Top Leaderboard, Site wide
August 20, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates






American Catch


Truthdig Bazaar
Tropic of Chaos

Tropic of Chaos

By Christian Parenti

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

House Committee to Launch CIA Probe

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jul 17, 2009
Cheney
fortunespawn.com

Former Vice President Dick Cheney may have some ’splainin’ to do, and to the House Intelligence Committee at that, when the panel kicks off its investigation into claims that the CIA kept information about a covert counterterrorism program secret from Congress for eight years. Rep. Jan Schakowsky announced the probe Friday.

Politico:

“The House Intelligence Committee will move forward with a full investigation that will explore certain CIA programs and the core issue of how the committee is kept informed,” Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), the committee’s chairwoman announced in a statement issued Friday evening.

“My subcommittee will take the lead on significant portions of the investigation; we will explore instances where the Congress was not informed in a timely way and situations in which laws may have been broken.”

Read more

 

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By DBM, July 23, 2009 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment

... as for prison space:  I believe that Cheney has interests in a few private prisons down south (you know where they store stray Mexicans).  I’m sure the conditions in his prisons are suitable.  He doesn’t seem like the sort of man who would inflict on others something that he wouldn’t endure himself.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 23, 2009 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment

Y’know, if they REALLY throw the crooks in the clink as they deserve, I’ll be satisfied.  I think George and Dick and their crew would look very stylish in orange jumpsuits.

Talk about a fashion statement…“Orange is the new Basic Black”.  But only for GOP neo-con insiders…...

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 23, 2009 at 8:46 am Link to this comment

’m all for it, too.  I think there are so many clear-cut instances of blatant violations of US and states’ criminal laws that this could take years.

We shall see illegal wiretaps, illegal contracts and monies paid out, illegal arrests, illegal tampering with evidence, illegal denials of information to oversight orgs, perjury, illegal break-ins, illegal murders, and much, much more.

And, when all these myriad criminal activities are revealed, if nothing shows there was an involvement in the attacks of 9/11, will you THEN be convinced?

Or will you start running around saying “cover-up!” some more?

But, by all means, START THE INVESTIGATIONS into the illegal activities of the Bush regime.

I’m for it 100%.  I think we can clear out prison space by releasing all the minor drug offenders so we have room for all of Bush’s crooked cronies.

  = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

ITW,

Great, we’re together then. All I want is a real investigation that includes all the questions about 9/11 that have not been asked, much less answered, by the government. I’m not a true believer or a conspiracy theorist. I can be convinced I am wrong about 9/11, if I believe that the investigation is performed by honest, qualified people who are really trying to find the truth and not paid government shills who are trying to cover it up. All I’m saying is that all the investigations of 9/11 that took place under the Bush administration, including the 9/11 Commission and the NIST report, amount to the Bush Administration investigating itself and have no credibility.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 23, 2009 at 4:41 am Link to this comment

Tony Wicher, July 23 at 12:22 am #

By DBM, July 21 at 11:57 pm #

What I am saying is that getting an investigation started on 9/11 will be difficult but that a broadly scoped investigation into the the Bush administration insiders is likely to lead to many revelations including more information about 9/11.

  x x x x x x x x x x x

I’m all for it.
*********************************************

I’m all for it, too.  I think there are so many clear-cut instances of blatant violations of US and states’ criminal laws that this could take years.

We shall see illegal wiretaps, illegal contracts and monies paid out, illegal arrests, illegal tampering with evidence, illegal denials of information to oversight orgs, perjury, illegal break-ins, illegal murders, and much, much more.

And, when all these myriad criminal activities are revealed, if nothing shows there was an involvement in the attacks of 9/11, will you THEN be convinced?

Or will you start running around saying “cover-up!” some more?

But, by all means, START THE INVESTIGATIONS into the illegal activities of the Bush regime.

I’m for it 100%.  I think we can clear out prison space by releasing all the minor drug offenders so we have room for all of Bush’s crooked cronies.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, July 23, 2009 at 3:14 am Link to this comment

That funny, it worked in the preview.

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 22, 2009 at 9:29 pm Link to this comment

By Inherit The Wind, July 22 at 9:59 am #
One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later.

********************************************

THIS is your evidence? THIS is your proof?

Where’s the provenance of the evidence? “Collected by a Manhattan resident….about a week later.”

      x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

ITW,

I believe proper legal chain of custody procedures have been followed. What are you saying, that Harrit or Jones obtained some nanothermite somewhere and put the chips in the dust? That this is deliberate fraud on their part?

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 22, 2009 at 9:22 pm Link to this comment

By DBM, July 21 at 11:57 pm #

What I am saying is that getting an investigation started on 9/11 will be difficult but that a broadly scoped investigation into the the Bush administration insiders is likely to lead to many revelations including more information about 9/11.

    x x x x x x x x x x x

I’m all for it.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, July 22, 2009 at 2:40 pm Link to this comment

Heres the paper on the nanothermite.

Download the paper and it will fill in the names of those who submitted the samples.

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/gen.php?file=7TOCPJ.pdf&PHPSESSID=22984cd7dd1eae173304397ca9198dad

Pass it on.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 22, 2009 at 6:59 am Link to this comment

One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later.

********************************************

THIS is your evidence? THIS is your proof?

Where’s the provenance of the evidence? “Collected by a Manhattan resident….about a week later.”

Yeah, that’s real solid.  Like Klinger’s claims to being crazy. Desperate reaching at straws is more like it.

And to the right…..we have the equally absurd insistence that President Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery…and he was born in Kenya “and is not a US citizen”.  Um, MY younger kid was born in Guatemala and he sure as HELL is a US citizen, just not qualified to be President as he is naturalized.

Where do people get their nutty ideas?  Buzz Aldrin socked a guy in the jaw who loudly and publicly called him a liar and a coward, claiming that Aldrin and Armstrong were part of a big act—and we never went to the moon.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, July 22, 2009 at 3:13 am Link to this comment

Motive?

http://southeastasianews.org/israeli_connections_to_911.html

Try Jewish lightning.

Report this

By DBM, July 21, 2009 at 8:57 pm Link to this comment

Peace Tony!

I am not calling the nano-thermite a “theory”.  I saying that there are a large number of anomolies and discrepancies in the official explanation and every other theory about what happened. 

The existence of nano-thermite is not a theory.  It is a fact to be believed or refuted but given that it is well supported and true ... what happened?  At the moment all anyone has is theories.  I put a link below to an interview with Harrit on http://www.electricpolitics.com where the discussions are much longer than usual and the guests really get to make their points.

What I am saying is that getting an investigation started on 9/11 will be difficult but that a broadly scoped investigation into the the Bush administration insiders is likely to lead to many revelations including more information about 9/11.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 21, 2009 at 8:14 pm Link to this comment

By DBM, July 21 at 9:02 pm #

“I think it is sufficient to say that the investigations of 9/11 to date have not turned up a theory that holds water.”

        = = = = = = = = = = = =
DBM,

The presence of nano-thermite in the WTC dust is not a “theory”. It is an established fact, for anybody who cares to read the Harrit paper. So far nobody on Truthdig has been willing to read it - at least, nobody has said so that I have noticed. Apparently nobody here understands the value of science.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe

Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen

Abstract
   
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.

Read the whole paper at:

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
 
“If you can get a real investigation you will probably find out more about a lot of things including 9/11.”

      = = = = = = = = = = = =

DBM,

I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is whether we can
get a real investigation, not a cover-up, one that will follow every trail of evidence wherever it leads. I fear what we are going to get is more pseudo-investigations, like the 9/11 Commission and the NIST report.

The Harrit paper is at least sufficient grounds for opening an official investigation.

Report this

By DBM, July 21, 2009 at 6:02 pm Link to this comment

I think it is sufficient to say that the investigations of 9/11 to date have not turned up a theory that holds water. 

However, there are other things (such as the topic of this article and discussion thread) which would be easier justifications for investigations into the illegalities of the last few presidential terms (why stop at 2000 if the trail leads further?). 

The key is to get a broad scope for the investigation and a special prosecutor a la Ken Starr(!).  The thing to avoid is the usual narrow scope for a Congressional investigation which is just to the side of the real crime.  That is what is threatened here.

If you can get a real investigation you will probably find out more about a lot of things including 9/11.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 21, 2009 at 9:35 am Link to this comment

Re Gulam, July 20 at 9:00 pm #

Back in the Vietnam days we were told that all the opium was grow in the Southeast Asia, in the countries that we bombed to oblivion thenOf course, the heroin and cocaine business follows the US military around like a lap dog.

        x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Gulam,

Yes, it certainly does. I never considered before the possibility that the immediate precipitating cause of 9/11 was Mullah Omar’s stopping of opium production in Afghanistan. Wikipedia describes this as follows:

“Afghanistan briefly witnessed one of the world’s most successful anti-drug campaigns when Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar declared that growing poppies is un-Islamic. Some historians say the Taliban allege cynically cut production to increase the values of their own stockpiles, although never verified, the effect in the fields was dramatic: a year’s crop was almost entirely wiped out and production was down to zero. As a result of this July 2001 ban, opium poppy cultivation was reduced by 91% from the previous year’s estimate of 82,172 hectares. The ban was so effective that Helmand Province, which had accounted for more than half of this area, recorded no poppy cultivation during the 2001 season.”

This would have gotten all the big-time drug traffickers really uptight. Imagine every junkie in the world getting thin and needing a fix and you have an idea of the pressure from the bottom to the top all along the line. The Taliban may have originally had our blessing, but declaring opium production “un-Islamic” and stopping it is something they would not put up with for a minute. Hence 9/11, to have a pretext to invade Afghanistan, get rid of Omar and resume opium production. There were multiple motives for 9/11, but this strikes me as a strong candidate for one of them.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 21, 2009 at 8:57 am Link to this comment

Re ITW,

“Unless, of course you had Scotty use the transporter to place the explosives triggered by sub-space frequency detonators.  See, using the ship’s main phaser batteries or photon torpedoes would ruin the effect that the attack came from earth-bound enemies.”

      x x x x x x x

On the subject of demolition, you are literally living in the last century. You date yourself. Scotty and a transporter beam?  Let’s see, Star Trek came out in the 60’s. That’s about where you are stuck, technologically speaking. Nobody uses wires anymore. Ever heard of wireless communication? Cell phones? And yes, it certainly does take a lot of time to set up a building for demolition. When you own the building, and are in charge of its security, you have all the time and opportunity you need.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 21, 2009 at 8:44 am Link to this comment

ITW,

I forgot to mention that it also solves a lot of security problems if you own the buildings you are blowing up.

In a way this was a typical gangland hit - you know, burn down the warehouse and collect the insurance money.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 21, 2009 at 8:38 am Link to this comment

By Inherit The Wind, July 21 at 8:53 am #
so….which IS the motive?  Where’s the proof that IS the motive?

As for the thermite, give me a f***ing break.  Please explain how enough thermite AND all the thousands of mile of wiring could be placed in the TWO towers without…anybody who worked there noticing?

  x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

ITW,

Like I said, I have no proof about what the motives actually were, just suspicion. The nanothermite is there, even though you refuse to look at it. You seem to think the words “Give me a fucking break…” somehow refutes the existence of nanothermite in the dust as established in the Harrit paper through proper scientific procedures. It doesn’t. 

There would have been no problem at all getting the nano-thermite into the building, given that Marvin Bush was the head of your building’s security. There was a so-called “fire upgrade” going on for months just before 9/11. Workers could easily have been given nano-thermite paint to paint the steel girders with “fireproofing” without knowing what it was.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 21, 2009 at 5:53 am Link to this comment

so….which IS the motive?  Where’s the proof that IS the motive?

As for the thermite, give me a f***ing break.  Please explain how enough thermite AND all the thousands of mile of wiring could be placed in the TWO towers without…anybody who worked there noticing?

No, on second thought, don’t bother.  You won’t recognize that explosive demolition of a building in a moment is nearly as major a design and implementation effort as building it.  You just can’t do it secretly, and you CERTAINLY could not do it in the WTC.

Unless, of course you had Scotty use the transporter to place the explosives triggered by sub-space frequency detonators.  See, using the ship’s main phaser batteries or photon torpedoes would ruin the effect that the attack came from earth-bound enemies.

Grow up.  The idea that EVERYTHING bad in the world is due to a CIA, NSA or Mossad black-box op is, well, simply fantasy.  There’s lots of bad people in this world and they don’t all work at CIA, NSA or Mossad.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 20, 2009 at 11:53 pm Link to this comment

ITW,

You refuse to look at the evidence. As to motive, I can give you many of them:

1) To have a pretext for invading the Middle East and taking control of its oil resources.

2) To have a pretext for reducing the Constitution to a meaningless piece of paper and establish a military dictatorship and a police state.

3) To take control of Afghanistan and resume the poppy trade which was stopped by Mullah Omar and the Taliban

4) To have a pretext for an endless, Orwellian “War on Terror” justifying a gigantic military budget and military action all over the world.

5) To make Bush a wartime president and raise his poll numbers

6) To make the lease holder of the precise World Trade Center buildings that collapsed, buildings 1, 2 and 7, Larry Silverstein, billions of dollars in insurance payoffs and avoid expensive asbestos abatement costs that would have run into billions.

These are some possible motives. But in any case the nanothermite is there.
7)

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 20, 2009 at 8:20 pm Link to this comment

Gee, Tony.

You just repealed a main principle of Law, and a main principle of Natural Law, and all in one post

1) Motive, Means, Opportunity.

2) For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Now if only the Creationists and Flat Earthers could get hold of you….

So…basic criminal law and Isaac Newton can be abandoned together.  How do you plan to prosecute the so-called bombers of the WTC without a motive?  And how come those durn space probes keep going pretty much where we send them?  According to you, when they fire their rockets they should go in the SAME direction the rocket’s firing in.

Any conspiracy theory in a storm…...

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 20, 2009 at 6:34 pm Link to this comment

By Inherit The Wind, July 20 at 6:47 pm #
Tony,
I’m not going to argue it, because there is NO MOTIVE!

      = = = = == = == = = = = =
ITW,

Motive, shmotive. Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? Only the shadow knows. The nanothermite is there. You refuse to look at the facts.

I won’t bother arguing the Kennedy assassination all over again. If you think Kennedy’s head snapped back because his brains squirted out like a jet, you’re the one that need a high school physics class. But never mind.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 20, 2009 at 6:30 pm Link to this comment

RE PatrickHenry, July 20 at 6:45 pm

Thanks, PH. My sentiments exactly.

Report this
Gulam's avatar

By Gulam, July 20, 2009 at 6:00 pm Link to this comment

My point was that in the American press you get nothing but propaganda. I saw what happened in Afghanistan and it bore no resemblance to the story we read. Chaney and Bush will never be held accountable, because the whole government act has become a scripted stunt, a con game to take your eye off the real events. After Lyndon, how could American think that a Democrat would take us out of these intentionally started wars? Back in the Vietnam days we were told that all the opium was grow in the Southeast Asia, in the countries that we bombed to oblivion then. Of course, the heroin and cocaine business follows the US military around like a lap dog. I never saw opium growing to any great extent in Afghanistan in the 1970s, though it had been grown in small amounts in private gardens for centuries. The way Americans take pain killers they should understand the need for this, but heaven forbid that anyone should take his life into his own hands and grow in his backyard something for which he should pay a pharmaceutical company and all the politicians on their payroll.

Report this

By DBM, July 20, 2009 at 4:36 pm Link to this comment

Hmmm ... lot’s of energy in support of favoured theories!  That’s good I guess, but I see a common set of challenges here:

*  Less fear of violent acts would be a start.  It seems like the fear of another 9/11 or a Kansas City bombing or a Tiller murder keeps people focused on things with very little genuine impact or risk.

*  Follow the money.  It’s a catch-phrase ever since Deep Throat but it seems to be the real game.  The non-violent dispossession of millions for the benefit of few.

*  Find a way to leverage against moneyed interests in politics.  This is the real challenge.  All American politicians are half bribed and half extorted (by the threat of support for opponents) by moneyed interests.  There will be no real investigations of anything until this is resolved.

So, the conundrum is how to effect change in a system which is loaded towards the already rich (and powerful - as if there was a difference).  Sometimes there are moments of general resistance and the very recent bank profit/bonus announcements seems to be one…

Can all this energy be put into influencing the government (in ways which genuinely outweigh the bribe/extortion of well funded lobbyists) to make this a real investigation with a special prosecutor?  I would expect ANY genuine investigation with a broad mandate could rectify a whole lot of problems.  Why not this investigation?

Any ideas out there on how to exert that kind of influence?

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 20, 2009 at 3:47 pm Link to this comment

Tony,
I’m not going to argue it, because there is NO MOTIVE!  As venal and vile as Cheney is, I see NO point to blowing up the center of free-booting capitalism from his perspective.

If you had postulated this BEFORE 9/11 you’d be locked up.  But if you postulated he would try a fascist takeover, well, THAT was becoming clear before 9/11—and could have and would have happened anyway.

Hitler blew up the Reichstag because he HATED the Reichstag.  Show me how the Bush administration, the NSA or the CIA hated the WTC and the Pentagon and would sacrifice them.

Like a said—it’s a religion with you.  Just like the JFK nonsense.  His head went BACK because the brains spewing out his forehead churned up by the bullet acted like a jet—THAT is what you see and why it jerked back.  Take a high school physics class for crying out loud!

I’ve had enough of demonic conspiracy theories.  I live under the shadow of the OLDEST—the believers that “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is real and not a forgery.  That Jews want to conquer the world and Jewish Marxists and Jewish bankers and Jewish fundamentalists are all in it together.

It hangs together as well as the ones you like.  Skeptic? Hardly!  You should be more skeptical of all the crackpots theories on 9/11 and JFK.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, July 20, 2009 at 3:45 pm Link to this comment

It all has to be investigated back to 9/11 and the months leading up to that event.

The budget to investigate 9/11 was 3 million with an increase of 11 million…..15 million!.  TWA800 was $35 mill, Monicas dress was $78 mill.

Since that event (7 years, 10 months) many private individuals (citizens) and organizations in the U.S. and around the world have spent considerable time and effort accumulating evidence not availible at the initial inquest.  Its time that information was vetted and read into the record.

Cheney and his fellow traitors need congressional waterboarding and soon.

Report this

By AFriend, July 20, 2009 at 3:41 pm Link to this comment

Gulam, July 20 at 5:19 pm

Sorry AFriend, but it is you who need an education this time, and you will not find it in American academia…................

—-

What does your post have to do with me or anything I opined on? I thought the discussion was geared toward the current event of Cheney, the congress and possible investigation.

—-

Thank you, however, for your first hand accounts in Afghanistan. While I don’t agree with all your conclusions I can appreciate your description of events as you saw them.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 20, 2009 at 3:17 pm Link to this comment

RE Gulam, July 20 at 5:19 pm

Wow, it’s great to hear from someone so experienced! I would love to learn more. Your account puts the current situation in perspective. We originally backed the mujahedeen against the Soviets. But the “muhajedeen” were a motley collection of warlords. After the Soviets left, the next few the various factions fought it out. There was the Northern Alliance, Hekmatyar, Haqqani, etc.  You are saying that we backed the faction of mujahedeen called the Taliban. If I am not mistaken this was done together with the Pakistani ISI. I remember that for a few months it looked like we might have diplomatic relations with the Taliban regime. I wonder what happened? Might it have something to do with the fact that the Taliban were eradicating poppy production? According to the Wikipedia article, the Taliban were heavily involved in opium production until 2001:,
“Afghanistan saw a bumper opium crop of 4,600 metric tons in 1999, which was the height of the Taliban rule in Afghanistan.” However, for some reason which they do not attempt to explain, “Afghanistan briefly witnessed one of the world’s most successful anti-drug campaigns when Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar declared that growing poppies is un-Islamic. Some historians say the Taliban allege cynically cut production to increase the values of their own stockpiles, although never verified, the effect in the fields was dramatic: a year’s crop was almost entirely wiped out and production was down to zero.[11]
As a result of this July 2001 ban, opium poppy cultivation was reduced by 91% from the previous year’s estimate of 82,172 hectares. The ban was so effective that Helmand Province, which had accounted for more than half of this area, recorded no poppy cultivation during the 2001 season.”

After we invaded and overthrew the Taliban, opium production skyrocketed. Afghanistan now produces virtually 100% of the world’s heroin. 

I believe the CIA is heavily involved in narcotics trafficking. Do you think this had something to do with it?

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 20, 2009 at 2:26 pm Link to this comment

RE AFriend, July 20 at 4:51 pm #
Tony Wicher,

You are utterly naive. Our intelligence agencies are

I may very well be naive. Yet I am aware enough to realize that you live in a world rife with fantasies, goblins and big bad American bogey men.

          x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Afriend,

No, you live in a world of bogeyman Islamic terrorists, in a movie called “GWOT: The Global War On Terror” starring super-bogyman Osama bin Laden and his bogyman Al Qaeda friends, brought to you courtesy of the psyops division of our own intelligence services.

Report this
Gulam's avatar

By Gulam, July 20, 2009 at 2:19 pm Link to this comment

Sorry AFriend, but it is you who need an education this time, and you will not find it in American academia. The primary academic authority on Afghanistan was a CIA plant; when Louis died an account of his service to the CIA was read into the Congressional Record. This did not mention their wife-swapping and hard drinking that had for years scandalized the Afghans.

I have years of experience traveling alone in Afghanistan since the early 70s, including months traveling in the South in 2000, and endless missions with the UN through 2003, all over the country, including remote Pashtun areas of the South. The vast majority of Afghans were pleased with the rule of the Taliban, because they brought the only period of calm and of safety that the people have had since the late 70s. Everyone who knew anything about Afghanistan understood that after the Russians pulled out the government would be Pashtun and conservatively Islamic. That was a given, and the Taliban in the beginning were as likely a place to start rebuilding as any we were likely to see. I knew several of the young Taliban government ministers, and they were eager to learn.

All we needed to do was go back in with our embassies, carefully with a few Muslim scholars and a team of experience people. Instead the orders came directly from the Clinton white house to the diplomats in the field to violate all of their instincts and years of preparation; they were told to make an about face and betray the Afghans by denying recognition to the insurgents whom we had installed.  When I questioned our senior people in Pakistan they would not look me in the eye. Our politicians wanted to set up the Muslims to take the place of the Communists so that the war industry’s feeding frenzy could continue. The Clintons betrayed the Afghans and set them up to be a whipping boy, in order to enlist the feminists as backers for our next war. I saw it happen, and it was slow-motion, cold-blooded murder.

Report this

By AFriend, July 20, 2009 at 1:51 pm Link to this comment

Tony Wicher,

You are utterly naive. Our intelligence agencies are completely out of control. Their primary activity is not to gather intelligence but to put out disinformation and propaganda, which is primarily directed at Americans. Pulling the wool over the eyes of the American people is what they do.

—-

I may very well be naive. Yet I am aware enough to realize that you live in a world rife with fantasies, goblins and big bad American bogey men.

You have options, my friend. You could use a library card and begin to learn and live in the real world.

Good luck with that.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 20, 2009 at 10:27 am Link to this comment

By Inherit The Wind, July 20 at 11:39 am #
TW:

I know you won’t accept this, but unless something new turns up to re-open the 9/11 investigations, I’d rather the committee concentrates on the crimes we ALL agree were committed.
Re ITW

I still think the conspiracy theories of Mossad, or CIA behind 9/11 are pure bullshit, just like I KNOW the “grassy knoll” theory is pure bullshit that the forensic evidence and basic physics simply doesn’t support.

I know you are a fervent believer and I have as much chance of changing your mind as I do Christian96’s.  So I’d rather the House investigates what we ALL agree upon.

      x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

ITW,

If I am a “fervent believer”, my belief is in using my eyes, my reason and my education to look at the evidence, read scientific papers and judge what is good science and what is not. I was raised by my scientist father a skeptic, not a believer. I am skeptical of the government account of 9/11. It is you who are the fervent believer in the government account, which you accept without a shred of scientific evidence. The Harrit/Jones/Ryan nanothermite paper IS something new. It was published on April 4th of this year. It is the nail in the coffin. If you will spend the time to read the paper carefully and to watch the interviews with Harrit, Jones and Ryan that I posted earlier, then I will be glad to discuss it with you.

I do support all investigations into the national security activities of our government. I want an end to state secrets and covert action, period. Nothing less will end the national security state and restore constitutional democracy. What I don’t support is “investigations” that are really cover-ups. Like the 9/11 Commission, or the NIST report on 9/11. And I am very much afraid that the investigations that are starting now will be limited in scope and not allowed to follow every trail wherever it leads, and so will also end in being cover-ups, the perpetrators of these heinous crimes will get off with a slap on the wrist, and nothing will really change.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 20, 2009 at 8:39 am Link to this comment

TW:

I know you won’t accept this, but unless something new turns up to re-open the 9/11 investigations, I’d rather the committee concentrates on the crimes we ALL agree were committed.

I still think the conspiracy theories of Mossad, or CIA behind 9/11 are pure bullshit, just like I KNOW the “grassy knoll” theory is pure bullshit that the forensic evidence and basic physics simply doesn’t support.

I know you are a fervent believer and I have as much chance of changing your mind as I do Christian96’s.  So I’d rather the House investigates what we ALL agree upon.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 19, 2009 at 9:19 pm Link to this comment

Re ITW

“TW: Ask yourself: Do you REALLY want the House Committee to take time away from investigating the last 8 years of blatantly illegal activities under the Bush regime to investigate the assassination of…JFK?????  That was nearly 46 years.  I was 8 years old. I’m now 54.”

        x x x x x x x x x x x x

ITW,

At this point the JFK question is primarily for historians. I am not pushing for officially re-opening that investigation. 9/11 is a different matter. If it is true that 9/11 was an inside job, then the people who did this are still in our government. They have their own agenda and are not loyal to the Constitution or to the President. They have to be sociopathic gangsters to do such a thing and they will another “terrorist attack” whenever it suits them. The country is in imminent danger.

Report this
Gulam's avatar

By Gulam, July 19, 2009 at 9:16 pm Link to this comment

Holding the previous administration to account will never amount to anything. Is there nobody alive who remembers Lyndon and Hubert. It is customary for the Democrats to betray the left. Democrats are just part of a wrestling tag team. If Americans have not marched on Washington by now en masse, they never will, until there is no longer any hope of restoring institutions that anyone can believe in and those moving on the capital are no longer peace activists. If nearly everyone swallowed the story 11 September with all of its discrepancies with no serious investigation and did not make getting to the bottom of that a priority, after a move like that not much really matters does it? The pretense of democracy and rule of law is pretty much a joke once we get into illegality on this scale. The British had their Great Game and America has the Great Game Show. Best to find a safe haven outside of the country and watch the show. This is going to be one spectacular flame out once it gets rolling.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 19, 2009 at 9:02 pm Link to this comment

AFriend,

Apparently, you are a believer.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 19, 2009 at 7:39 pm Link to this comment

Tony Wicher, July 19 at 6:05 pm #

Re Inherit The Wind, July 19 at 4:15 pm #

TW: nice to see you back!  Interesting: you have just cogently demonstrated and proved why Noam Chomsky, despite his famous name, can be TOTALLY discredited as a source and analyst.  He’s simply a Marxist spouting the same, tired old Marxist mantras, and reality-bending to fit his dogma.  Yet he’s there, teaching young people who will believe him—because they never learned critical thinking.

      x x x x x x x x x x x x x

ITW,

I can’t agree with you since I do not believe that Marxism has been totally discredited. There is still a considerable amount of truth in it. The trouble is adhering to Marxist dogma, trying to fit everything that happens into the theory, and shutting one’s eyes to anything new. I generally agree with Chomsky on the subject of imperialism, on Israel and on the way the media is controlled in democracies to “engineer consent” to the agenda of the ruling class. Chomsky has made excellent contributions in these areas and ought to be respected for them. My main areas of disagreement with Chomsky are the Kennedy assassination and 9/11. Chomsky was opposed to the work of those who attempted to expose the Kennedy assassination as an “inside job” just as he has  
opposed the 9/11 truth movement. I find his attitude completely incomprehensible. To me the truest words spoken in 1963 were those of Lee Harvey Oswald, “I’m a patsy”, which is the only thing he got to say before they killed him. He was indeed a CIA asset. He did not kill Kennedy. Kennedy was killed by a shot to the head from the front, as anybody who watches the Zapruder film and sees his head jerk back and his brains spray out can see. I believe the same gang that killed Kennedy, one that takes in new recruits as the old ones die off, have been running the country from the back seat ever since, and they are also the people who engineered 9/11 and have been putting out these fake bin Laden recordings since 2001. Under the G.W. Bush administration, with Cheney as vice president and Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense they were in complete control.

********************************************

TW: Ask yourself: Do you REALLY want the House Committee to take time away from investigating the last 8 years of blatantly illegal activities under the Bush regime to investigate the assassination of…JFK?????  That was nearly 46 years.  I was 8 years old. I’m now 54.

Some perspective: 46 years BEFORE JFK was shot was 1917 and we were just entering WWI.  In 1963, only historians and vets in their 70’s or more gave a shit why we entered WWI. That same amount of time has elapsed again.

I would MUCH rather have the Congress investigate Cheney, Bush, Tenet, Gonzales and all the rest of the neo-con traitors than go back to “the grassy knoll.”

Report this

By AFriend, July 19, 2009 at 7:32 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA,

“I am one who thinks 9/11/01 was a cover up by the Bush administration and the DLC conservative/moderate New Democrats and Blue Dog Democrats, to start as many wars as they chose in order to break the American economy on purpose.”

—-

Good luck to you then.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 19, 2009 at 7:28 pm Link to this comment

Ah, well, I knew it couldn’t last…Well, I enjoyed your posts up till the last 3…..

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 19, 2009 at 7:12 pm Link to this comment

AFriend,

How can you say you know all of that?  We know nothing.  Nothing we are told is the truth.  I accept nothing for truth I hear on television anymore.  I do hear what they say, I file it away, but truth, no way.  The Bush administration told too many lies and it appears Obama is following the Bush lead in too many things.

I am one who thinks 9/11/01 was a cover up by the Bush administration and the DLC conservative/moderate New Democrats and Blue Dog Democrats, to start as many wars as they chose in order to break the American economy on purpose. It worked out that they only had time for two outrageous economy wrecking wars for profit; but, sadly, Obama hasn’t given up, he is fighting on,  and for what—nothing that will be of benefit to the nation as a whole.  Obama has a good mind, he should be brave and not mind the puppeteers. 

It is true, Osama bin Laden was Bush’s childhood friend and was not to be killed and therefore our military became bumbling incompetents unable to find and kill the illusive Osama bin Laden, and Al Qaeda is Osama bin Laden’s base.

All a bunch of made up stuff, the only problem, we have United States citizens fighting insurgencies in these countries, not for anything but to make the rich richer.

Even so, I can’t see any point of Nancy Pelosi lying about not being told what the CIA was doing, even though all of that was lied about.  Pelosi lying about being lied to, only makes her look stupid, and that she is not. She apparently was not told information she should have been told.  Cheney really did try to take over.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 19, 2009 at 7:11 pm Link to this comment

AFriend,

How can you say you know all of that?  We know nothing.  Nothing we are told is the truth.  I accept nothing for truth I hear on television anymore.  I do hear what they say, I file it away, but truth, no way.  The Bush administration told too many lies and it appears Obama is following the Bush lead in too many things.

I am one who thinks 9/11/01 was a cover up by the Bush administration and the DLC conservative/moderate New Democrats and Blue Dog Democrats, to start as many wars as they chose in order to break the American economy on purpose. It worked out that they only had time for two outrageous economy wrecking wars for profit; but, sadly, Obama hasn’t given up, he is fighting on,  and for what—nothing that will be of benefit to the nation as a whole.  Obama has a good mind, he should be brave and not mind the puppeteers. 

It is true, Osama bin Laden was Bush’s childhood friend and was not to be killed and therefore our military became bumbling incompetents unable to find and kill the illusive Osama bin Laden, and Al Qaeda is Osama bin Laden’s base must now be leading the Taliban.

All a bunch of made up stuff, the only problem, we have United States citizens fighting insurgencies in these countries, not for anything but to make the rich richer.

Oil still being the abiding factor, have you heard any news on the pipeline the U.S. is involved in building through the Caspian Sea basin?  If not, you will.

Even so, I can’t see any point of Nancy Pelosi lying about not being told what the CIA was doing, even though all of that was lied about.  Pelosi lying about being lied to, only makes her look stupid, and that she is not. She apparently was not told information she should have been told.  Cheney really did try to take over.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 19, 2009 at 7:11 pm Link to this comment

AFriend,

How can you say you know all of that?  We know nothing.  Nothing we are told is the truth.  I accept nothing for truth I hear on television anymore.  I do hear what they say, I file it away, but truth, no way.  The Bush administration told too many lies and it appears Obama is following the Bush lead in too many things.

I am one who thinks 9/11/01 was a cover up by the Bush administration and the DLC conservative/moderate New Democrats and Blue Dog Democrats, to start as many wars as they chose in order to break the American economy on purpose. It worked out that they only had time for two outrageous economy wrecking wars for profit; but, sadly, Obama hasn’t given up, he is fighting on,  and for what—nothing that will be of benefit to the nation as a whole.  Obama has a good mind, he should be brave and not mind the puppeteers. 

It is true, Osama bin Laden was Bush’s childhood friend and was not to be killed and therefore our military became bumbling incompetents unable to find and kill the illusive Osama bin Laden, and Al Qaeda as Osama bin Laden’s base must now be leading the Taliban.

All a bunch of made up stuff, the only problem, we have United States citizens fighting insurgencies in these countries, not for anything but to make the rich richer.

Oil still being the abiding factor, have you heard any news on the pipeline the U.S. is involved in building through the Caspian Sea basin?  If not, you will.

Even so, I can’t see any point of Nancy Pelosi lying about not being told what the CIA was doing, even though all of that was lied about.  Pelosi lying about being lied to, only makes her look stupid, and that she is not. She apparently was not told information she should have been told.  Cheney really did try to take over.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 19, 2009 at 6:43 pm Link to this comment

Re DBM, July 19 at 8:08 pm #
Tony (and others),

Personally, I find every explanation I’ve heard for 9/11 lacking.  I fail to understand how “100 tons” or more of nano-thermite could have been put in place without the involvement of dozens of people and yet none of them have had an attack of conscience and come forward?? I don’t think the official explanation is much better either.  Will we ever know?

          x x x x x x x x x x x x x
DBM,

I find the experiments described in Harrit’s paper clear and convincing and Harrit himself to be my idea of a true man of science. So, from my point of view, it is already established that the nanothermite is there - I don’t think we can be sure how much, but a considerable quantity. The question then becomes, how did it get there? The answer is, I don’t know, we don’t know, and there is not much point in speculating. I am sure of one thing: we the people better demand a real, open, honest investigation, such as did not occur under the auspices of the Bush administration, to find out. When that happens, we WILL find out how it got there. We WILL know. If that investigation never happens, the truth will stay buried like the Kennedy Assassination. Many people will continue to have very strong suspicions, but only an official government investigation will make it into real public knowledge.

I will check out “Family of Secrets” - thanks for the tip.

Report this

By DBM, July 19, 2009 at 5:08 pm Link to this comment

Tony (and others),

“I believe the same gang that killed Kennedy, one that takes in new recruits as the old ones die off, have been running the country from the back seat ever since”

I haven’t read it yet but have read about it ... you might be intersted in “Family of Secrets” (http://www.amazon.com/Family-Secrets-Dynasty-Powerful-Influence/dp/1596915579?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241118569&sr=8-1).  Although it is about the Bush family it is far more than the story of their wealth and power.  Indeed, it includes the insightful observation that George H.W. Bush was named the head of the CIA as an “outsider” with no intelligence experience and then after holding that position for one year they named the CIA building in Langley after him ... really ... he had no previous relationship with the agency?  The book goes from there.  I’m looking forward to the read.

Secondly, (also for Tony & others) there is an interesting interview with Dr Neils Harrit on http://www.electricpolitics.com (look down the right hand side for “Deadly Dust”) about the nano-thermite found at the 9/11 site.  I would highly recommend George Kenney’s interviews in general.  I think it’s a pity that he has the word “politics” in his site name; there is much more than that there.

Personally, I find every explanation I’ve heard for 9/11 lacking.  I fail to understand how “100 tons” or more of nano-thermite could have been put in place without the involvement of dozens of people and yet none of them have had an attack of conscience and come forward??  I don’t think the official explanation is much better either.  Will we ever know?

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 19, 2009 at 3:05 pm Link to this comment

Re Inherit The Wind, July 19 at 4:15 pm #

TW: nice to see you back!  Interesting: you have just cogently demonstrated and proved why Noam Chomsky, despite his famous name, can be TOTALLY discredited as a source and analyst.  He’s simply a Marxist spouting the same, tired old Marxist mantras, and reality-bending to fit his dogma.  Yet he’s there, teaching young people who will believe him—because they never learned critical thinking.

        x x x x x x x x x x x x x

ITW,

I can’t agree with you since I do not believe that Marxism has been totally discredited. There is still a considerable amount of truth in it. The trouble is adhering to Marxist dogma, trying to fit everything that happens into the theory, and shutting one’s eyes to anything new. I generally agree with Chomsky on the subject of imperialism, on Israel and on the way the media is controlled in democracies to “engineer consent” to the agenda of the ruling class. Chomsky has made excellent contributions in these areas and ought to be respected for them. My main areas of disagreement with Chomsky are the Kennedy assassination and 9/11. Chomsky was opposed to the work of those who attempted to expose the Kennedy assassination as an “inside job” just as he has    
opposed the 9/11 truth movement. I find his attitude completely incomprehensible. To me the truest words spoken in 1963 were those of Lee Harvey Oswald, “I’m a patsy”, which is the only thing he got to say before they killed him. He was indeed a CIA asset. He did not kill Kennedy. Kennedy was killed by a shot to the head from the front, as anybody who watches the Zapruder film and sees his head jerk back and his brains spray out can see. I believe the same gang that killed Kennedy, one that takes in new recruits as the old ones die off, have been running the country from the back seat ever since, and they are also the people who engineered 9/11 and have been putting out these fake bin Laden recordings since 2001. Under the G.W. Bush administration, with Cheney as vice president and Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense they were in complete control.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 19, 2009 at 2:24 pm Link to this comment

By AFriend, July 19 at 10:30 am #
Smoke and mirrors.

This inquiry will go nowhere. Speaker Pelosi will find a procedural machination to kill this and all other probes like it.

The notion that the Bush administration acted without the congress on all aspects of the “war on terror” is a fallacy. U.S. Congressional minority and majority leaders were fully informed.

  x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

A Friend,

You are utterly naive. Our intelligence agencies are completely out of control. Their primary activity is not to gather intelligence but to put out disinformation and propaganda, which is primarily directed at Americans. Pulling the wool over the eyes of the American people is what they do.

Report this

By AFriend, July 19, 2009 at 2:12 pm Link to this comment

MarthaA,

“You appear to be trying to deny that Congress has a need to know what the CIA is doing.”

—-

Far from it. But there remains a canyon difference between how things operate and how you have come to understand them.

—-

“The Vice President and the CIA can’t take over and usurp both Houses of Congress, or even one House of Congress.  It simply must not be allowed.”

Well put. I couldn’t agree more.

—-

“it just doesn’t make sense that Nancy Pelosi would say she hasn’t been told something by the CIA, unless she hasn’t.”

—-

So you’re doing your best with what little information you have. So too with myself. I’m just not willing to ignore the likelihood that 98.999% of the globe fully expected the United States would immediately begin making plans to assassinate bin Laden or hunt and kill Al Qaeda operatives. I can’t think of a plausible reason the Vice President, any Vice President, felt the needed to evade the congress on the matter.

I think we can all be certain there are dozens of current operational plans to kill Al Qaeda types. If we also understand there are likely hundreds of such plans, some viable some not, some closer to fruition than others, the entire context changes. It may be better if you could begin with why anyone in the current or past White House would feel a need to evade the congress on plans of killing bin Laden.

—-

What I wrote in regards to the advise and consent of congress is admittedly simplistic but, I believe, factually correct.

What do we know?
We know that the current CIA Director formally killed a plan that never arrived at operational status. We know of a notation from the Vice President, one of several dozens of others most likely, perhaps some agreeing and some not, that opined on how the plan did not warrant going to the congress.

This inquiry is only interesting on Capital Hill, in the press and on blogs such as this. It will go nowhere.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 19, 2009 at 1:15 pm Link to this comment

1) “I’m Earl.  This is mah brother Earl. And this is mah other brother, Earl”.  So much for our latest red-neck racist poster.

2) TW: nice to see you back!  Interesting: you have just cogently demonstrated and proved why Noam Chomsky, despite his famous name, can be TOTALLY discredited as a source and analyst.  He’s simply a Marxist spouting the same, tired old Marxist mantras, and reality-bending to fit his dogma.  Yet he’s there, teaching young people who will believe him—because they never learned critical thinking.

3) Another pleasant surprise: MarthaA, I have agreed with every word you’ve posted on this thread.  Unusual, but a pleasure!  You have nailed it.

4) If you applied most posters’ ideas for how to run an investigation to building a house, you would skip:
a) picking a site,
b) surveying the site
c) taking soil samples to check for pollutants.
d) measuring percolation
e) reviewing available water supplies.
f) determining where there are adequate accessible sewers or a decent septic field can be put in.
e) specifying what the house needs to do (requirements)
f) developing preliminary (“concept”) plans for the house
g) finalizing plans for the house
h) obtaining permits
i) selecting and hiring a contractor.
etc. etc etc.

These folks would dump a pile of lumber on site and start in to framing.

And they wonder why the committee is going to spend time looking for the crack in the Bush/Cheney wall that splits the whole mess left and right.

Report this

By mill, July 19, 2009 at 1:10 pm Link to this comment

Put Mr. Cheney under oath.  If he seems to be reluctant to share the truth, waterboard that sob until he confesses, or until justice is had .... which ever takes longer.  Then dump his sorry carcass in the Wyoming high plains.

No, not really.  But it’s sorely tempting.  He deserves worse.

Report this

By KDelphi, July 19, 2009 at 12:43 pm Link to this comment

“Investigating Cheney and the CIA” is a pretty safe bet, eh? In terms of political power….

Now, investigating war crimes, that might be tough on the re-elections…if Cheney ends up admitting he told the CIA to not inform (or ro mis-inform ) Congress, and gets to apologize or something.
It will be like Capone going to prison for tax evasion.

Its like “Oh, we were lied to about intl assasinations, or we wouldve stopped them—-even though we allowed torture, GITMO, invading Iraq…but, not informing Congersss—thats where we draw the line!”

Yeah!! Brave Pelosi!! (sob)

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 19, 2009 at 11:43 am Link to this comment

AFriend,

You appear to be trying to deny that Congress has a need to know what the CIA is doing.

Congress doesn’t need to know every little detail of specific plans toward a destination or consequence, unless they ask, but Congress needs to be notified that different plans are being worked on toward a certain destination or consequence.  Keeping Congress in the dark about end destinations and consequences of which they are responsible must not be allowed, and it appears that is exactly what Cheney did.

The Vice President and the CIA can’t take over and usurp both Houses of Congress, or even one House of Congress.  It simply must not be allowed.

I have thought about this a lot, and it just doesn’t make sense that Nancy Pelosi would say she hasn’t been told something by the CIA, unless she hasn’t.  I do not care for her conservative outlook, but the one think I am certain she is not, is a fool; Pelosi knows what is in her best interest, and it would not be in her best interest to lie about not being told something by the CIA.  I think both Pelosi and the Intelligence Committee were being kept in the dark, which absolutely should not have happened, and there should be strong consequences for both Cheney’s and the CIA’s actions usurping the authority of Congress.  Cheney was trying for a dictatorship, but a dictatorship was never established; leaders of Congress and the Intelligence Committee still have rights and a need to know what the CIA is doing.

Report this

By GW=MCHammered, July 19, 2009 at 11:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

C allous
H einous
E gomaniac
N arcissist
E yeless
(sooo…)
Y esterday

Report this

By AFriend, July 19, 2009 at 10:32 am Link to this comment

MarthaA,

I neglected to add this following lines to my last post.

—-

So, again, the CIA is not obligated to inform the congress of every plan that gets worked up in it’s NSPG’s.

There are many operations, a great many in fact, that require no explicit approval from the congress when, and this is put simplistically, when prior goal approval has already been given. That goal approval may even come years in advance of an operation “going red”.

It’s easy to understand why a Vice President would hold the opinion that the congress need not be informed of an operation, any operation, until it is nearing operational status or, as described above, has already gained its “informed/funded” status.

It is clear, however, that it would indeed be illegal if a Vice President denied the existence of an operation known to an administration.

To date we have no indication that this has been the case.

Report this

By AFriend, July 19, 2009 at 10:14 am Link to this comment

MarthaA,

I should rephrase. The CIA is not obligated to inform the congress of plans until they become close to being “operational” (many operations, however, fall under previously “funded and informed status” and may go operational without the direct consent of the congress). This is not a simple issue and cannot be fully covered and discussed with ease.

With that said; in most cases, but not all, a plan cannot go “operational” without funding from the congress.


—-

I think it’s important to keep in mind that it’s not feasible for each of the 16 intelligence agencies to inform the congress of every study and “worked up” plan generated. There are hundreds of these groups generating thousands of plans monthly. Divide all that into an annual intelligence matrix.

So, again, the CIA is not obligated to inform the congress of every plan that gets worked up in it’s NSPG’s.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 19, 2009 at 9:33 am Link to this comment

Inherit, Chomsky has been an anti-marxist all his life.  He was raised as a bi-cultural Zionist and worked on a Kibbutz.  His binational zionism lost out to Jewish imperialism.
        x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

FT, I know a little bit about Chomsky since I have kept up a correspondence with him personally since 1993 when his book “Year 501: the Conquest Continues” came out. That book described the historical progress of western imperialism from 1492 to 1993, which was “Year 501”. Everything he says there and in all his subsequent books is completely in accordance with the fundamentals of Marxism, the same fundamentals that I, and probably you, learned at our father’s knee. But Chomsky does not want to be called a Marxist, because that suggests stereotypes of Russian Marxism, particularly Stalinism, that Chomsky does not wish to be identified with. Therefore he does not want to be called a Marxist and often uses some different words to say the same things. For example, in his more recent book “Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance” he uses the term “hegemonism” instead of “imperialism”. I think that’s mostly because left-wingers use it so much the word has gotten worn out.

As to Chomsky’s position on Israel, I don’t know where you get your ideas about him from. I have spent a lot of time discussing this subject with him and his position is, in fact, the orthodox Marxist one, and one that, as it happens, I agree with. It is your own position that attributes an excessive amount of power to “Zionism” that deviates from the Marxist position into something that does verge on anti-Semitism. The orthodox Marxist position is that Israel is the creation of an alliance between British/U.S. imperialism and Jewish nationalism. Since 1948 Israel has functioned as imperialism’s “attack dog” in the Middle East, a pretext for continual military involvement and hegemonic policies throughout this part of the world, which is of interest to imperialism primarily for its oil resources. Jewish nationalists get their Jewish state in return for being an arm of western imperialism in the Middle East. That is the essential nature of the alliance. That is Chomsky’s position on the subject which he has stated in the two books I mentioned and many other books and articles. I think this is a moderate and balanced position that reflects reality. Those who say that imperialism has been taken over by Zionism have to my mind stepped over the line into anti-Semitism. They actually commit the same error as right-wing anti-Semites which is to attribute an inordinate amount of power to Jews. On the other side, I have certainly never heard Chomsky say anything that could be constituted as support for “Jewish imperialism” unless support for a two-state solution in any form could be called that.

Report this
LostHills's avatar

By LostHills, July 19, 2009 at 8:51 am Link to this comment

Theatre of the absurd. Cheney makes a good boogeyman for a democratic leadership that has not fundamentally reversed any of the policies of bushism. “Don’t look at we’re doing, look at what HE did!” The Democratic leadership is still clearcutting roadless forests, they’re still killing civilians in Afghanistan with drones, still operating the blackwater/contractor corruption machine,  they’re still locking people up forever without a fair trial, still giving billions to banks that are foreclosing on people’s homes, still turning a blind eye to rising unemployment, and trying to ram through health care “reform” that benefits the rich at the expense of the working class. Hey, put on whatever kind of show hearings you want, but history will judge you by your own deeds.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 19, 2009 at 8:05 am Link to this comment

AFriend,

I beg to differ.  The CIA must inform Congress prior to going operational; otherwise, Congress will have no say in whether or not the action should be, which is entirely off base.  How on earth can the Intelligence Committee and our governments leaders properly lead the country if they have no knowledge of what our country is actually doing.  Of course, the whole Congress doesn’t have a need to know, but the Intelligence Committee and the leaders of both houses of Congress must receive all information, be kept informed so that they know everything that is happening or is about to happen, or even being thought about intensely, if money is being spent in the process.

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 19, 2009 at 8:03 am Link to this comment

AFriend,

I beg to differ.  The CIA must inform Congress prior to going operational; otherwise, Congress will have no say in whether or not the action should be; which is entirely off base.  How on earth can the Intelligence Committee and our governments’ leaders properly lead the country if no knowledge of what our country is actually doing is required.  Of course, the whole Congress doesn’t have a need to know, but the Intelligence Committee and the leaders of both houses of Congress must receive all information to be kept informed, so that all of our leaders will know everything that is happening or is about to happen, or even being thought about, if any money is being spent in the process.

Report this

By AFriend, July 19, 2009 at 7:30 am Link to this comment

Smoke and mirrors.

This inquiry will go nowhere. Speaker Pelosi will find a procedural machination to kill this and all other probes like it.

The notion that the Bush administration acted without the congress on all aspects of the “war on terror” is a fallacy. U.S. Congressional minority and majority leaders were fully informed.

—-

Bottom line in this particular inquiry: The CIA is not obligated to inform the congress on the activities of National Security Planning Groups (NSPG’s) Only when a project goes operational is the congress informed. This is as it should be.

Report this

By DBM, July 19, 2009 at 6:40 am Link to this comment

Hmmm ... a “full investigation that will explore certain CIA programs and the core issue of how the committee is kept informed”...

Very carefully worded no?  People hear about this and are pissed off.  They hear then that Congress is investigating so that’s Ok.  Then Congress comes back and says that all is solved, from now on the relevant committee will be informed.

What?!  No investigation of the actual crime?  Death squads, assassination, spending public money without oversight?  Nothing?? 

What a surprise ...

Report this
MarthaA's avatar

By MarthaA, July 19, 2009 at 2:22 am Link to this comment

Hopefully, all on the committee investigating Cheney will not be CONSERVATIVE/moderate DLC New Democrats and CONSERVATIVE Blue Dog Democrats or the whole investigation will be a waste of time, as CONSERVATIVES will protect CONSERVATIVES and Darth Vader Cheney will have done no wrong.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 18, 2009 at 10:26 pm Link to this comment

Re Folktruther, July 19 at 12:46 am #
Tony, you don’t think power comes from wealth?  You don’t think the military is controlled by the ruling class?  I will pray for you.

            x x x x x x x x x x x

FT,

I think the situation with our security services is more analogous to the Praetorian Guard during the Roman Empire. They were supposed to be serving the Emperor but after a while they were assassinating emperors they didn’t like.

Report this

By Folktruther, July 18, 2009 at 9:46 pm Link to this comment

Tony, you don’t think power comes from wealth?  You don’t think the military is controlled by the ruling class?  I will pray for you.

Inherit, Chomsky has been an anti-marxist all his life.  He was raised as a bi-cultural Zionist and worked on a Kibbutz.  His binational zionism lost out to Jewish imperialism.

You are quite insensitive to ideology; I wonder if this is common among Americans.  After you’ve called anti-Zionists anti-Semites or self-hating Jews in the Aipac mode, you seem to lose your way ideologically.  This may be the major political problem with Americans, preventing them from uniting and mobilizing.

I wonder how one begins to change this.  Especially when Americans don’t even realize that they adhere to a low level and delusive ideology.  It’s a big problem because the rise of tv and modern advertising techniques have made the power structure very effective in deluding the American population, especially the Educated population.  Not least by excluding simple historical truths from the mainstream truth consensus.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 18, 2009 at 9:31 pm Link to this comment

ITW,

To me any covert activity against another country is an act of war, and it ought to be illegal under both Constitutional and international law without a declaration of war. We haven’t legally declared war since WW II. That’s because the national security state took over right afterwards. The country has been on a war footing ever since. We have not only kept a standing army, which we never had before WW II, but we have also maintained thousands of military bases all over the world. All this time we have been spending vast sums of money on the military, more than the rest of the world combined. After sixty years, the military-industrial complex is pretty much running the show. I would like to figure out a way to reverse that, and if 9/11 was indeed an “inside job” as that nano-thermite study and much other evidence suggests, then the movement to make this public knowledge is truly revolutionary in its potential for restoring democracy.

I know this irritates FT, like other old-line leftists. I guess it’s because it doesn’t fit the Marxist model of a working-class revolution that overthrows the bourgeoisie. Instead this could be called a revolution in the political consciousness of the people.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 18, 2009 at 8:14 pm Link to this comment

Re Folktruther, July 18 at 7:55 pm #

Tony, you’re a dingbat.  You can’t put the historical toothpaste back in the tube.  You can repeal whatever you want but that won’t change the fact that the US polity is at the end of its life cycle and it is installing a neoliberal police state to maintain the enormous and increasing class inequality.

    x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

FT,

For me the problem is more narrowly focused on national security. We should be progressing normally toward European-style social democracy, but the national security gang has taken over the government and is preventing this normal progress. I don’t think they take orders from the oligarchs. Power does not necessarily come from wealth. In the last analysis, as Chairman Mao says, power comes out of the barrel of a gun. The United States has been a national security state since 1947, and that means that whatever the trappings of democracy, it is really run by the military.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 18, 2009 at 8:02 pm Link to this comment

Re Inherit The Wind, July 18 at 8:35 pm #

“FT is still among those dockworkers, trying to convince them to rise up in revolution…”

        = = = = = = = = = = = = =

These old leftists are are so outdated and so dogmatic! Alexander Cockburn is another one. So is Noam Chomsky. They remain faithful to the religion of their fathers.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, July 18, 2009 at 5:35 pm Link to this comment

FT,

Yet the opposite seems to be true: You annoy people without actually having something to say.

You are the dingbat.  Where there is bad Law, you repeal the friggin’ piece of shit, not leave it there and whine “why bother? the system’s corrupt! Boo-hoo-hoo!”  By that logic the 18th Amendment would never have been repealed.

TW, you are right—get rid of bad law.

FT is still among those dockworkers, trying to convince them to rise up in revolution…ELC!
(That’s “Evil Little Chuckle”—ELC).

Report this

By Folktruther, July 18, 2009 at 4:55 pm Link to this comment

Tony, you’re a dingbat.  You can’t put the historical toothpaste back in the tube.  You can repeal whatever you want but that won’t change the fact that the US polity is at the end of its life cycle and it is installing a neoliberal police state to maintain the enormous and increasing class inequality.

I am perfectly willing to concede that you may be a loveable dingbat.  but as Shaw sagely remarked, if you can’t say something without irritating people, you may as well not say it at all.  It won’t penetrate their consciousness.  Especially one as clouded as yours.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 18, 2009 at 4:13 pm Link to this comment

Here are the latest developments from Truthout:

http://www.truthout.org/071809A?n

The committee is talking about violations of the 1947 National Security act. To me that’s where the problem begins. If we could repeal the National Security Act we could get back to being a democracy. To me, covert action and democracy are incompatible.

Report this

By KDelphi, July 18, 2009 at 11:38 am Link to this comment

I meant to say that “Congress” shouldve been informed..shit, my hands are killing me, I better stop typing.

Folk—pretty common with then, no? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain…

Report this

By Alejandro, July 18, 2009 at 11:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is a bunch of bull! More smoke and mirrors to assuage the Beast. Secret,sensitive covert ops. are an essential arm of our countries intelligence agencies. From time to time it is necessary to maintain a level of high secrecy in-order to maintain the integrity of the operation being developed. Our Intel agencies are under constant surveillance from our real enemy’s including Israel and the Israeli puppets in our Congress, both the Senate and the House.

That being said; the real crimes committed by Bush, Cheney and their puppets are, the Crimes of Treason, Crimes against Humanity, for the Bombing of innocent civilians in Iraq, for the murder of possibly up to a thousand soldiers, who were killed looking for weapons of mass destruction that Bush,Cheney and their cabal knew (did not exist). These are only a few of the evil deeds both Bush and Cheney committed for revenge and profit; and should be prosecuted for…
Alejandro Quinonez

Report this

By Folktruther, July 18, 2009 at 10:49 am Link to this comment

Anther good illustration of the way the American people are deluded. The Bushites, as part of their political counter revolution in destroying the American bourgeois Demicracy, initiated White House death squads directely supervised by Cheney. 

It is not this that is going to be investigated.  Rather, it is the fact that the leaders of Congress were not told. Not all the members of Congress, and certainly not the American people. The congressional leaders.  Not that they would do anything about it.

The public relations function of the Truth Commission is to divert attentiion to this question rather than the murders and tortures that the White HOuse supervised.

In diverting attention in this way, the media sanitizes the idea of White House death squads, part of increasing the lawless power of the presidency.  Truthdig, for example, has already stated that it is perfectly acceptable to murder Al Qiada, as mythical an organization as a convoy of unicorns.

So the media will convey to the people, with baited but Pariotic breath, the trivia of the Truth Commission, while ignoring the elephant in the country, of the increasing violence of the American power structure agains foreign and the American population.

Report this

By knute, July 18, 2009 at 10:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I see this as nothing but a distraction from what they, the congress should be investigating. That being the outright lying to the public leading us into the war in Iraq, purposely not hunting down Bin Laden after 9-11, but instead keeping him alive to serve as the bogey man that we all should fear. The collusion with Enron as they swindled so many, and helped cause the energy shortages and brownouts while they reaped obscene profits for doing so. The disregard for things such as habeus Corpus. The flagrant wasting of untold billions as he followed the path set out by Grover Norquist to shrink the size of goverment by draining its revenue. All these treasonous acts will go unaccounted for as they investigate a program that in the end many would agree with, a safe bet for our gutless representitives to make it appear as though they are interested in getting america back as a nation that should be repected, instead of the third world country that Cheney and his enablers ( the repub. party )  have put us on a course to becoming down the road.

Report this

By KDelphi, July 18, 2009 at 9:46 am Link to this comment

pitleader—if they dont like the law as it is, they should change it. As the law stands, Copngers must be kept informed.

Besides Cheney et al werent really doing this for US ‘security”—I dont believe that for one minute. It was about a post-Nixon presidential power grab by the Executive branch. And, as we can see in Obama, this power , once given, is never given up voluntarily…thanks Dems.

Report this

By pitleaper, July 18, 2009 at 9:36 am Link to this comment

This is a situation where the law seems to end in a conundrum. On one hand the ‘covert’ nature of the program in question implies secrecy, and the secret needs to be kept to protect those charged with carrying out the operation. On the other hand, we are a free society, and we want to know what’s going on.  So, where do we draw the line.

Our compromise has been to form a bipartison Congressional Intelligence Committee(s).  Who are informed of the issues (probably after the fact, which is another compromise). 

If members of Congress know, can they be trusted to keep it secret? In this political atmosphere, I seriously doubt it. 

When the penalties for leaking such information by a Congressman or his/her office are strong enough (not just losing face or the next election), then, I believe, our imperfect system would be improved.

But such a law would have to come from Congress. Would that ever happen?

And the beat goes on…

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, July 18, 2009 at 7:35 am Link to this comment

The first billion from the bailout funds should go finance the commissions and investigations required of the past administrations 8 years of “secrets”

Report this

By GB, July 18, 2009 at 7:14 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Let’s start with September 11, 2001 and ask cheney why he called off defending the Pentagon (in official transcript)from the incoming “missle” as rumsfeld admittedly called it. Then let’s talk about the PNAC, illegal mass murder, and no bid contracts that made him billions of off shore profits.

Report this

By coloradokarl, July 18, 2009 at 6:24 am Link to this comment

See Dick squirm? Run Dick, Run…......

Report this

By Earl, July 18, 2009 at 1:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Now get serious here…...This so-called ‘covert counterterrorism program’ by the Bush / Cheney Administration is yet another prime
example of ” who actually ” had been in charge,who was
telling who,what and when during these 8 years,
nobody else but > the Jewish State of Israel <!
There is this typical,notorious,ruthless Mossad handwriting all
over this program,better known as ” murderous Jewish Assassination Squads ” and quite obviously pushed upon those two Losers by their “real Masters in Disguise”,so revealing to the more casual observer,except the average American Moron who is being spoon-fed daily BS-stories by guess
who > the Jewish controlled Media<. Period.
It`s about time that this current Administration
does some serious investigation into what was going on then and is holding them responsible for
the crimes that they committed.

Report this

By KDelphi, July 18, 2009 at 12:39 am Link to this comment

So are they just going to “investigate” whether Congress was “informed”?? How absurd. Where is AG Holder on this?

“We want to look very closely at every aspect of the notification process and various programs,” Schakowsky said in a statement. “If it is determined by this investigation that the Vice President of the United States ordered Congress not to be told about certain CIA programs, there is reason to believe that constitutes a significant violation of the National Security Act.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25094.html#ixzz0LaqrrjnJ


But, what about the war crimes? I hope (and have my doubts) that this means that they will investigate other lies that were told and other laws that were broken.

How about House Sub on Crime Terrorism and Homeland Security, with Chair Bobby Scott? Doesnt justice have a better chance with them?

The war crimes (crimes against humanity) should be the investigatoin not whether the “gang of 8” knew about the war crimes.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, July 17, 2009 at 10:50 pm Link to this comment

This investigation starts with an alleged program of assassination of Al Qaeda leaders that Cheney ordered kept secret from Congress. This story does not compute. The whole country assumed there was such a program. Bin Laden was wanted “dead or alive”, and presumably by any means necessary. If there were not such a program people would have wanted to know why. What a bad joke! But note that Schakowsky does not limit the investigation to this one alleged program. She says “programs”, meaning, I hope, that the committee is going to investigate the more general question of whether the CIA and our other national security agencies have been informing the rest of the government of what they are doing. This could open up a cesspool of corruption at the bottom of which, if they can get all the way there, is 9/11.

We should try to help the investigation by getting in touch with some of the committee members such as Shakowski and getting them to read the Harrit/Jones/Ryan paper, “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe”.

Report this
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.