Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Surprise. Surprise. Neocon Secretary of Defense under G.W. Bush Donald Rumsfeld says Obama hasn't made a case for U.S. military strikes on Syria. Ironically, Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense who masterminded the US invasion of Iraq based on false intelligence. 

Fox published first and all subsequent reports thus far seem to be cribbing quotes from Fox. More critical analysis will probably follow once reporters get their hands on the book. It's scheduled for publication on November 10. Bush 41 or his biographer definitely knows how to sell books. On the phrase he used to describe Lynne Cheney, "eminence grise," see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminence_grise  (note that "grise" is the French feminine singular form of "gris", https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grise ), meaning "grey." The blaming of his son's principle handlers for his son's failings as a leader makes me wonder why Bush 41 did not tell Bush43 to cool his jets when the latter first got interested in running for public office. Bush 41 had to know that Bush 43 lacked the intelligence to make wise, independent decisions. 

On August 31st, 2013, Kevin Ryan appeared on Coast to Coast (http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2013/08/31) for a four hour interview that is available on request. Amazing interview! The long-time co-editor of the Journal of 9/11, Kevin Ryan, offered an evidence-based analysis of other potential suspects responsible for the September 11th attacks in 2001. A former employee of Underwriters Laboratories (UL), Ryan pointed out that the World Trade Center (WTC) was designed to withstand the impact of airliners and the steel used in the buildings was certified by UL to tolerate several hours of intense fire. The steel was tested at 2000 degrees F and a typical office fire burns at 1200 degrees F, he explained, noting that the temperatures measured at the WTC were much lower, around 500 degrees F. This presents a glaring problem since one of the towers was completely destroyed in only 56 minutes, Ryan added. The UL repeated its tests after the disaster and determined the steel columns and floor structures should not have failed, he revealed. A proponent of controlled-demolition theory, Ryan stated definitively that "the evidence really points to the buildings having been destroyed through the use of explosives." Many witnesses reported explosions and flashes of light, he said. Ryan questioned the official government story that 19 young Arab Muslims led by Osama bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed executed this unbelievable attack, observing that such a feat could not have been accomplished by these men as they had no access to plant explosives. Ryan identified former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former Vice President Dick Cheney as "the two people who were in perfect position to coordinate the attacks of 9/11." Rumsfeld went missing for more than 30 minutes during the height of the attacks and Cheney gave a stand-down order as a plane approached the Pentagon, he reported. Ryan credited Rumsfeld and Cheney with the false conclusions that led to the Iraq

Be sure to catch the free on-line documentary, "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor", where director Massimo Mazzucco presents five hours of interviews and evidence comparing the 9-11 events to Pearl Harbor. Massimo confirms the findings of the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth; that this was a controlled demolition. He then goes on to name the inside players responsible, and why they did it. Lots of discussion about the 1997 Cheney-Rumsfeld white paper, "The New American Century". The documentary (3 DVD's) is at: http://goo.gl/EIie3d

Don't count on any part being made public that is embarrassing to elected officials or their political appointees other than Donald Rumsfeld, whose approval of the torture by the Defense Department is in a doc he signed that has already been made public. But Rumsfeld had no jurisdiction over the CIA. Containment of the damage will undoubtedly be the guiding light.

"UN Agenda 21/Sustainable Development is implemented worldwide to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all information, and all human beings in the world.   INVENTORY AND CONTROL. Have you wondered where these terms 'sustainability' and 'smart growth' and 'high density urban mixed use development' came from?  Doesn't it seem like about 10 years ago you'd never heard of them and now everything seems to include these concepts?  Is that just a coincidence?  That every town and county and state and nation in the world would be changing their land use/planning codes and government policies to align themselves with...what? First, before I get going, I want to say that yes, I know it's a small world and it takes a village and we're all one planet etc.  I also know that we have a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and that as cumbersome as that can be sometimes (Donald Rumsfeld said that the Chinese have it easy; they don't have to ask their people if they agree.  And Bush Junior said that it would be great to have a dictator as long as he was the dictator), we have a three branch government and the Bill of Rights, Constitution, and self-determination.  This is one of the reasons why people want to come to the US, right?  We don't have Tiananmen Square here, generally speaking (yes, I remember Kent State--not the same, and yes, an outrage.) So I'm not against making certain issues a priority, such as mindful energy use, alternative energy sponsorship, recycling/reuse, and sensitivity to all living creatures. But then you have UN Agenda 21.  What is it?  See our videos and radio shows at the bottom of this page (or search YouTube for Rosa Koire) or buy BEHIND THE GREEN MASK: U.N. Agenda 21 by Rosa Koire click here"

The Sherman Act forbids conspiracies in restraint of trade and is at its zenith in price-fixing cases. This looks to be the mother of all price-fixing cases, to say the least.   

Wow, Marbux has it right.  This report from the legendary Greg Palast of the BBC News Network is a stunning reversal of what everyone believed to be the truth.  To wit, the militarist and global strategist - resource control hungry neocon contingent of the Repubican party was always thought to be behind the Iraqi war.  For control of cheap, plentiful oil and, the protection / destruction of Israel's enemies.   Funny, but it turns out America was fighting for higher oil prices and limited supplies.  Just as in the first Gulf War, Americans were fighting to protect Saudi and big oil profits. excerpt: Big Oil could not allow Iraq's oil fields to be privatised and taken from state control. That would make it impossible to keep Iraq within OPEC (an avowed goal of the neo-cons) as the state could no longer limit production in accordance with the cartel's quota system. The US oil industry was using its full political mojo to prevent their being handed ownership of Iraq's oil fields. That's right: The oil companies didn't want to own the oil fields - and they sure as hell didn't want the oil. Just the opposite. They wanted to make sure there would be a limit on the amount of oil that would come out of Iraq. Saddam wasn't trying to stop the flow of oil - he was trying to sell more. The price of oil had been boosted 300 percent by sanctions and an embargo cutting Iraq's sales to two million barrels a day from four. With Saddam gone, the only way to keep the damn oil in the ground was to leave it locked up inside the busted state oil company which would remain under OPEC (i.e. Saudi) quotas. The James Baker Institute quickly and secretly started in on drafting the 323-page plan for the State Department. With authority granted from the top (i.e. Dick Cheney), ex-Shell Oil USA CEO Phil Carroll was rushed to Baghdad in May 2003 to take charge of Iraq's oil. He told Bremer, "There will be no privatisation of oil - END OF STATEMENT." Carroll then passed off control

While the charge that Obama and other administration officials committed crimes under the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court might seem odd because the U.S. never acceded to that treaty or to the jurisdiction of the ICC, the statute applies to those who commit war crimes within the jurisdictions of nations that have acceded to the treaty and to their superiors who either knew of should have known that such crimes would be committed and did not act to prevent them.  Pakistan  and Yemen have acceded to the treaty. The Rome treaty requires the arrest of those classified as war criminals under that treaty if they set foot in any nation that has acceded to the treaty. So just as Bush administration figures have done, Obama and crew will need to restrict where they travel after he leaves office.

The linked article should have mentioned that it was a mock tribunal, without legal authority or powers.

Stunning guest post at Zero Hedge that attempts to explain it all - Why things happen and who is behind the curtain pulling the strings.  And what are they trying to do?  Excellent piece exposing the Globalists and how they work.  The question of why war and debt is so important to the Globalist one world - new world order viewpoint is also explained. excerpt: "In our modern world there exist certain institutions of power.  Not government committees, alphabet agencies, corporate lobbies, or even standard military organizations; no, these are the mere "middle-men" of power.  The errand boys.  The well paid hitmen of the global mafia.  They are not the strategists or the decision makers.  Instead, I speak of institutions which introduce the newest paradigms.  Who write the propaganda.  Who issue the orders from on high.  I speak of the hubs of elitism which have initiated nearly every policy mechanism of our government for the past several decades.  I am talking about the Council On Foreign Relations, the Tavistock Institute, the Heritage Foundation (a socialist organization posing as conservative), the Bilderberg Group, as well as the corporate foils that they use to enact globalization, such as Monsanto, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, the Carlyle Group, etc. Many of these organizations and corporations operate a revolving door within the U.S. government.  Monsanto has champions, like Donald Rumsfeld who was on the board of directors of its Searle Pharmaceuticals branch, who later went on to help the company force numerous dangerous products including Aspartame through the FDA.  Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan have a veritable merry-go-round of corrupt banking agents which are appointed to important White House and Treasury positions on a regular basis REGARDLESS of which party happens to be in office.  Most prominent politicians are all members of the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization which has openly admitted on multiple occasions that thei

If you follow the link to the Wall St. Journal/MCNBC poll results, you'll see that while the Syrian intervention got a bump in the polls from the publicity blitzkrieg waged by the Administration, the public is still more opposed than in favor of the action. Other poll results are even more troubling for the Administration, with a very muscular disapproval of Obama's handling of the Syria situation and even a drop in his favorability rating.  But the hearing today before the House Foreign Affairs Committee was a real fiasco, even though it's not over yet as of this writing. Kerry, Hagel, and Gen. Dempsey are having a much rougher ride than they did in the Senate committee. Their justifications for the Syrian strike are strictly looney-tunes. Example, Kerry's faux-impassioned argument that the planned military strike is not war, reminiscent of the Administration arguments when Obama launched his regime-change mission against Libya. Not war because no casualties on our side anticipated. As though in both Libya and Syria, no act of war were involved. Dempsey, to his credit, said as he has said before that it would be an act of war.  I turned off the TV because of boredom. But my sense is that if this stopped, it will be stopped in the House. 

So the Obama Administration is looking for a new professional liar to head the NSA. 

Nothing new here. Remember when Donald Rumsfeld announced the day before 9-11 that the Pentagon could not account for $2.3 trillion? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj1rT4bszWg It was the same way in Viet Nam. During my entire 27 months there, we could not be issued socks. We had to write home to ask family or friends to buy socks and send them to us. They could buy them at military surplus stores in the U.S., regulation Army field socks with cushion soles, but we couldn't get them from the Army. "An army travels on its feet," but no socks. Socks were not the only supply chain failures, of course. If you can't manage to get socks to your soldiers because they've been declared surplus, maybe you'd have problems accounting for expenditures too, ya' think? 

This article was sent to me marked URGENT: MUST READ.  Usually that's a hint to delete.  This time however the message was true.  Nicely written article presenting in a historical context three possible futures for the world.   And, a basic plan for anyone trying to guess which future will land on our heads.  Excellent read.  Well written too. excerpt: There is a great deal of uncertainty among investors about what the future of the U.S. economy may look like - so I decided to take a stab at what's likely to happen over the next 20 years. That's enough time for a child to grow up and mature, and it's long enough for major trends to develop and make themselves felt. I'll confine myself to areas that are, as the benighted Rumsfeld might have observed, "known unknowns." I don't want to deal with possibilities of the deus ex machina sort. So we'll rule out natural events like a super-volcano eruption, an asteroid strike, a new ice age, global warming, and the like. Although all these things absolutely will occur sometime in the future, the timing is very uncertain - at least from the perspective of one human lifespan. It's pointless dealing with geological time and astronomical probability here. And, more important, there's absolutely nothing we can do about such things. So let's limit ourselves to the possibilities presented by human action. They're plenty weird and scary, and unpredictable enough.............

Remember September 10, 2001? That's the day that Donald Rumsfeld announced that the Pentagon couldn't account for $2.3 trillion in spending. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU The accountability situation hasn't changed. Ignoring the sequestration limits simply compounds the DoD's impunity for the law. 

The ICC has jurisdiction because Afghanistan is a member of the Rome Statute that governs the ICC. It will be interesting to see if the ICC has the guts to prosecute high U.S. officials. (By law, the ICC is required to go for the highest ranking members of government who had responsibility. 'Twould be justice to see Bush 43, Cheney, and Rumsfeld in the dock. 

I did not bookmark the news about this tribunal's decision last year because I mistakenly assumed that it was a mock trial, that it had no legal force.  But in this interview with renowned international law professor Francis Boyle, who served as co-prosecutor, I learned that the trial was legally constituted, and that international law requires other nations to either extradite Bush and his top officials or independently try them for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Note that Boyle gives Obama no points either, calling for his impeachment and prosecution. So we might look forward to a similar prosecution of Obama and his top officials after he leaves office.