be dispatched to take out that government and replace it
with a new government more friendly to the drug trade,
currency manipulation, and privatization by sending out
sons and daughers to do the killing -- poor young dupes
who do not understand the language of good people
who will be trying to tell them what really has been going on.]
If we learned
anything on September 11th, 2001, it is that we cannot wait while
dangers gather.
[So here she says the global force of "anti-terrorism" will be used
pre-emptively -- attacking people who fit the profile of terror
(i.e. victims of globalization or Zionism or Drug Lords.) ]
After the September 11th attacks, our Nation faced hard
choices. We could fight a narrow war against al-Qaida and the
Taliban or we could fight a broad war against a global menace.
We could seek a narrow victory or we could work for a lasting
10
peace and a better world.
[World War One was fought, said President Wilson, "to
make the world safe for Democracy" yet it was really
fought to grab the oil lands from the Turks, to overthrow
the genuinely liberal Czar, and to take down Germany
whose Kaiser had called himself the "protector of Islam.'
And Wilson was elected with World War One in mind.
Bernard Baruch, who helped control Wilson, became
the economic Czar of the entire US economy, and
money-lenders and war profiteers made billions.
Mrs. Rice's idealism of making a world safe from
terrorism is no different than this.]
President Bush chose the bolder
course.
He recognizes that the War on Terror is a broad war. Under
his leadership, the United States and our allies are disrupting
terrorist operations, cutting off their funding, and hunting
down terrorists one-by-one. Their world is getting smaller.
The terrorists have lost a home-base and training camps in
Afghanistan. The Governments of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia now
pursue them with energy and force.
[Rice is here making a campaign speech -- eating away
the 2 1/2 hours allowed for her testimony.]
We are confronting the nexus between terror and weapons of
mass destruction. We are working to stop the spread of deadly
weapons and prevent then from getting into the hands of
terrorists, seizing dangerous materials in transit, where
necessary. Because we acted in Iraq, Saddam Hussein will never
again use weapons of mass destruction against his people or his
neighbors. And we have convinced Libya to give up all its WMDrelated
programs and materials.
And as we attack the threat at its sources, we are also
addressing its roots. Thanks to the bravery and skill of our
men and women in uniform, we removed from power two of the
world's most brutal regimes -- sources of violence, and fear,
and instability in the region. Today, along with many allies,
we are helping the people of Iraq and Afghanistan to build free
societies. And we are working with the people of the Middle
East to spread the blessings of liberty and democracy as the
alternatives to instability, hatred, and terror. This work is
hard and dangerous, yet it is worthy of our effort and our
sacrifice. The defeat of terror and the success of freedom in
those nations will serve the interests of our Nation and inspire
hope and encourage reform throughout the greater Middle East.
In the aftermath of September 11th, those were the right
choices for America to make -- the only choices that can ensure
the safety of our Nation in the decades to come.
Thank you. Now I am happy to answer your questions.
# # #
[ Ten pages of text read, that could have simply been released
so as to allow the questioning the full time alotted. But no
one on the commission thought to suggest that.
And here statement anchored the subject matter away
from the events of 9-11 -- the system failure that she does not
even address.]
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
=====================
I still do not have the complete text of questioning -- is there some
source other than the Washington Post for this testimony during the
questioning period?
But enough is shared here to completely discredit this Commission as not
only incompetent in its questioning, but going out of their way to shiled
the witness.
(This segment is a revision of an earlier
posting today -- correcting my confounding
Bob Kerry of the Commission with John Kerry
the candidate for the Democratic nomination
for President.)
=====
RICE: Despite the fact that the vast majority
of the threat information we received was
focused overseas, I was also concerned about
possible threats inside the United States.
[Her very first statement reinforces the anchoring
on the bogus issue of prior knowledge of possible
attacks. Of course everyone understands that
with all the information in the world and with
large organizations that important information
will be overlooked with serious consequences.
Condoleezza and the Commission are trying to
pin the case that the Administration were efficient
but only human -- that while they were alert and
doing their best the system, which was decrepit
because it is not totalitarian enough and
well-funded enough in the pre-homland security
days, let them down.]
On July 5, Chief of Staff Andy Card and I met with
Dick Clarke, and I asked Dick to make sure that
domestic agencies were aware of the heightene
threat period and were taking appropriate step
to respond, even though we did not have specifi
threats to the homeland.
[Establishes that anything good that Clarke did it
was because Condoleezza told him too and that
she acted on the little information she had, i.e.,
non-specific notice of a heightened threat.]
Later that same day, Clarke convened a special
meeting of his CSG, as well as representatives
from the FAA, the INS, Customs, and the Coast Guard.
At that meeting, these agencies were asked to take
additional measures to increase security and
surveillance.
[She is boosting Clarke as efficient -- after all he is
still part of the perpetration/coverup team.]
RICE: There were no specifics, and, in fact, the
country had already taken steps through the FA
to warn of potential hijackings. The country had
already taken steps through the FBI to task their
56 field offices to increase their activity. The
country had taken the steps that it could given
that there was no threat reporting about what
might happen inside the United States.
[The coverup has given Rice a narrow irrelevant
area of issues in which all she has to do is bring
up all the defense systems that were in place on
9-11 as proof of her competence except for the one
alleged failure due to system inadequacies that the
Administration has repaired with the Homeland
Security and Patriot Acts and 50 to a 100 billion dollars.
etc. NOTE THAT 9-11 IS NOT BEING DISCUSSED,
ONLY SYSTEMS IN PLACE BEFORE 9-11. I PREDIC
I WILL NOT SEE HER DISCUSS WHAT SHE DID OR
WHAT THE PRESIDENT DID ON 9-11 -- THE PRIOR
ANCHORING ON "WHAT COULD HAVE PREVENTED"
ALLOWS HER THIS ESCAPE FROM THE FIRE OF
REAL INTERROGATION ABOUT THE COMMITTING
OF THE ACTUAL CRIME.]
GORTON: Would the program recommended on September 4th have prevented 9-11
had it been adopted in, say, February or March of 2001?
RICE: Commissioner, it would not have prevented September 11th if it had
been approved the day after we came to office.
[This statement pre-supposes a lot of knowledge of particulars about what
the Hijackers did and how they operated, doesn't it? The coverup made up
the hijacker scenario, so they can decide whether it was catchable or not,
right?]
KERREY: Let me ask you another question. Here's the problem that I have as
I -- again, it's hindsight. I appreciate that. But here's the problem that a
lot of people are having with this July 5th meeting.
["me," "I," "I," "I" --
You and Andy Card meet with Dick Clarke in the morning. You say you have a
meeting, he meets in the afternoon. It's July 5th. ... here's what Agent
Kenneth Williams said five days later. He said that the FBI should
investigate whether al Qaeda operatives are training at U.S. flight schools.
He posited that Osama bin Laden followers might be trying to infiltrate the
civil aviation system as pilots, security guards and other personnel. He
recommended a national program to track suspicious flight schools.
Now, one of the first things that I learned when I came into this town was
the FBI and the CIA don't talk. I mean, I don't need a catastrophic event to
know that the CIA and the FBI don't do a very good job of communicating.
And the problem we've got with this and the Moussaoui facts, which were
revealed on the 15th of August, all it had to do was to be put on Intelink.
All it had to do is go out on Intelink, and the game's over. It ends. This
conspiracy would have been rolled up.
[Kerry is staying within the rules. He is thickening the plot on the
already established red-herring question of whether alleged prior knowledge
of this never-happened Arab operation allegedly in the possession of some
people might have been handled better. Notice Kerry does not fill in what
he is talking about , only referring to "the Moussaoui facts" instead of
specifics. He gives Condoleezza more leave to spend the limited time on
the bogus issue that keeps us from the real issue of exactly what the
suspects did on the morning of 9-11, of exactly what happened, of exactly
why the event was handled in the odd way it was handled -- questions that
would likely catch her in the coverup.]
KERREY: And so I...
RICE: Commissioner, with all due respect, I don't agree that we know that we
had somehow a silver bullet here that was going to work.
[Not a direct answer to the elements raised. This merely answering by
repeating, in terms as general as before, her basic defense of admitting
that the system was flawed before the Bush Administration fixed it with the
Homeland Security Act and the Patriot Act.]
What we do know is that we did have a systemic problem, a structural problem
between the FBI and the CIA. It was a long time in coming into being. It was
there because there were legal impediments, as well as bureaucratic
impediments. Those needed to be overcome.
Obviously, the structure of the FBI that did not get information from the
field offices up to FBI Central, in a way that FBI Central could react to
the whole range of information reports, was a problem..
KERREY: But, Dr. Rice, everybody...
RICE: But the structure of the FBI, the restructuring of the FBI, was not
going to be done in the 233 days in which we were in office...
KERREY: Dr. Rice, everybody who does national security in this town knows
the FBI and the CIA don't talk. So if you have a meeting on the 5th of July,
where you're trying to make certain that your domestic agencies are
preparing a defense against a possible attack, you knew al Qaeda cells were
in the United States, you've got to follow up.
[No follow-up on getting reference to the three specifics he raised. The
Senator has let her off and goes on to discuss FBI and CIA culture -- more
wasted time.
And the question is, what was your follow-up? What's the paper trail that
shows that you and Andy Card followed up from this meeting, and...
[So Kerry then jumps to the next number on his index card prepared by his
staff most likely, letting Condo now draw a deep breath as she sees what a
piece of cake this interview will be.]
RICE: I followed...
KERREY: Actually it won't be a question.
[Instead of letting her speak so we have some data to evaluate, Kerry
chooses to grandstand by telling Condoleezza everything he knows -- there
will be no trapping of Condoleezza with any of this bate..]
In the spirit of further declassification, this is what the August 6th memo
said to the president: that the FBI indicates patterns of suspicious
activity in the United States consistent with preparations for hijacking.
That's the language of the memo that was briefed to the president on the 6th
of August.
RICE: And that was checked out and steps were taken through FAA circulars to
warn of hijackings.
[Here is where the question of air-interception response time would have to
be brought up if this was a legitimate investigation of 9-11. But instead
of asking why air defenses were not on a hair trigger and alertness to
protect New York and Washington and why 40 minutes after the first crash the
Pentagon was able to be crashed by a plane that they knew was headed towards
Washington-Arlington, she stays in the pre-9-11 period and on the
single-point argument of systemic weakness.]
But when you cannot tell people where a hijacking might occur, under what
circumstances -- I can tell you that I think the best antidote to what
happened in that regard would have been many years before to think about
what you could do for instance to harden cockpits.
[Hardened cockpits? What about jet fighters signalling FLight 77 headed for
Washington that if the plane does not land it will be shot down. Why no
jets? The anchoring on the problem of "What could we have done to prevent
etc." will not be departed from during this hearing.]
Rice:
But I think it is really quite unfair to suggest that something that was a
threat spike in June or July gave you the kind of opportunity to make the
changes in air security that could have been -- that needed to be made.
[Thinking in terms of new cocpit doors and proceedures for all planes,
yes -- but does that hold true for air-interception readiness, which was
the one obvious failing that was critical to 9-11 success -- in fact no
hijacker would really have attempted an attack on Washington D.C. so long
after the crashes at New York, would they. They would have timed the
attacks for the same moment, wouldn't they have? Rice has substituted the
issue of cockpit hardening for the bigger issue of why interception was so
late -- AND I KNOW WITHOUT READING FURTHER THAT THIS COMMISSION WILL NOT
ASK ABOUT THE LATTER -- JUST AS THEY HAVE REFUSED TO PROCESS ANY OF THE
INFORMATION ON THIS WHICH 9-11 CITIZEN INVESTIGATORS HAVE SENT TO THE
COMMISSION THROUGH AL FALZENBERG.]
LEHMAN: As a last question, tell us what you really recommend we should
address our attentions to to fix this as the highest priority. Not just
moving boxes around, but what can you tell us in public here that we could
do, since we are outside the legislature and outside the executive branch
and can bring the focus of attention for change? Tell us what you recommend
we do.
[Here is a former Secretary of the Navy skipping the opportunity to ask
Rice about the failure of air defense, instead asking her a softball
question consistent with the Commissions chartered purpose "to find out what
can be done to prevent Arab Fundamentalists from taking box cutters and
going after again." He is asking for her recommendations -- a piece of
cake -- a great time filler. ]
RICE: My greatest concern is that, as September 11th recedes from memory,
that we will begin to unlearn the lessons of what we've learned.
[In other words, she fears we will roll back Homeland Security and Patriot
Act --
RICE: Mr. Roemer, by definition, we didn't have enough information, we
didn't have enough protection, because the attack happened -- by definition.
And I think we've all asked ourselves, what more could have been done?
I will tell you if we had known that an attack was coming against the United
States, that an attack was coming against New York and Washington, we would
have moved heaven and earth to stop it.
[Yet surprisingly she does not even have a grasp of the prevention issue --
all she can do is revert to argument "A" yet again.]
But you heard the character of the threat report we were getting: something
very, very big is going to happen. How do you act on "something very, very
big is going to happen" beyond trying to put people on alert? Most of the
threat reporting was abroad.
[Her rhetorical , how do you react except by putting people "on alert" is a
distortion. Alerting people is not the same as putting people under your
command on alert. The Pentagon is not mentioned. Rumsfeld putting all air
interception under his direct command, even though he was in his own office
until after the Pentagon was hit and then went to make sure that victims
cleared to escape the building were the ones who allowed out the door,
before he showed up in the situation room. (See Carol Valentine's research
on this.) Clearly neither the Commission nor Rice want to go there.]
Can someone tell me where the full transcript can be downloaded so I can
finish what I started here????
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
REMEMBER< THE REAL INVESTIGATION OF 9-11 HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY CITIZENS
WORKING WITH THE VIDEO AND PHOTO EVIDENCE AND WITH WITNESS STATEMENTS AND
WHEREAS NOTHING DEFINITE ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE OPERATION CAN BE LEARNED
FROM THE SUSPICIOUS EVENTS AT THE WTC (REGARDING EXPLOSIONS, THE CONTROLLED
COLLAPSE, AND THE FATE OF BUILDING NUMBER 7, A STATEMENT (SLIP) BY AN
OFFICIAL THAT FEMA ARRIVED THE NIGHT OF THE 10TH ETC.) -- YET IT IS THE
PENTAGON EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THAT 9-11 WAS A FRAMEUP -- THAT THE BOEING
757 OVERFLEW THE PENTAGON AND LANDED AT REAGAN AIRPORT ONLY ONE MILE BEYOND
THE CRASH, WHILE A JET FIGHTER OR OTHER SMALL JET PLATFORM CONDUCTED THE
ACTUAL ATTACK FIRING AT LEAST ONE MISSILE AHEAD OF ITS OWN CRASH INTO THE
FIRST FLOOR OF THE WEST WALL.
THE PROOF IS ASSEMBLED AND THE IMPLICATIONS ARE OBVIOUS THROUGH SIMPLE
DIRECT INSPECTION. SEE FOR YOURSELF:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/5
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/Eastman/m18h05.html
And this is the information that no commission member has ever discussed or
acknowledge seeing -- that Al Falzenberg says he processed to appropriate
people (i.e., to a black hole where it will never emerge.)