Archive for October, 2010

Iraq files reveal checkpoint deaths

Iraq files reveal checkpoint deaths

Secret Iraq Files

 WikiLeaks makes public Iraq war realities

I dont blame the troops but the neocons and their lackeys in US government who sent them into Iraq quagmire for ‘A Clean Break’ (

Fragmentation of Iraq for Israel:

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz pushed hard to attack Iraq

Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz pushed hard to attack Iraq

Thursday, October 21, 2010 7:48 AM
Excerpt: Gen. Hugh Shelton’s ‘Without Hesitation’
At some point, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz started pushing hard to attack Iraq. In their minds, this disaster could be turned around into an ideal opportunity to end the problems we were having with Saddam — just blame 9/11 on him
Book Excerpt: Gen. Hugh Shelton’s “Without Hesitation” – Book News – Entertainment –

Ex-top soldier: Iraq war ‘fiasco’ due to Rumsfeld’s ‘lies’

One can read about neocon Israel firster Paul Wolfowitz and how he pushed for the Iraq invasion (in order to secure the realm for Israel) in Dr. Stephen Sniegoski’s ‘The Transparent Cabal’ book (see

US turned blind eye to torture – Secret Iraq Files – Al Jazeera English

US turned blind eye to torture – Secret Iraq Files – Al Jazeera English

US troops ordered not to investigate Iraqi torture

Neocon Pentagon ordered ‘secret’ torture in Iraq

Secret Iraq Files (see Rumsfeld at 7 mins 52 secs into following youtube)

Secret Iraq File: Left to Die in Jail

State Dept: Iraqi Detainee Abuse Not America’s Problem

Exposed: US swept torture under carpet

US had turned blind eye to torture in Iraq long ago in allowing Israelis to conduct such
Karpinski ‘met Israeli interrogator in Iraq’



No US investigation of many abuses

WikiLeaks makes public Iraq war realities

‘Tariq Aziz death penalty pointless, ploy to whitewash Iraq war crimes’ 

Wikileaks do not imperil our troops; our administration does

WikiLeaks: “Shooting the messenger, Julian Assange” (RT segment with friend Ray McGovern)

Iraq Vet: “WikiLeaks tells the truth”

‘WikiLeaked body count files writing true history of Iraq’

No difference on how Democrats & Republicans act towards Israel

No difference on how Democrats & Republicans act towards Israel

American Democracy: Pro-Israel Tweedledum and Tweedledee
American Democracy: Pro-Israel Tweedledum & Tweedledee (must watch youtube!)

Press TV talks to James Morris on US-Saudi Arms Deal

Press TV’s Arash Zahedi talks to James Morris on US-Saudi Arms Deal
Excerpt of above interview was included near the end of the following ‘Reality Check’ program which aired on Press TV as well:
Reality Check (good PressTV show that discussed US torture, illegal Israeli settlements, UK government protest):

Target Tehran? Israel, US ‘prepare to attack Iran’

Saudis Would Allow Israel to Attack Iran
The Neocon plan: rattle the sword for Americans to hear so the US will give permission to Israel to bomb Iran
Same war for Israel Neocons Who Peddled the Al Qaeda-Iraq Connection Are Setting Their Sights on Iran
Israeli Nuke Double Standard:
We live in dark times (must read by friend Phil Weiss about coming financial crash & war with Iran):

Such a Parcel o’ Rogues in a Nation (by Philip Giraldi)

Such a Parcel o’ Rogues in a Nation

Posted By Philip Giraldi On October 20, 2010 @ 11:00 pm In Uncategorized |

Last Friday Condoleezza Rice visited the White House and reportedly had a long chat with President Barack Obama which included an extended discussion of foreign policy that “covered the waterfront.”  Afterwards, Rice commented approvingly that “there is still a foreign policy community that believes that foreign policy ought to be bipartisan.”  Rice, who is on a book promotion tour, described the problem exactly, though the word she should have used was “monolithic” rather than “bipartisan.”  The Obama Administration foreign policy is virtually indistinguishable from that of George W. Bush, whose heavy handed form of internationalism combined with regime change has brought calamity to the United States.  Presumably Obama and Rice were able to congratulate each other on their ability to unite Republicans and Democrats in supporting a seamless vision of the world as it might be if only those poor heathen devils out there would learn to behave.

Andrew Bacevich has described the foreign policy consensus that has ruled the United States since the Second World War as a sacred trinity consisting of global military presence, a military capable of projecting power worldwide, and a willingness to intervene anywhere in the world for any reason secure in the belief that Washington is a force for good.  These policies have been supported by both major parties and have now led to something approaching war without end as new adversaries are identified and confronted.  The peace dividend from the fall of communism was temporary at best, with international terrorism the new threat that has to be combated globally at great cost in lives and treasure.  The consensus foreign policy makes for a bleak future for those Americans who actually care about their country, meaning that there will be little difference if we continue with Obama or wind up with President Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton in 2012.

Condoleezza Rice, serving as an inept National Security Adviser and then as an only marginally better Secretary of State, was part of the grand delusion.  She once thrilled the American public and the fawning media by describing her vision of nuclear mushroom clouds over US cities courtesy of Saddam Hussein, who, at the time, had no ability to do harm to anyone but his own people.  One might have expected public and congressional demands that Rice be called to account for the foreign policy shipwreck she participated in, but she has instead been rewarded and is currently both a tenured professor at Stanford University and a Fellow at the Hoover Institution. She is even being spoken of as a possible Republican presidential candidate somewhere down the road. 

The benefit of having a monolithic foreign policy based on a consensus crafted by America’s elites is that it will all pretty much function like an exclusive club where members are allowed to disagree mildly over what wine to have with dinner but not argue about the entrée.  As a result, there will be zero transparency to what takes place and absolutely no accountability in a system that is designed to avoid internal conflict and change.  Those who expect the government to serve the people should be particularly appalled at the revolving door of self-serving statists who proliferate throughout the system, men and women who have never had a genuine job in their lives but who scurry off to their law firms, lobbying offices, think tanks, and universities before returning at a higher level to the government bringing ruin with them.

A system in which neither party is required to behave responsibly means that decisions will be made without regard for the consequences.  Seven years ago a major war crime was committed when Iraq was attacked yet no one has been punished, nor has anyone even been seriously challenged on the steps taken that led up to war.  The United States bombed and then invaded a country that posed no threat and that had no ability in any event to strike against Americans or American targets.  In 1946, the judges at the Nuremberg Trials called the initiation of a war of aggression the ultimate war crime because it inevitably unleashed so many other evils.  Ten leading Nazis were executed at Nuremberg and ninety-three Japanese officials at similar trials staged in Asia.  In spite of the fact that a majority of Republicans now considers the Iraq war to have been a “mistake,” a view certainly shared by most Democrats and the public, no American government official was even fired as a consequence.

If one were to ask who were the potential war criminals in the Bush Administration the list would certainly include Rice.  She was the National Security Adviser at the time and it was her job to know how good the intelligence was and to advise the president accordingly.  If she was not aware that a lot of the information she was seeing was questionable at best, she was not doing her job very well and should be held accountable for her incompetence, incompetence which in this case led to war. 

Putting aside the key question whether George W. Bush, “The Great Decider,” was aware that he was being sold a bill of goods, there were certainly others who should have known better but went along for the ride. George Tenet, the CIA Director notorious for his “slam-dunk” comment, a man who cooked the intelligence to make the war possible to curry favor with the White House, is now Professor in the Practice of Diplomacy at Georgetown University and has generously remunerated positions on the boards of Allen & Company merchant bank, QinetiQ, and L-1 Identity Solutions.  He sold his memoir At the Center of the Storm, which has been described as a “self-justifying apologia,” in 2007 for a reported advance of $4 million.  His book, ironically, admits that the US invaded Iraq for no good reason. 

Tenet, who never actually worked as a spy, having instead wormed his way up through the system as a congressional staffer, provided the intelligence analysis and godfathered the 2002 Iraq National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that hyped the case for Saddam being a threat.  It has been argued that he truly believed the intelligence he was providing and, if that is true, he failed to pay attention to the considerable doubts within the CIA about some of the sources used to indict the Iraqis, most notably “Curveball.”  If Tenet was not aware of that and was not conveying the caveats to the White House he was failing to do what his job required, opting instead to get on board the Administration bus and go after Saddam.

And then there is Dick Cheney. Cheney, unique for a Vice President, made numerous visits to the CIA headquarters to oversee the generation of the Iraq NIE and to make sure that it said what the White House wanted it to say.  Cheney and his colleague in crime Scooter Libby also served as a conduit for bogus information being generated by the Pentagon, bypassing the usual intelligence channels through the CIA and the National Security Adviser.  In 2002, Cheney disclosed that he was worth somewhere between $19 and $86 million so it is safe to assume that he is currently in comfortable retirement, a millionaire many times over from his time at Halliburton, a major defense contractor.  Libby was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in 2007 but later had his prison sentence commuted by President Bush.  He has achieved a soft landing since that time and is now a Senior Vice President at the Hudson Institute.

Paul Wolfowitz, the Bush Deputy Secretary of Defense, is seen by many as the “intellectual” driving force behind the invasion of Iraq.  He is currently a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.  A bid to reward him for his zeal by giving him a huge golden parachute as President of the World Bank at a salary of $391,000 tax free failed when, after 23 months in the position, he was ousted over promoting a subordinate with whom he was having an affair. 

Wolfowitz’s chief deputy at the Pentagon, Doug Feith, was the architect of the invasion of Iraq.  As Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, he ran the infamous Office of Special Plans (OSP).  OSP collected and disseminated information that CIA and State Department Intelligence had found to be suspect.  Not surprisingly, Feith’s reports supported the case that Iraq presented a threat to the United States.  After the fighting had begun, when no weapons of mass destruction were found, it was learned that much of the phony information had been invented by people like Ahmad Chalabi, who manipulated his neocon friends and was also very chummy with the Iranians at the same time, providing them with classified information that had been passed to him by his US government contacts.  Feith left the Defense Department to take up a visiting professorship at the school of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, which was subsequently not renewed. He is reported to be again practicing law and thinking deep thoughts about his hero Edmund Burke, who no doubt would be appalled to make Feith’s acquaintance.  Feith is a senior fellow at the neoconservative Hudson Institute and the Director of the Center for National Security Strategies.  His memoir War and Decision did not make the best seller list and is now available used on Amazon for one cent, plus shipping.  If the marketplace is anything to go by Tenet has turned out to be more esteemed if not venerated with a used copy of his opus available for $2.75.

And so it goes with Condoleezza Rice off on her book signing.  No one is found guilty for starting an unnecessary war that has killed 4,425 Americans and many thousands of Iraqis. No one is punished or even tarnished by his or her role.  On the contrary, all are, in fact, richly rewarded for their presumed dedication to their country.  One can well presume that the old saw about every good deed being rewarded has been turned on its head in the US government, with only those guilty of crimes against humanity being considered for promotion.  Can there be any wonder why ambitious people who are ethically challenged flock to start wars and torture for Uncle Sam?  They know they will never be held accountable for anything they do and will reap the financial rewards that they think they deserve.  Until that culture is eradicated by something like a Nuremberg trial demonstrating that no one is above the law the United States will continue to be a place that the rest of the world quite rightly regards as preaching respect for rules and values while rewarding just the opposite.

Read more by Philip Giraldi

Article printed from Original:

Israel’s Longstanding Middle East Plan

Israel’s Longstanding Middle East Plan

Dr. Stephen Sniegoski discusses Oded Yinon’s ‘divide and conquer’ plan for Israel’s enemies in his ‘The Transparent Cabal’ book:

Fragmentation of Iraq for Israel (by Dr. Stephen Sniegoski)

U.S. Pushes to Ease Technical Obstacles to Wiretapping

October 18, 2010

Officials Push to Bolster Law on Wiretapping


WASHINGTON — Law enforcement and counterterrorism officials, citing lapses in compliance with surveillance orders, are pushing to overhaul a federal law that requires phone and broadband carriers to ensure that their networks can be wiretapped, federal officials say.

The officials say tougher legislation is needed because some telecommunications companies in recent years have begun new services and made system upgrades that caused technical problems for surveillance. They want to increase legal incentives and penalties aimed at pushing carriers like Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast to ensure that any network changes will not disrupt their ability to conduct wiretaps.

An Obama administration task force that includes officials from the Justice and Commerce Departments, the F.B.I. and other agencies recently began working on draft legislation to strengthen and expand the Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act, a 1994 law that says telephone and broadband companies must design their services so that they can begin conducting surveillance of a target immediately after being presented with a court order.

There is not yet agreement over the details, according to officials familiar with the deliberations, but they said the administration intends to submit a package to Congress next year.

Albert Gidari Jr., a lawyer who represents telecommunications firms, said corporations were likely to object to increased government intervention in the design or launch of services. Such a change, he said, could have major repercussions for industry innovation, costs and competitiveness.

“The government’s answer is ‘don’t deploy the new services — wait until the government catches up,’ ” Mr. Gidari said. “But that’s not how it works. Too many services develop too quickly, and there are just too many players in this now.”

To bolster their case that telecom companies should face greater pressure to stay compliant, security agencies are citing two previously undisclosed episodes in which investigators were stymied from carrying out court-approved surveillance for weeks or even months because of technical problems with two major carriers.

The disclosure that the administration is seeking ways to increase the government’s leverage over carriers already subject to the 1994 law comes less than a month after The New York Times reported on a related part of the effort: a plan to bring Internet companies that enable communications — like Gmail, Facebook, Blackberry and Skype — under the law’s mandates for the first time, a demand that would require major changes to some services’ technical designs and business models.

The push to expand and the 1994 law is the latest example of a dilemma over how to balance Internet freedom with security needs in an era of rapidly evolving — and globalized — technology. The issue has added importance because the surveillance technologies developed by the United States to hunt for terrorists and drug traffickers can be also used by repressive regimes to hunt for political dissidents.

An F.B.I. spokesman said the bureau would not comment about the telecom proposal, citing the sensitivity of internal deliberations. But last month, in response to questions about the Internet communications services proposal, Valerie E. Caproni, the F.B.I.’s general counsel, emphasized that the government was seeking only to prevent its surveillance power from eroding.

Starting in late 2008 and lasting into 2009, another law enforcement official said, a “major” communications carrier was unable to carry out more than 100 court wiretap orders. The initial interruptions lasted eight months, the official said, and a second lapse lasted nine days.

This year, another major carrier experienced interruptions ranging from nine days to six weeks and was unable to comply with 14 wiretap orders. Its interception system “works sporadically and typically fails when the carrier makes any upgrade to its network,” the official said.

In both cases, the F.B.I. sent engineers to help the companies fix the problems. The bureau spends about $20 million a year on such efforts.

The official declined to name the companies, saying it would be unwise to advertise which networks have problems or to risk damaging the cooperative relationships the government has with them. For similar reasons, the government has not sought to penalize carriers over wiretapping problems.

Under current law, if a carrier meets the industry-set standard for compliance — providing the content of a call or e-mail, along with identifying information like its recipient, time and location — it achieves “safe harbor” and cannot be fined. If the company fails to meet the standard, it can be fined by a judge or the Federal Communication Commission.

But in practice, law enforcement officials say, neither option is ever invoked. When problems come to light, officials are reluctant to make formal complaints against companies because their overriding goal is to work with their technicians to fix the problem.

That dynamic can create an incentive to let problems linger: Once a carrier’s interception capability is restored — even if it was fixed at taxpayer expense — its service is compliant again with the 1994 law, so the issue is moot.

The F.C.C. also moves slowly, officials complain, in handling disputes over the “safe harbor” standard. For example, in 2007 the F.B.I. asked for more than a dozen changes, like adding a mandate to turn over additional details about cellphone locations. The F.C.C. has still not acted on that petition.

Civil liberties groups contend that the agency has been far too willing on other occasions to expand the reach of the 1994 law.

“We think that the F.C.C. has already conceded too much to the bureau,” said Marc Rotenberg, the president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “The F.B.I.’s ability to have such broad reach over technical standard-setting was never anticipated in the 1994 act.”

The Obama administration is circulating several ideas for legislation that would increase the government’s leverage over carriers, officials familiar with the deliberations say.

One proposal is to increase the likelihood that a firm pays a financial penalty over wiretapping lapses — like imposing retroactive fines after problems are fixed, or billing companies for the cost of government technicians that were brought in to help.

Another proposal would create an incentive for companies to show new systems to the F.B.I. before deployment. Under the plan, an agreement with the bureau certifying that the system is acceptable would be an alternative “safe harbor,” ensuring the firm could not be fined.

The proposal may also modify how the “safe harbor” standard is established. Five years ago, the F.B.I. drafted legislation that would have given the Justice Department greater power over the standard while requiring the F.C.C. to act more quickly on petitions. That bill, however, was not ultimately filed.

US (via Obama as well): The Dishonest Broker

US (via Obama as well): Dishonest Broker
 Obama’s man in Mideast is AIPAC associated Dennis Ross!

More on AIPAC Israel firster Dennis Ross

At least someone challenged Dennis Ross about his AIPAC (Israel first) association (see following youtube):

What Motivated the 9/11 Hijackers? See testimony most didn’t!

Ross talks Iran, Israel with AIPAC (Paul Findley & Mearsheimer/Walt validated yet again):

If Israel attacks Iran it would be disastrous for the US

If Israel attacks Iran it would be disastrous for the US

The Neocon plan: rattle the sword for Americans to hear so the US will give permission to Israel to bomb Iran

And the pro-Israel lobby (AIPAC & the neocons) will push Obama & Congress to ‘defend’ our ‘ally’ Israel from Iranian retaliation!