Skip to content

9/11 – A Cheap Magic Trick

How false flag attacks are manufactured by the world's elite.

Archive

Archive for January, 2013

by Paul Schreyer
01/30/2013

“If a mandarinate ruled America, the recruiting committee on September 11 would have had to find someone like Cheney.”
Washington Post author Barton Gellman in his book “Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency”

The history of 9/11 can be written from many angles.
911BushCheneyRumsfeld

But whatever point of view is chosen, Dick Cheney is a central figure. “Principle is okay up to a certain point”, he once said, “but principle doesn´t do any good if you lose the nomination”. He´s surely an elusive character. Not less than Donald Rumsfeld, his close companion. Both of their lifes are inseperably bound with a dark side of recent American history. The core of the following story was originally told by the authors James Mann and Peter Dale Scott whose thorough research is deeply appreciated. Yet a lot of background information was added. Thus a bigger picture slowly took shape, showing a plan and its actors …

Cheney and Rumsfeld were an old team. Major parts of their careers they had spent together. Both had no privileged family background. Cheney´s father worked as an employee for the department of agriculture, Rumsfeld´s father had a job in a real estate company. The families´ living conditions were modest. Both sons could go to university only with the backing of scholarships.

Rumsfeld, born 1932, chose political science. He was a rather small and sturdy person, but with energetic charisma. While at university he engaged in sport and was known as a succesful ringer. Later Rumsfeld went to the Navy to become a pilot. The Navy hat paid a part of his scholarship. At the end of the 1950s he eventually started his career in politics as assistant of a congressman. Meanwhile father of a young family, and following a short intermezzo at an investment bank, Rumsfeld himself ran for Congress, at the age of 29 only.

Getting backing

The prospects in his Chicago home district were unfavorable. He was inexperienced and almost without any voter base, compared to the other candidates. But the dynamic and ambitious Rumsfeld impressed some of Chicago´s business leaders, such as the boss of pharma heavyweight Searle. They paid for his campaign. With this economic power in his back also one of Chicago´s newspapers supported him. Rumsfeld won the election in 1962 and went to Washington as a republican representative.

At the beginning of the 1960s he visited lectures at the University of Chicago, where Milton Friedman was teaching, one of the most influential economists of his time. Friedman was one of the founding fathers of neoliberalism. He called for less influence of the state and praised the self regulation of the markets. In 1962 his bestseller Capitalism and Freedom was published. Rumsfeld was impressed by these thoughts. In a speech honoring Friedman 40 years later he remembered: “Government, he has told us, has three primary functions: It should provide for the military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. And it should protect citizens against crimes against themselves or their property.” (1) This self-imposed restriction of politics was also the core of Rumsfeld´s belief while he served in Congress in the 1960s.

An apprentice in politics

Cheney, 9 years younger than Rumsfeld, meanwhile studied political science as well. First at Yale, where he left soon because of poor grades, then at a less prestigious university in the Midwest. Contrary to the forceful Rumsfeld he appeared rather defensive, quiet and cautious. His imminent recruiting to the Vietnam war he avoided by getting deferred from military service because of his study at the university and the pregnancy of his wife, until he couldn´t be recruited because of his age in 1967.

At the age of 27 Cheney was looking for a job in Washington. He applied for an internship at Rumsfeld´s office. But Rumsfeld rejected him. The failed interview was embarrassing for Cheney who in later times liked to tell the story of this flop as an anecdote. But soon both men found together.

Under president Nixon, Rumsfeld had switched in 1969 from Congress to government. First he ran the Office of Economic Opportunity. There he administered federal social programs – not exactly one of his major concerns, but still one step forward in career. Rumsfeld was looking for new staffers to pass on work. By recommendation of a befriended representative he employed Cheney as his assistant. Cheney was a diligent worker and quickly made himself indispensable. Whoever wanted something from Rumsfeld, learned soon to try it via Cheney.

Rumsfeld´s career developed. People started becoming aware of him nationwide. He looked good, was energetic and had a catching smile. His intelligence was outstanding. But he also liked to exaggerate and escalate conflicts and often was unnecessarily blunt to others. Soon he became president Nixon´s advisor (who would praise him as a “ruthless little bastard”). Three years later he went to europe becoming NATO´s ambassador there – escaping from Washington shortly before the Watergate affair would kill the careers of many of Nixon´s advisors.

Read more

Ryan J. Reilly
01/28/2013

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVY BASE, Cuba –A judge expressed frustration on Monday that an unknown U.S. government entity censored his courtroom audiovisual feed, cutting public access to pretrial hearings for five accused Sept. 11 plotters.

“If some external body is turning the commission on or off based on their own views of what things ought to be, with no reasonable explanation … then we’re going to have a little meeting about who turns that light on and off,” said the judge, Col. James Pohl.

Pohl’s comments came after an unknown censor cut off a live media feed to the court proceedings as David Nevin, a lawyer defending Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, began discussing his request for information on his client’s case.

Proceedings at Guantanamo’s maximum-security court are broadcast over closed-circuit television to journalists observing from an adjacent room. Additional reporters monitor the feed from a nearby media center, and at Fort Meade, Md.

A red light resembling a police emergency beacon goes off in the courtroom when the censorship button has been activated. A court security officer positioned next to the judge has the ability to dump the feed if anything secret arises. That officer didn’t activate the censorship button on Monday.

Defense attorneys said they didn’t previously know that someone outside the courtroom could cut off the feed.

“I would like to know who has the permission to turn that light on and off, who is listening to this, who is controlling these proceedings, or controlling that aspect of these proceedings,” Nevin said.

The censorship light has come on before, but always when activated by the court security officer, James G. Connell III, a lawyer for Abul Aziz Ali, said at an evening press conference. “I thought that there was one button and it was under the control of the court security officer,” he said.

Justice Department counterterrorism lawyer Joanna Baltes said in court on Monday that the government would provide information on the censorship during a closed court session. The judge will address the matter on Tuesday, lawyers said.

Col. Mark Martins, the chief prosecutor at Guantanamo, declined to classify the activation of the censorship light as a mistake. Martins said the defense lawyers should have known about censors outside the courtroom.

Full Article: www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/28/guantanamo-secret-censor_n_2568595.html

More Coverage:
RT
Washington Post
The Raw Story

By VICKI DIVOLL
January 16, 2013
The New York Times

PRESIDENT OBAMA has refused to tell Congress or the American people why he believes the Constitution gives, or fails to deny, him the authority to secretly target and kill American citizens who he suspects are involved in terrorist activities overseas. So far he has killed three that we know of.

Presidents had never before, to our knowledge, targeted specific Americans for military strikes. There are no court decisions that tell us if he is acting lawfully. Mr. Obama tells us not to worry, though, because his lawyers say it is fine, because experts guide the decisions and because his advisers have set up a careful process to help him decide whom he should kill.

He must think we should be relieved.

The three Americans known to have been killed, in two drone strikes in Yemen in the fall of 2011, are Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who was born in New Mexico; Samir Khan, a naturalized American citizen who had lived in New York and North Carolina, and was killed alongside Mr. Awlaki; and, in a strike two weeks later, Mr. Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was born in Colorado.

Most of us think these people were probably terrorists anyway. So the president’s reassurances have been enough to keep criticism at an acceptable level for the White House. Democrats in Congress and in the press have only gingerly questioned the claims by a Democratic president that he is right about the law and careful when he orders drone attacks on our citizens. And Republicans, who favor aggressive national security powers for the executive branch, look forward to the day when one of their own can wield them again.

But a few of our representatives have spoken up — sort of. Several months ago, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, began limply requesting the Department of Justice memorandums that justify the targeted killing program. At a committee hearing, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., reminded of the request, demurred and shared a rueful chuckle with the senator. Mr. Leahy did not want to be rude, it seems — though some of us remember him being harder on former President George W. Bush’s attorney general, Alberto R. Gonzales, in 2005.

So, even though Congress has the absolute power under the Constitution to receive these documents, the Democratic-controlled Senate has not fought this president to get them. If the senators did, and the president held fast to his refusal, they could go to court and demand them, and I believe they would win. Perhaps even better, they could skip getting the legal memos and go right to the meat of the matter — using oversight and perhaps legislating to control the president’s killing powers. That isn’t happening either.

Thank goodness we have another branch of government to step into the fray. It is the job of the federal courts to interpret the Constitution and laws, and thus to define the boundaries of the powers of the branches of government, including their own.

Read more

By James Bovard
January 25, 2013
Antiwar.com

John C. Kiriakou, the former CIA agent who blew the whistle on the agency’s waterboarding, was just sentenced to 30 months in prison. The Obama administration absolved the torturers and the higher-ups who destroyed the videotapes and other evidence of torture – and dropped the hammer on the agent who acted honorably. The judge, Leonie M. Brinkema, pissed and moaned about Kiriakou’s plea agreement with prosecutors: “I think 30 months is way too light.”

After Kiriakou indicated that he did not wish to make a statement prior to sentencing, Judge Brinkema declared: “Perhaps you have already spoken too much.”

Maybe this judge feels like she is honor-bound to assist in any government coverup.

Obama represents Nixon-style “change and hope.” What an utter disgrace for all those progressives who promised that this guy would redeem any shred of national honor.

On January the 17th, 32-year-old Belgium MP Laurent Louis, considered one of the most controversial and demonized national political figures, delivered the most powerful truth ever told in a political arena.

First, he explained why he voted against the Belgian support to war in Mali, that it was based on lies and rooted in neo-colonialism. Then he expressed his disgust and wrath against the criminal foreign policies of the Western elite and its submission to foreign financial and interests groups, before scolding his colleagues who voted for interventionist war with “fuck you’s”. Finally, he says that the war on terror is a lie and that 9/11 was a false flag to justify aggressive military action in the Muslim world.

Click on the “Captions” icon to get the English subtitles.

Paul Waldman
January 18, 2013
The American Prospect

As we draw closer to the withdrawal in Afghanistan promised at the close of 2014, a look back at America’s longest war.

In October 2001, George W. Bush told the country he was sending the American military to Afghanistan in order to “bring justice to our enemies.” It’s safe to say support for the war would not have been as nearly unanimous as it was had he said, “Oh, and by the way, our troops are going to be fighting there for the next 13 years.” But if all goes according to plan and Barack Obama follows up on his pledge to bring them home by the end of 2014, that’s how long the Afghanistan war will have lasted.

We thought it would be useful to take a brief look at some of the basic facts of our involvement there. Last spring, Afghanistan passed Vietnam (measured by the time between the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in 1964 and the departure of the last Americans from Saigon in 1975) to become America’s longest war.

To date, we’ve spent over half a trillion dollars in Afghanistan, a figure that includes only the direct yearly costs for both military expenditures and civilian aid. It doesn’t include the cost of replacing materiel and weapons used in Afghanistan, nor the long-term costs of caring for the thousands of servicemembers who were wounded there. Those factors will add hundreds of billions of dollars to the tally in the years to come. And today, keeping a single servicemember in Afghanistan costs upward of a million dollars per year.

Nevertheless, the number of troops serving in Afghanistan has been lower than in most of our past conflicts, including Iraq. Until President Obama began winding down the Iraq War, the number of troops there typically averaged between 140,000 and 150,000. On the other hand, when Obama took office, the number of troops in Afghanistan had never exceeded 40,000. After he undertook a “surge” of troops to Afghanistan, the number maxed out at 100,000 during the summer of 2011. Last fall it came down to its current level of 68,000; plans for the ultimate drawdown that will take place over the next two years have not been finalized.

For all their horrors, our current conflicts have been far less deadly than the wars of America’s past. Over 100,000 Americans died in World War I, over 400,000 in World War II, 36,000 in Korea, and 58,000 in Vietnam. But advances in medicine, communication, and transportation—not to mention the asymmetric nature of the conflicts—have kept casualties significantly lower in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That’s no comfort, of course, to the thousands of men and women killed and wounded in those wars, nor to their families and friends. Last August, the number of Americans killed in Afghanistan passed 2,000.

Read more

On January 22, 2013
LewRockwell.com

Jon Rappoport talks to Lew Rockwell about the power-elite’s plans for you.

Click on link for interview: http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2013/01/22/342-forced-drugging-and-forced-vaccinating/

Day after day, U.S. air strikes have conclusively answered the familiar question of 9/11: “Why do they hate us?”

January 20, 2013
by Nicolas J.S. Davies
AlterNet.org

photo_1352919779923-3-0_2

Many people around the world are disturbed by U.S. drone attacks in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and elsewhere. The illusion that American drones can strike without warning anywhere in the world without placing Americans in harm’s way makes drones dangerously attractive to U.S. officials, even as they fuel the cycle of violence that the “war on terror” falsely promised to end but has instead escalated and sought to normalize. But drone strikes are only the tip of an iceberg, making up less than 10 percent of at least 20,130 air strikes the U.S. has conducted in other countries since President Obama’s inauguration in 2009.

The U.S. dropped 17,500 bombs during its invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. It conducted 29,200 air strikes during the invasion of Iraq in 2003. U.S. air forces conducted at least another 3,900 air strikes in Iraq over the next eight years, before the Iraqi government finally negotiated the withdrawal of U.S. occupation forces. But that pales next to at least 38,100 U.S. air strikes in Afghanistan since 2002, a country already occupied by U.S. and NATO forces, with a government pledged by its U.S. overlords to bring peace and justice to its people.

Read more

By John Glaser
January 21, 2013
Antiwar.com

Interest groups have always tried to influence the state for their own unearned benefit. Despite what idealists in this country would like to believe, going back to the founding of the United States, immediately following the end of the Revolutionary War, everyone from farmers to manufacturers scrambled get theirs from the fledgling state(s) in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, and protectionist regulation.

1-1

The most pernicious and by far the most influential lobby nowadays is the military-industrial complex. The name itself denotes a recipe for big government and big business to collude in the worst ways of corruption and warfare. The military lobby is especially distinct, despite the utter normalcy it has acquired today.

Consider what American revolutionaries thought of what could arguably be deemed the country’s first military lobby. Historian Merrill Jensen, in The New Nation: A History of the United States During the Confederation, 1781-1789, describes the founding of the Society of Cincinnati:

Americans, partly as a result of their English Heritage, and partly as a result of their experience with British troops after 1763, had a healthy dislike of anything smacking of the professional military man. Revolutionary constitutions one after another forbade standing armies in peace time. The effort to create a permanent military force at the end of the Revolution was turned down. But many Americans who served during the Revolution as officers developed a keen desire to continue a military career.

…The founding of the Society of Cincinnati as the war ended was only further proof to many Americans that military men must be feared and controlled by civil power…The purpose behind the organization was partly political and partly social. Many officers felt that they must unite in order to be effective in their appeals to Congress and the states.

Read more

Better Tag Cloud