MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Dick Cheney’

Tulsi Gabbard on Dick Cheney’s Lust for Nuclear War, and Why She’s on Biden’s “Terrorist Watchlist”

Posted by M. C. on September 8, 2024

Tulsi Gabbard was once the vice chair of the DNC. Now she’s on Joe Biden’s terror watchlist, followed by secret police at airports. She’s learned what happens when you question their wars.

Whether you like Tucker and Tulsi or not, the first 4:30 is all you need to know.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

How the Sept 11th Victims’ Families Search for Answers Was Met With Stonewalling, Lies and Political Theatre

Posted by M. C. on September 19, 2022

By Ray McGinnis
Propaganda in Focus

FBI, CIA, and America’s 750-billion-dollar defense establishment failed to prevent the attacks. Instead, Vice-President Dick Cheney said the nation couldn’t afford to divert funds on an investigation while fighting the War on Terror.

Introduction

On November 24, 2007, September 11th widow Lorie Van Auken whose husband Kenneth W. Van Auken had died in the North Tower spoke before an audience at the Episcopal Church-in-the-Bowery. In support of a campaign for the City of New York to investigate the ‘attacks,’ she remarked:

“It turns out almost everything about 9/11 was out of the ordinary, including the fact that it was never properly investigated…. The reason that we need an investigation into 9/11 is because we never actually had one. The 9/11 Commission was not a real investigation. It was political theatre. The family members who were involved with the commission actually had more questions after the 9/11 independent commission was completed than we had before it was begun” [1].

Lorie Van Auken was one of a dozen members of the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, families went to memorial services for their loved ones and grieved in private. Many waited for the Bush White House to announce an investigation into why the FBI, CIA, and America’s 750-billion-dollar defense establishment failed to prevent the attacks. Instead, Vice-President Dick Cheney said the nation couldn’t afford to divert funds on an investigation while fighting the War on Terror. In May 2002, U.S. Senate leader Tom Daschle told reporters he was concerned that on “several occasions” Cheney has asked that Congress not launch any investigation at all [2].

Families Press For Truth

Families rallied on June 11, 2002, at the Capitol buildings in Washington D.C. to press for the government to look into the attacks [3]. Lorie Van Auken, along with Mindy Kleinberg, Patty Casazza and Kristen Breitweiser each lost their husbands on September 11th. They became known as “The Jersey Girls” and appeared in a PBS special hosted by Gail Sheehy, news stories in the New York Observer, Chris Matthews’ Hardball, and more [4][5]. On September 18, 2002, Kristen Breitweiser testified before the Joint Inquiry of the U.S. Senate and Congress [6]. One staff member with the White House said of the victims’ family lobby, “There was a freight train coming down the tracks.” Bowing to pressure, in November 2002 President George W. Bush appointed Dr. Henry Kissinger to head a 9/11 Commission the White House never wanted. After a meeting with members of the Family Steering Committee (FSC) over concerns about conflicts of interest – such as having bin Laden family business clients – Kissinger abruptly resigned instead of disclosing his client list [7].

Kissinger was replaced by former Republican Governor Thomas Kean, a director of the oil consortium company Amerada Hess which was eager to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. As well, Kean had business ties with Khalid bin Mahfouz, a billionaire suspected of funneling money to al Qaeda. [8] Kean’s co-chair was Lee Hamilton, a longtime best friend of Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Hamilton was a former chair of the House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran and in 1992 the House October Surprise Task Force. Both were viewed by critics as part of a coverup [9]. At first, only $3 million was allotted to investigate events surrounding the deaths of nearly 3,000 people. This contrasts with $50 million to investigate the January 1986 Challenger Space Shuttle crash [10] and the $80 million devoted to investigating the Lewinsky-Clinton scandal in the 1990s.

Enter Executive Director Philip Zelikow

On March 2, 2003, newly appointed Executive Director of the inquiry, Philip Zelikow, sent a five-page memo to the eighty new 9/11 Commission staff. The memo was entitled “What Do I Do Now?” In his book The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Commission, author Philip Shenon details how Zelikow instructed staff members on how to go about their jobs on the Commission. The memo prescribed this controversial protocol. “If you are contacted by a commissioner, please contact [deputy executive director] Chris [Kojm] or me. We will be sure that the appropriate members of the Commission’s staff are responsive.” This disturbed experienced staff members who had worked on other federal commissions. Zelikow was shutting down any lines of communication that didn’t go through him or his deputy. Zelikow didn’t want the staff to speak directly with the 9/11 commissioners who they were responsible to [11].

It was Zelikow who decided who would testify before the 9/11 Commission, and seldom under oath. Zelikow made sure the dubious scholarship of Laure Mylroie – who asserted that Iraq attacked America on 9/11 (a contention echoed in President George W. Bush’s Authorization For Use Of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of October 2002) – was given ample air time before the 9/11 Commission [12][13]. As were other “Iraq attacked America on 9/11” witnesses. Zelikow had authored the paper that advanced the doctrine of pre-emptive war to bolster President Bush’s case to attack Iraq [14]. But whistleblowers like Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, who wanted to testify about the DIA data mining project Able Danger, were among those passed over by the 9/11 Commission [15].

Remarkably, in March 2003, Philip Zelikow had already co-authored an outline of the 9/11 Commission Report. Though the inquiry had yet to hold its first public hearing, the outline offered a narrative. It happened that the 9/11 Commission Report released in July 2004 mirrored most of the chapter headings and sub-headings of the outline. The outline, according to Senior Counsel Ernest May, was “treated as if it were the most classified document the commission possessed.” Zelikow had the outline stamped “Commission Sensitive” on the top and bottom of each page. When the outline was leaked in the spring of 2004, many staff were shocked [16]. Did the outline establish in advance what the 9/11 Commission Report would conclude? For Bob McIlvaine, whose son Bobby died on 9/11, the existence of an outline for the official story before the first public hearings were even held was scandalous. He said, “That’s monumental news. The outline of the investigation of my son’s murder was out before the first day they started the investigation” [17]. At the first public hearing 9/11 Commission chairman Thomas Kean stated “our fundamental purpose will not be to point fingers.” The inquiry was not going to “assign blame.” Kean said, “In the parlance of Congress this is not an investigative hearing, but an informal one” [18].

A National Scandal

One 9/11 Commissioner who was judged by the families to be the most dedicated to getting to the bottom of what happened was Max Cleland. He was appointed to the Export-Import Bank of the United States, and resigned in December 2003. Before he left the Commission, Cleland told reporters that the inquiry was “a national scandal.” He told Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! that “the White House had played cover-up and a slow walk to this game from the beginning” [19]. Cleland pointed to the lack of access to government documents. He was also upset others on the 9/11 Commission didn’t want to probe into the Iraq War. Was it just a coincidence that a President who wanted a war in Iraq happened to have a political event unfold that gave him cause to preemptively go to war? Cleland also compared the 9/11 Commission to the Warren Commission that investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. When Max Cleland resigned, the Family Steering Committee and other Sept 11 families lobbied for a replacement they could trust. The replacement of Democrat Cleland was up to Democrat Senate minority leader Tom Daschle.

The families wanted 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser on the panel. Other suggestions the families offered were former Pentagon Inspector General Eleanor Hill and former Senator Gary Hart. Instead, Daschle appointed Vietnam Veteran and probable war criminal Bob Kerrey. Vietnamese and military witnesses claimed Kerrey ordered the slaughter of 21 unarmed women and children in a raid on the tiny hamlet of Thanh Phong in February of 1969 [20]. Kerrey was also a member of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) dominated Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Kerrey’s appointment contributed to the commission’s continued focus on Iraq as being complicit in the attacks. The dozen members of the Family Steering Committee presented over a thousand questions, and subsets of questions, to the 9/11 Commission in March 2003. Commissioner Jamie Gorelick told the press that the families’ questions would provide the inquiry with “a road map” to proceed with their task [21]. However, few public hearings took place. And 70% of the FSC questions were ignored.

September 11 Families Issue Report Card

In September 2003 the Family Steering Committee issued a Report Card on the progress of the 9/11 Commission. [22] They gave the inquiry a “D” for Investigative, Informative Open Hearings. The FSC noted only three public hearings had taken place in nine months. Kean and Hamilton had initially committed to holding monthly public hearings. Additionally, while the Joint Inquiry (Senate and Congress) had issued regular Interim Reports, none were being released by the 9/11 Commission. The FSC gave the inquiry a “D” for Staff Director Interim Reports. Without interim reports, it was hard for the public to verify that the 9/11 Commission was on track with their task. The FSC gave the inquiry a “D” for Structure and Conduct of Open Hearings. The families were “shocked” with the use of “minders” when witnesses came forward to testify from different government agencies.

The FSC wrote, “despite the Commissioner’s similar objection to minders, as stated at the last press conference, minders continue to be present during witness examination and questioning. The FSC does not want minders present during any witness examination and questioning; it is a form of intimidation and it does not yield the unfettered truth. Also (we are concerned about) the failure of this Commission to swear witnesses in prior to their testimony. Without sworn testimony, witnesses cannot be held accountable for what they testify about before the Commission” [23].

Alarm at the slow progress of the 9/11 Commission was reflected in an FSC press release on September 10, 2003:

“Since no substantive information about the investigation has been released, we are being asked to take on faith that an in-depth investigation is taking place and that it will not be a whitewash. But trust began to die when President Bush opposed an independent investigation for more than a year. We should not have had to fight our government for an independent Commission. Each subsequent misrepresentation or manipulation of facts by government officials has caused further erosion of trust. Lingering questions, and those that have been answered with half-truths or omissions, do not promote trust. Instead, they lead to conjecture and discontent” [24].

Read the Whole Article

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Dog Gone | Kunstler

Posted by M. C. on January 15, 2022

War, the ivermectin of politics!

We are fixing to drag that old blue dog to the doghouse, where it can cool out for two years before we put it down for good. And a couple more things: “Joe Biden” is done running for president, and Liz Cheney is done running for Congress, or anything else. Welcome back to reality. Let the sun shine in.

https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/dog-gone/

James Howard Kunstler

So much chatter in the news media these days about who will be “Joe Biden’s” running mate in 2024 — not that there’s anything wrong with his current sidekick — but I’ve got half a mind to throw my own hat in the ring. That’d make two of us with half a mind and a shot at the so-far elusive ideal to govern least… and therefore govern best!

Alas, I lack the connections and the ground-game of a seasoned pol such as Liz Cheney, the current favorite, who dragged her esteemed old daddy, Dick Cheney (“George W. Bush’s brain”) up to Capitol Hill this week, for to schmooze up the Progressive caucus and raise morale among the walking dead. Where Dick Cheney treads, you know war can’t be far behind. That must be what America really needs to pep her up in these days of sagging poll numbers and inflating dollars. War, the ivermectin of politics!

But shall it be a foreign war or a civil war? Isn’t that the question? From the looks of things around “Joe Biden’s” White House, where a weird concrete fortification is being hoisted up on the north lawn as I write, it looks like they’re planning for action on the home front, perhaps a full-out assault by the lurking forces of white supremacy — painted savages in horned head-dresses screaming MAGA-MAGA-MAGA as they loot Dr. Jill’s walk-in closet.

The Attorney General, Mr. Garland, has been warning us about this Satanic host of backward-facing demons. They breed like botflies in the red state hills and hollers, swarm and buzz in the school board meetings, caress their AR-15s in prostrate worship of their Trump bobbleheads, scheming to deprive BIPOCs of their votes. They’d like to tie Democracy to the back bumper of a Ford Alpha F-150, drag it over seven miles of broken Southern Comfort bottles, and feed whatever’s left to the hogs. They must be stopped!

Except… what if they fail to materialize? Maybe a foreign war would play better on social media and The View.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Colin Powell: A Neocon Fellow Traveler | Chronicles

Posted by M. C. on October 21, 2021

https://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/blog/colin-powell–a-neocon-fellow-traveler/

At a crucial juncture in his life Colin Powell decided that he would just follow orders, like countless officers before him, most notably German ones. He may have been a decent sort to start with, but the Superior Orders defense is unlikely to save him from the harsh judgment of history.

By Srdja Trifkovic

“My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources,” U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell declared on the afternoon of Wednesday, Feb. 5, 2003, at the Security Council of the United Nations. “These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.”   Powell, who died Monday due to complications from COVID-19, was seeking the Council’s endorsement of the U.S. attack on Iraq, which had been already decided upon by the neoconservative inner circle surrounding President George W. Bush. He asserted that Saddam Hussein already had at his disposal biological and chemical weapons, that he was developing a nuclear arsenal, and that therefore Iraq was a legitimate target for military action.   To support his claim, Powell produced a vial of white powder, allegedly anthrax from the Iraqi arsenal. He played a recording of a supposed discussion among Iraqi military officers about UN inspection teams, which had been doctored to make the proceedings appear sinister. Staking his reputation as a cautious, matter-of-fact soldier, four-star general, and former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who served four presidents, he produced photographs of alleged Iraqi WMD depots and other facilities. He also showed detailed drawings of what he claimed were Saddam Hussein’s mobile chemical weapons production facilities.   As we now know, and as some of us suspected at the time, every statement Powell made on that day was untrue. Every single assertion was backed by “sources” fabricated by the neocon cabal which had decided to push America into war against Iraq many years earlier. Powell never belonged to this group, which looked down on him and eagerly plotted to exploit him. They wanted to turn him into a useful idiot, to use him – broadly speaking – the way Stalin used Walter Duranty and Hitler used Lloyd George.    Colin Powell, to his eternal discredit, allowed some very bad people to use him. He failed to check the veracity of the material they prepared for him, even though his presentation was potentially a matter of life and death for thousands of people. He was told that his speech had been prepared by the National Security Council. In reality it was written by Vice President Dick Cheney’s team, which in the words of a summary of events published Monday by The Guardian,  “led the charge in browbeating CIA analysts into coming up with evidence and when that failed, going around the CIA altogether.”   Could Powell not smell a rat? Two years later, when he was no longer a senior official, Powell said the speech was “a blot” on his career. “It was painful,” Powell told Barbara Walters. “It’s painful now.”    His expression of remorse isn’t enough to exculpate him. Powell could not have been willfully oblivious to what was going on, as some of Stalin’s fellow travelers were. He made a deliberate moral choice, fully in accordance with his rank and station. “For Colin Powell, the situation put reputation and duty in conflict,” according to Sir Christopher Meyer, the UK ambassador in Washington at the time. “When the commander in chief of the United States of America says ‘Go to New York and deliver a presentation,’ a man like Powell doesn’t say no.”   Indeed; this is the crux of the matter. At a crucial juncture in his life Colin Powell decided that he would just follow orders, like countless officers before him, most notably German ones. He may have been a decent sort to start with, but the Superior Orders defense is unlikely to save him from the harsh judgment of history.

Srdja Trifkovic

Dr. Srdja Trifkovic, foreign affairs editor of Chronicles, is the author of The Sword of the Prophet and Defeating Jihad.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Doug Casey on Some Encounters with US Deep State Sociopaths

Posted by M. C. on March 26, 2021

They were one deviation above prostitutes, conmen, spies, and thieves—they’re professional liars. Actors pretend to be somebody they’re not. Professional deceivers. Not until very recently were actors idealized. You have to respect their skills, of course. And some actors are decent people just doing a job, entertaining; I’m all for them.

https://internationalman.com/articles/doug-casey-on-some-encounters-with-us-deep-state-sociopaths/

International Man: Government attracts sociopathic types who are interested in wielding power over others. These are the kinds of people who rise to the top of the Deep State, the permanently entrenched bureaucracy.

You’ve met your fair share of swamp creatures. Tell us about the time you met former Vice President Dick Cheney.

Doug Casey: It was at the New Orleans Investment Conference, the year Dick Cheney was running for president. A friend of mine who took a dislike to Cheney invited me to join him at a special meeting that had been organized for Republican fat cats—potential donors to Cheney’s campaign.

Cheney was pressing the flesh and holding forth. I joined the group, and Cheney comes up to me, as he did to everybody. He says, “Dick Cheney, it’s nice to meet you,” and sticks his hand out. I looked at him and said, “Dick, I’m not going to shake hands with you. I despise you and everything you stand for.”

I thought that delivering a verbal gut blow in public might shatter his criminal persona. But he’s a skilled politician and has been around the block many times.

His comeback was, “Well, why do you say that?” That gave me 60 seconds to detail exactly why I thought he was a horrible human being. He tried not to show it, but it threw him off balance and destroyed any possibility of raising money from the assembled fat cats. I think it’s important that self-important public figures be treated appropriately, as they deserve.

About a week later, I was at another conference in San Francisco. Cheney was also there; he was attending all of the hard money/conservative conferences. He figured that attendees—wealthy, conservative Republicans—were likely donors to his campaign.

Anyway, my friend Mark Skousen ran into Cheney at the Hyatt’s business center.

Mark went up to Cheney, and to break the ice said, “Mr. Cheney, it’s nice to meet you. I understand that you met my friend Doug Casey last week in New Orleans.” I don’t think Mark was trying to wave a red flag in front of an angry bull—just being naive.

Cheney wouldn’t shake hands and refused to talk to him.

That was interesting because I would have thought that Cheney would have just disregarded me as another heckler. Apparently, my having ruined his day in New Orleans put him on a slow burn. Perhaps it ruined his week.

The next year, when I was still a trustee at Washington College, Stephen Balch, the founder of the newly formed National Association of Scholars and Trustees, invited me to join the organization. Lynn Cheney, Dick’s wife—a thoroughly distasteful pear-shaped harpy—was also at the meeting. She was being recruited as an influential bigwig. We took an immediate and visceral dislike to each other. I was subsequently disinvited to join, which came as no great surprise.

International Man: Another notable Deep State figure is former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. You’ve met him several times and have even debated him on a conference stage.

Tell us about your experiences with Newt Gingrich.

Doug Casey: I met Newt also at the New Orleans conference. Although I lived in Washington DC for many years, I never associated with Deep State types. But, as I said, they often show up at financial conferences, where conservative rich people can be tapped for donations.

I had a private lunch with Newt. It was pleasant enough, although, like most conversations with politicians, completely meaningless. Newt seemed incapable of originating any thought that wasn’t a programmed talking point. Pols are experts at dodging questions—they like to limit the conversation to inoffensive subjects like the weather and the state of the roads.

I was unsuccessful in getting him to talk about any serious philosophical or historical issues. But I was able to turn the conversation to the events of 9/11—because this was only two months after they occurred.

I asked him: “What do you think about what happened to Building 7.” And, he said, “Building 7? What do you mean?”

I explained to him that it was a 47-story office building, which wasn’t hit by a plane, but nonetheless collapsed in its own footprint—as did Buildings 1 and 2—later on the same day. He looked at me and said, “What are you talking about? I’ve never heard about that. Is that right?”

I was flummoxed that somebody in his position didn’t even know that a third major building in the WTC had gone down on 9/11. The event has never been adequately explained, and nobody cares, even though its collapse confounds the laws of engineering and physics.

It was obvious to me that he sincerely knew nothing about it. Of course, Building 7 was never talked about in the news. That giant omission is inexplicable and brings up all kinds of questions about what really happened that day and who was really at fault.

I don’t think Newt had been exposed to it because these people live in a silo, where they only talk to their handlers, sycophants, and other Deep Staters in similar positions.

Newt, a leader of the Republican Party, really didn’t know anything beyond his talking points. He had no observations worth remembering about history or economics either—the two things that he was supposed to know more about than most. No doubt he’ll deny the encounter if asked about it. My parting words to him were, “Be sure to check out Building 7.” He may or may not have asked anybody else about it since he would risk being labeled a conspiracy theorist. Here is a man who passes as an intellectual in the brain-dead Republican party but who has about zero intellectual curiosity.

International Man: Many people don’t know this, but you were a classmate of Bill Clinton at Georgetown University. Can you tell us about any of your encounters with the former president?

Doug Casey: I’ve had three encounters with Bill Clinton over the years, but only two worth mentioning. I’ll dispense with stories about him worshipping at the altar of a porcelain god after a night of debauchery—so did most everybody in the class. Or that it’s said he wasn’t much of a ladies’ man in those days. I guess that came later, with political success.

Anyway, in our freshman year, Bill knocked on my dorm room door and introduced himself, saying that he was running for class president. Even then, I had no interest in politics—certainly not something as trivial as a student council president.

It was a brief conversation, and my response was something like, “Okay, nice to meet you, but student government really isn’t my bag …. ”

The next time I saw Bill was at our 25th class reunion. It was very nice of him to throw a party for our class at the White House. It was a black-tie event—a big deal because he was the president.

When the time came, I walked up to him and said, “Hey, Bill, how you doing? Nice to see you.” That’s what you say to a classmate. He looked at me very forthrightly and said, “Hey, Doug, how are you? Nice to see ya.”

I was taken aback by his apparent sincerity. Maybe he remembered me from one of the big TV shows that I’d been on and put two and two together. Maybe he has an eidetic memory. Or, maybe he just saw my name tag without tipping that fact.

One thing is certain about Bill Clinton: He’s as charming a man as you could ever hope to meet. When he’s talking to you, you feel like you’re the only person in the room and that you’re certainly the most important person in the room. My classmates who knew him well all tipped him as a likely president.

The third time was at our 50th class reunion, which was much smaller and obviously wasn’t at the White House. He was, understandably, still the center of attention. He was very affable, and a lot of guys circled around him.

One thing I remember clearly from our 25th reunion, even though the alcohol was flowing freely, was Hillary’s presence. She kept to herself, but what stuck out to me and the guys that I was talking to was that she was surrounded by four or five young, very good-looking girls. They were like a mini-Praetorian Guard. They reminded me of young velociraptors, the stars of Jurassic Park, pert and alert, their eyes darting everywhere, observing everything around her, making sure she wasn’t molested.

The cute velociraptors brought to mind a joke…. But maybe certain rumors are true…. Do you know the joke about why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly? The answer is Janet Reno was her father. That was a long time ago, of course, and some of our readers may not get it.

International Man: The American people have always been enamored with celebrities. In the past, it was movie stars and singers, but in recent years, Deep State politicians have become the new celebrities in the American public’s eyes.

What are your thoughts about that? And what does it say about society and the future?

Doug Casey: It speaks very poorly of the American people.

I think the first president who was something of a real celebrity was Teddy Roosevelt. He was, in fact, an interesting man, not just a media-manufactured personality. Adventurer, author, athlete, and Renaissance man in many ways, he would have been a boon companion to simply hang around with. But he was a horrible president. A “progressive” who encouraged every type of government activism, a “trustbuster,” and general busybody sticking the government’s nose everywhere into the country’s business. And worst of all, he was a warmonger, basically having made his bones on San Juan Hill in Cuba.

Teddy Roosevelt was the first celebrity president, starting the cult of personality in US politics.

FDR made himself into a celebrity with his great style and his fireside chats, pandering to the common man with his own money while greatly worsening and lengthening the Great Depression.

JFK was the next celebrity president. He was young, good-looking, well-spoken, and had a very pretty wife.

And, of course, Ronald Reagan, a well-intentioned actor.

As time has gone on, we’ve moved more and more toward celebrity presidents—people who build a cult of the personality around themselves. Something Stalin, Mao, Hitler did very successfully. And Third World despots all try to do.

I’ve got a feeling Hollywood will become increasingly important in politics. The public has always enjoyed watching actors, but throughout history—from ancient times—they were on the bottom rung of society. People of quality and stature didn’t want to be personally associated with them, no matter how famous they were.

Why might that be?

They were one deviation above prostitutes, conmen, spies, and thieves—they’re professional liars. Actors pretend to be somebody they’re not. Professional deceivers. Not until very recently were actors idealized. You have to respect their skills, of course. And some actors are decent people just doing a job, entertaining; I’m all for them.

But, that said, they’re generally poor role models or moral examples because the nature of acting is to project a false image. Being a skilled liar is rewarded. There’s a reason Hollywood is famous for depravity and dissipation.

There are now many actors who have mentioned their political ambitions. Not least of them are Meghan Markle and Ben Affleck.

Nowadays, fame, name recognition, and being good-looking are much more important to the public than ideas or character. It’s a very bad trend.

Editor’s Note: Sociopaths are drawn to the government. They seek power and control over others through coercion, taxation and more.

Unfortunately, there’s little any individual can practically do to change the course of these trends in motion.

The best you can and should do is to stay informed so that you can protect yourself in the best way possible.

That’s precisely why bestselling author Doug Casey and his colleagues just released an urgent new PDF report that explains what could come next and what you can do about it. Click here to download it now.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Rise of Another CIA Yes Man – Consortium News

Posted by M. C. on July 16, 2020

You asked if I knew Morell and what he is like. I do; you nailed it.

The only moment of discomfort is when you use Tenet as a compass point for the actual truth. Because, of course, Tenet often has his own version of the facts.

https://consortiumnews.com/2011/08/29/rise-of-another-cia-yes-man/

Exclusive: The gross manipulation of CIA analysis under George W. Bush pushed a new generation of “yes men” into the agency’s top ranks. Now one of those aspiring bureaucrats will be Gen. David Petraeus’s right-hand man, writes ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern. (Also, at end of article, see special comments from several CIA insiders.)

By Ray McGovern

As Gen. David Petraeus prepares to take the helm at CIA in September, he can expect unswerving loyalty from his likely deputy, Michael Morell, who has been acting director since July when Leon Panetta left to become Secretary of Defense.

Like many senior CIA officials in recent years, Morell’s record is checkered, at best. He held key jobs in intelligence analysis over the past decade as the CIA often served as a handmaiden to the war propagandists.

As for Michael Morell, as with many other successful CIA careerists, his strongest suit seemed to be pleasing his boss and not antagonizing the White House. If past is precedent, his loyalty will be to Petraeus, not necessarily to the truth.

Forgive me if my thinking about loyalty to the facts seems “obsolete” or “quaint” or if it seems unfair to expect CIA analysts to put their careers on the line when politicians and ideologues are misleading the nation to war but those were the principles that analysts of my generation tried to uphold.

The recent tendency at CIA to give politicians what they want to hear rather than the hard truth is not healthy for the Republic that we were all sworn to serve.

And, if Petraeus’s own past is precedent, loyalty to the four-star general will not always be synonymous with loyalty to the truth.

Burnishing an Image

However, you will get no indication of this troubling reality from the flattering, but thin, feature about Michael Morell, “Mr. Insider Will Guide Petraeus at the CIA,” by Siobhan Gorman in the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 26.

Gorman is normally a solid reporter; but either she did not perform due diligence and let herself be snookered, or her editors stepped in to ensure her story was consonant with the image Petraeus and the Establishment wish to create for Morell.

Before her “rare” interview with Morell, Gorman should have taken a close look at former CIA Director George Tenet’s memoir, At the Center of the Storm, to learn what Tenet says about Morell’s record during the last decade’s dark days of misleading and dishonest intelligence.

In Tenet’s personal account of the CIA’s failures around 9/11 and the Iraq War, Morell Tenet’s former executive assistant is generally treated kindly, but Tenet puts Morell at the center of two key fiascoes: he “coordinated the CIA review” of Secretary of State Colin Powell’s infamous Feb. 5, 2003 address to the United Nations and he served as the regular CIA briefer to President George W. Bush.

Putting Access Before Honesty

So, Morell was there as Bush blew off early CIA warnings about the possibility of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden being “determined to strike in the US” and while Bush and his neoconservative inner circle were concocting intelligence to justify invading Iraq.

Tenet credits Morell with suggesting to analysts that they prepare a report on the terrorist threat, which became the President’s Daily Brief that was handed to Bush on Aug. 6, 2001, at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Bush brushed aside the warning with a reported comment to the CIA briefer, “all right, you’ve covered your ass,” and went off fishing.

Though Tenet said Morell got along well with Bush, it appears the President didn’t pay much heed to any CIA information coming from Morell, at least not anything that went against what Bush wanted to hear nor did Morell seem to risk offending the President by pushing these contrary points.

After the Aug. 6 PDB was delivered, Tenet wrote that he needed to follow it up, and did so with a trip to Crawford 11 days later, when Tenet remembers Bush driving him around in a pickup truck as Tenet made “small talk about the flora and fauna.”

Morell also was the CIA briefer with Bush in Florida on the morning of 9/11 when news arrived about the attacks on New York City’s Twin Towers. Later, Bush told Morell “that if we [the CIA] learned anything definitive about the attack, he wanted to be the first to know,” Tenet wrote, adding:

“Wiry, youthful looking, and extremely bright, Mike speaks in staccato-like bursts that get to the bottom line very quickly. He and George Bush had hit it off almost immediately. In a crisis like this, Mike was the perfect guy for us to have by the commander-in-chief’s side.”

However, it appears Morell was not willing to risk his rapport with Bush by challenging the President’s desire to pivot from retaliatory strikes against Afghanistan to a full-scale invasion of Iraq based on false and misleading intelligence.

Tenet also described Morell’s role in organizing the review of the “intelligence” that went into Powell’s speech, which let slip the dogs of war by presenting a thoroughly deceptive account of the Iraqi threat, what Powell later called a “blot” on his record.

Though the CIA embraced many of Powell’s misleading assertions, Tenet recounted one exchange in which Morell stood up to John Hannah, an aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, regarding Iraq’s alleged efforts to obtain yellowcake uranium from Niger.

“Hannah asked Mike Morell, who was coordinating the review of the speech for CIA, why the Niger uranium story wasn’t in the latest draft,” Tenet wrote. “‘Because we don’t believe it,’ Mike told him. ‘I thought you did,’ Hannah said. After much wrangling and precious time lost in explaining our doubts, Hannah understood why we believed it was inappropriate for Colin to use the Niger material in his speech.”

Despite that one pushback, the CIA analysts mostly bent to pressures coming from the White House for an alarmist treatment of allegations about the “weapons of mass destruction,” which turned out not to be in Iraq.

Of the CIA’s finished intelligence product, it was reportedly the PDB delivered by Morell that most exaggerated the danger.

Not Mistaken, Dishonest Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The United States: a Record-Holder in Political Assassinations — Strategic Culture

Posted by M. C. on January 31, 2020

Reagan’s Executive Order 12333, which updated those of Ford and Carter, stipulated: “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” Executive Order 12333 was weakened by follow-on orders signed by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The relaxed presidential orders permitted the assassination of specially designated terrorist leaders.

The US has been in the assassination biz big time since the CIA was created. We aren’t the only ones.

…and look at all the progress we have made.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2020/01/22/the-united-states-a-record-holder-in-political-assassinations/

Wayne Madsen

The crowing by Donald Trump that he “terminated” the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps Quds Force, Major General Qaseem Soleimani, simply because Trump believed, mobster-style, that he had it coming, should remind the world that the United States government stands as the world’s record-holder in either directly carrying out or coordinating with other parties the assassination of political leaders, American and foreign.

In most cases in the past, assassinations ordered by the U.S. intelligence infrastructure had the veneer of “plausible deniability.” Even with the release of millions of formerly classified intelligence documents, the Central Intelligence Agency continues to manage to hide behind the plausible deniability façade. The recent order by Trump for the U.S. military to assassinate Soleimani was not only made public, but it also involved a major international assassination program that also successfully targeted Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the Iraqi commander of the Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF), the closest thing Iraq has to a National Guard. Al-Muhandis and Soleimani were traveling in the same motorcade at Baghdad International Airport when their vehicles were struck by a drone-launched missile. In another attempted assassination by missile, the chief treasurer for the Quds Force, General Abdul Reza Shahlai, escaped being targeted by a U.S. missile aimed at what believed to have been his location in Yemen.

Trump’s assassination program was eerily similar to a plan the CIA developed in 2001 as a result of strong pressure from Vice President Dick Cheney. Although Cheney’s CIA operation supposedly targeted Al Qaeda leaders for assassination, it came dangerously close to violating a series of presidential orders from Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan prohibiting the targeting of foreign government officials for assassination. Reagan’s Executive Order 12333, which updated those of Ford and Carter, stipulated: “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” Executive Order 12333 was weakened by follow-on orders signed by Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. The relaxed presidential orders permitted the assassination of specially designated terrorist leaders.

In June 2009, CIA director Leon Panetta canceled the assassination program because of its potential illegality and the fact that Cheney had hidden its existence from congressional overseers. The Cheney program had relied on armed drones to carry out assassinations of presumed terrorist leaders. With the Trump-ordered assassinations of Soleimani and al-Muhandis, both of whom cooperated with U.S. and other forces in the battles against the Islamic State and other Sunni jihadist groups in Iraq and Syria, the old Cheney program appears to have been reinstated.

There is a big difference between assassinating Al Qaeda and Islamic State leaders and the commanders of government military forces of United Nations member states like Iran and Iraq.

President Ford enacted the first presidential order against foreign assassinations in 1976 after the CIA’s involvement in the assassinations of Congolese Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem, Dominican Republic President Rafael Trujillo, Chilean President Salvador Allende, and other foreign officials became public. Exposed as a result of Senate, House of Representatives, and Rockefeller Commission investigations were repeated attempts by the CIA to assassinate Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

The U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) conducted studies and hearings on the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy and that of Dr. Martin Luther King in 1968. The HCSA, which did not receive full cooperation from the U.S. intelligence and federal law enforcement communities, concluded Kennedy and King were likely assassinated as the result of conspiracies. The HCSA, against mountains of evidence to the contrary, also concluded that no agency of the U.S. government was involved in either of the two assassinations. The HCSA did not examine evidence of wider conspiracies involving the U.S. government in the June 1968 assassination of Senator Robert F. Kennedy, the 1970 airplane crash that killed United Auto Workers union president Walter Reuther, or the 1972 attempted assassination of Alabama Governor and presidential candidate George Wallace.

After the HCSA completed its inquiry, there would be future questions over the use of U.S. intelligence assets to carry out domestic political assassinations, including the 1980 assassination of famed musician John Lennon and the attempted assassination of President Reagan in 1981. Both, as well as that of Senator Robert Kennedy, bore the signature of the use of pre-programmed assassins, which was a central feature of a mind-control operation the CIA codenamed MK-ULTRA.

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has indicated that the Trump administration has not only restored the Cheney policy of targeted assassinations but reserves the right to carry out assassinations of other “challengers” to U.S. interests. In a speech at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, which was titled “The Restoration of Deterrence: The Iranian Example,” Pompeo stressed that additional leaders of Iran, presumably including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as well as leaders of Russia and China, could be targeted for assassination as part of America’s “bigger strategy.” Pompeo stressed that the new U.S. deterrence through assassination policy “isn’t confined to Iran.” In addition to Iran, Russia, and China, Pompeo indicated that political and religious leaders in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, and elsewhere were subject to U.S. assassination. That has been taken by many in the Middle East to include the leadership of Lebanese Hezbollah, the Houthis in Yemen, and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

Pompeo indicated that prior to assassination, targets will be treated to pre-assassination measures, including freezes on their foreign bank accounts and other financial assets. Those officials currently in the pre-assassination phase of being sanctioned include Ali Shamkhani, the Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council; Mohammad Reza Ashtiani, the Deputy Chief of Staff of Iranian armed forces; and Gholamreza Soleimani, the head of the Basij militia of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC). Lebanese officials in the pre-assassination category include Amin Sherri and Muhammad Hasan Ra’d, both Hezbollah members of the Lebanese Parliament, and Wafiq Safa, a Hezbollah liaison officer to the Lebanese security forces.

All Pompeo has managed to accomplish is that any future suspicious deaths or assassinations of any world leader or policy maker will be seen as having possible American fingerprints, and justifiably so. Pompeo’s speech has refocused attention on the October 2, 2018 assassination by Saudi intelligence agents of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi Consulate-General in Istanbul. That assassination appears to have been known in advance to Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who maintains a close personal relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), the main architect of Khashoggi’s murder.

Pompeo insists that the new U.S. policy is to deter foreign threats to the United States. Skeptics of the policy believe that it is not U.S. national security that Pompeo is interested in protecting, but Donald Trump’s personal welfare. The suspicious death in a New York federal detention center of one-time Trump friend Jeffrey Epstein, who was arrested in July 2019 and charged with international underage female sex trafficking, have many in the United States and abroad concerned that Pompeo, and Attorney General William Barr are running some sort of “Murder, Incorporated” to silence those who pose a threat to Trump and his vested interests. An Epstein trial could have revealed information about the nature of his relationship with Trump that would have posed a direct threat to the Trump presidency.

© 2010 – 2020 | Strategic Culture Foundation | Republishing is welcomed with reference to Strategic Culture online journal www.strategic-culture.org.

Be seeing you

 

bubba

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Haspel Is Not the Problem. The CIA Is the Problem. – Antiwar.com Original

Posted by M. C. on May 22, 2018

The problem is not Haspel, it’s not John Brennan, it’s not our lack of confidence. The problem is the CIA itself. If the president really cared about our peace, prosperity, and security, he would take steps to end this national disgrace. It’s time to abolish the CIA!

It is talk like this that got JFK dead.

https://original.antiwar.com/paul/2018/05/21/haspel-is-not-the-problem-the-cia-is-the-problem/

As a general rule, when Dick Cheney favors a foreign policy position it’s best to be on the opposite side if you value liberty over war and authoritarianism. The former vice president’s enthusiastic endorsement of not only Gina Haspel as CIA director but of the torture program she oversaw should tell us all we need to know about Haspel.

Saying that Haspel would make a great CIA director, Cheney dismissed concerns over the CIA’s torture program. Asked in a television interview last week about the program, Cheney said, “if it were my call, I’d do it again.”

Sadly, the majority of the US Senate agreed with Cheney that putting a torturer in charge of the CIA was a good idea. Only two Republicans – Senators Paul and Flake – voted against Haspel. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

How To Sustain Perpetual War (It’s Easy, Hide the Bodies)

Posted by M. C. on July 19, 2017

http://original.antiwar.com/Peter_Van_Buren/2017/07/18/sustain-perpetual-war-easy/

Sustaining America’s state of post-9/11 perpetual war requires skillful manipulation of the public at home. The key tool used for this purpose is the bloodless narrative, a combination of policy, falsehoods and media manipulation that creates the impression that America’s wars have few consequences, at least for Americans.

How can the American government sustain its wars in the face of dead soldiers coming home? Why is there no outcry among the American people over these losses? The answer is the narrative of bloodless war. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »