Years Of Deceit!

[Nur]

Years Of Deceit:

 

US Openly Accepts Bin Laden Long Dead

 

By Gordon Duff

 

Senior Editor

 

December 10, 2009 "Veterans Today" -- Conservative commentator, former Marine Colonel Bob Pappas has been saying for years that bin Laden died at Tora Bora and that Senator Kerry's claim that bin Laden escaped with Bush help was a lie. Now we know that Pappas was correct. The embarassment of having Secretary of State Clinton talk about bin Laden in Pakistan was horrific. He has been dead since December 13, 2001 and now, finally, everyone, Obama, McChrystal, Cheney, everyone who isn't nuts is finally saying what they have known for years.

 

However, since we lost a couple of hundred of our top special operations forces hunting for bin Laden after we knew he was dead, is someone going to answer for this with some jail time? Since we spent 200 million dollars on "special ops" looking for someone we knew was dead, who is going to jail for that? Since Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney continually talked about a man they knew was dead, now known to be for reasons of POLITICAL nature, who is going to jail for that? Why were tapes brought out, now known to be forged, as legitimate intelligence to sway the disputed 2004 election in the US? This is a criminal act if there ever was one.

 

In 66 pages, General Stanley McChrystal never mentions Osama bin Laden. Everything is "Mullah Omar"now. In his talk at West Point, President Obama never mentioned Osama bin Laden. Col. Pappas makes it clear, Vice President Cheney let it "out of the bag" long ago. Bin Laden was killed by American troops many many years ago.

 

America knew Osama bin Laden died December 13, 2001. After that, his use was hardly one to unite America but rather one to divide, scam and play games. With bin Laden gone, we could have started legitimate nation building in Afghanistan instead of the eternal insurgency that we invented ourselves.

 

Without our ill informed policies, we could have had a brought diplomatic solution in 2002 in Afghanistan, the one we are ignoring now, and spent money rebuilding the country, 5 cents on the dollar compared to what we are spending fighting a war against an enemy we ourselves recruited thru ignorance.

 

The bin Laden scam is one of the most shameful acts ever perpetrated against the American people. We don't even know if he really was an enemy, certainly he was never the person that Bush and Cheney said. In fact, the Bush and bin Laden families were always close friends and had been for many years.

 

What kind of man was Osama bin Laden? This one time American ally against Russia, son of a wealthy Saudi family, went to Afghanistan to help them fight for their freedom. America saw him as a great hero then. Transcripts of the real bin Laden show him to be much more moderate than we claim, angry at Israel and the US government but showing no anger toward Americans and never making the kind of theats claimed. All of this is public record for any with the will to learn.

 

Osama_Bush_captured How much of America's tragedy is tied with these two children of the rich, children of families long joined thru money and friendship, the Bush and bin Laden clans.

 

One son died in remote mountains, another lives in a Dallas suburb hoping nobody is sent after him. One is a combat veteran, one never took a strong stand unless done from safety and comfort. Islam once saw bin Laden as a great leader. Now he is mostly forgotten.

 

What has America decided about Bush?

 

We know this: Bin Laden always denied any ties to 9/11 and, in fact, has never been charged in relation to 9/11. He not only denied involvement, but had done so, while alive, 4 times and had vigorously condemned those who were involved in the attack.

 

This is on the public record, public in every free country except ours. We, instead, showed films made by paid actors, made up to look somewhat similar to bin Laden, actors who contradicted bin Ladens very public statements, actors pretending to be bin Laden long after bin Laden's death.

 

These were done to help justify spending, repressive laws, torture and simple thievery.

 

For years, we attacked the government of Pakistan for not hunting down someone everyone knew was dead. Bin Laden's death hit the newspapers in Pakistan on December 15, 2001. How do you think our ally felt when they were continually berated for failing to hunt down and turn over someone who didn't exist?

 

What do you think this did for American credibility in Pakistan and thru the Islamic world? Were we seen as criminals, liars or simply fools? Which one is best?

 

This is also treason.

 

How does the death of bin Laden and the defeat and dismemberment of Al Qaeda impact the intelligence assessments, partially based on, not only bin Laden but Al Qaeda activity in Iraq that,not only never happened but was now known to have been unable to happen?

 

How many "Pentagon Pundits," the retired officers who sold their honor to send us to war for what is now known to be domestic political dirty tricks and not national security are culpable in these crimes?

 

I don't always agree with Col. Pappas on things. I believe his politics overrule his judgement at times. However, we totally agree on bin Laden, simply disagree with what it means. To me lying and sending men to their deaths based on lies is treason.

 

Falsifying military intelligence and spending billions on unnecessary military operations for political reasons is an abomination. Consider this, giving billions in contracts to GOP friends who fill campaign coffers, and doing so based on falsified intelligence is insane. This was done for years.

 

We spent 8 years chasing a dead man, spending billions, sending FBI agents, the CIA, Navy Seals, Marine Force Recon, Special Forces, many to their deaths, as part of a political campaign to justify running American into debt, enriching a pack of political cronies and war profiteers and to puff up a pack of Pentagon peacocks and their Whitehouse draft dodging bosses.

 

How many laws were pushed thru because of a dead man?

 

How many hundreds were tortured to find a dead man?

 

How many hundreds died looking for a dead man?

 

How many billions were spent looking for a dead man?

 

Every time Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld stood before troops and talked about hunting down the dead bin Laden, it was a dishonor. Lying to men and women who put their lives on the line is not a joke.duffster

 

Who is going to answer to the families of those who died for the politics and profit tied to the Hunt for Bin Laden?

 

Veterans Today Senior Editor Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran and regular contributor on political and social issues.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4ynybVuwXQ

 

 

Emails Show bin Laden was Bush Talking Point, not Target

 

Millions of Messages Sent, but Only Handful Mention Al Qaeda Leader

 

 

By Margie Burns

 

“Missing” White House emails retrieved from Bush administration records indicate that top Bush Justice Department officials had little interest in the pursuit of Osama bin Laden or Mullah Mohammed Omar, head of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

 

Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), prolonged correspondence has pursued “missing” emails between the Bush White House and Bush’s attorney general, deputy attorney general, associate attorney general, Office of Public Affairs, Office of Legal Counsel and Office of the Inspector General, in the Justice Department.

 

After a lengthy search, President Obama’s Office of Information Policy, which handles FOIA requests, found emails pertaining to Osama bin Laden or to Mullah Omar only in Attorney General and Office of Public Affairs records from the Bush administration. Alberto Gonzales, previously Bush’s White House counsel and then Attorney General, did not use email.

 

White House emails from the Bush years, often reported as missing, numbered in the millions. Thousands of emails were sent between the Bush White House and top Justice Department officials, through both government email accounts and private accounts including the Republican National Committee.

 

FOIA inquiries have produced two emails, totaling four pages, between the White House and Justice under the former administration relating to Mullah Mohammed Omar.

 

The FOIA requests produced 26 emails, totaling 119 pages, relating to Osama bin Laden.

 

The first internal reference to Mullah Omar, according to email records, occurred Dec. 7, 2001. White House staffer Edward Ingle forwarded a series of talking points titled “Meet Mullah Omar” from Deputy National Security Adviser James R. Wilkinson to a distribution list of several dozen government personnel in Cabinet offices and the Pentagon including Paul Wolfowitz. Omar has continued to evade capture and is believed to be living in neighboring Pakistan. There is no reference in the emails to Omar dating from the period when he was evading US forces. The next, and only other, mention of Omar’s name was an incidental reference in a Sept. 23, 2004, New York Times article on Afghanistan forwarded the same day by White House staffers.

 

The 26 emails that mention Osama bin Laden in correspondence between the Bush White House and Justice Department break down as follows:

 

There were seven email references to Osama bin Laden in 2001. Five occurred in press releases from White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer forwarded by Ingle — one Executive Order, two transcripts of press briefings and two sets of talking points — dating from Sept. 24 to Dec. 17, 2001. Kenneth B. Mehlman, then in the Executive Office Building and later chairman of the Republican National Committee, sent around a copy of Bush’s address to the Joint Session of Congress Sept. 21, 2001, in which Bush briefly mentioned “a person named Osama bin Laden.” The other mention of bin Laden in 2001 comes in an Oct. 15 St. Louis Post-Dispatch article about John Ashcroft and terrorism, forwarded by David Israelite.

 

One email reference to bin Laden occurred in 2002, also forwarded by David Israelite. Under the heading “Do you remember?,” Israelite distributed to colleagues, including Barbara Comstock, a description of a purported 1987 video clip saying that Oliver North warned Congress about Osama bin Laden in the Iran-Contra hearings but was shut off by then-Sen. Al Gore. This claim had already been debunked by North himself (see www.snopes.com). Comstock went on to chair Scooter Libby’s defense fund in 2007 and in 2008 ran for Congress from Virginia.

 

There were three email references to bin Laden in 2003 — a press briefing, a forwarded newspaper article, and a December statement from Director of Public Affairs Mark Corallo criticizing a Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse study.

 

Fifteen emails mentioned bin Laden in 2004. Some were in response to criticism of the White House after disclosure of the famous Aug. 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Briefing, “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” All email references are forwarded press briefings and other press releases, forwarded newspaper articles, or talking points related to bin Laden.

 

The Department of Justice represents the US government in enforcing the law in the public interest. According to the official definition of responsibilities printed under a photograph of then Attorney General Ashcroft, “Through its thousands of lawyers, investigators, and agents, the Department plays the key role in protection against criminals and subversion ... It represents the government in legal matters generally, rendering legal advice and opinions, upon request, to the President and to the heads of the executive departments. The Attorney General supervises and directs these activities, as well as those of the U.S. attorneys and U.S. marshals in the various judicial districts around the country.”

 

Either top Justice Department personnel under the previous administration were not a set of bloodhounds, or documents have been suppressed. The email archives contain no indication that inside circles in the Bush White House and DOJ were paying attention to capturing Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar. Mentions of bin Laden and Omar come strictly in the context of public relations.

 

There are no records of emails to or from Alberto Gonzales, presumably because he did not have an email account.

 

Email records searched under FOIA include those of previous Attorney General Ashcroft; Michael Chertoff, previously assistant attorney general in the Criminal Division and later secretary of Homeland Security; former Deputy Attorney General James Comey; former Deputy Attorney Paul McNulty; Philip J. Perry, acting associate attorney general and son-in-law of Vice President Dick Cheney; former Associate Attorney General Jay B. Stephens; and David Ayres, Ashcroft’s chief of staff.

 

After leaving Justice, Ayres co-founded The Ashcroft Group. His corporate biography describes Ayres thus:

 

“After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, Mr. Ayres managed the Department’s crisis operations and restructuring of the FBI to focus on preventing terrorist attacks. As the Attorney General’s principal counter-terrorism advisor, Mr. Ayres oversaw numerous counter-terrorism operations, program reorganizations and policy reforms to prevent additional terrorist attacks.”

 

Many persons in the Department of Justice and the executive offices of the White House had responsibilities in the “war on terror,” at least according to public pronouncements. Given all the public emphasis on “information sharing” and cooperation among law enforcement and security entities, and the speechifying against a purported “wall” between domestic and foreign information gathering, one would think there would have been extensive correspondence about bin Laden and Omar among others.

 

Again, either there was such extensive correspondence, and it is being suppressed; or there was no such interest in bin Laden at the highest levels of government, meaning that indeed the previous administration viewed bin Laden chiefly as a public relations tool.

 

What did they know about bin Laden that they did not share with the public? Were they confident, for undisclosed reasons, that he posed no threat? Why are there no expressions of concern about his whereabouts?

 

With this plate handed to him, it is a wonder that President Obama’s hair has not turned white already.

 

Margie Burns is a Texas native who now writes from Washington, D.C. Email margie.burns@verizon.net. See her blog at "">www.margieburns.com[/i]

[Nur]

Ha'aretz says U.S. officials face 'pro-Israel' background check

 

By Stephen M. Walt

 

December 09, 2009 "FP" Dec. 02, 2009 -- There is an amazing story in Ha'aretz today on the "pro-Israel" litmus test that determines who is permitted to serve in the United States government. Here's the sort of lede you're not likely to read in the New York Times or Washington Post:

 

Every appointee to the American government must endure a thorough background check by the American Jewish community.

 

In the case of Obama's government in particular, every criticism against Israel made by a potential government appointee has become a catalyst for debate about whether appointing "another leftist" offers proof that Obama does not truly support Israel."

 

The story goes on to rehearse what happened to Chas Freeman (whose appointment was derailed by the Israel lobby because he voiced a few mild criticisms of Israel's behavior) and reports that similar complaints are now being raised against the appointment of former Senator Chuck Hagel. Even more bizarrely, the Zionist Organization of America and other rightwing Jewish groups are complaining about the appointment of Hannah Rosenthal to direct the Office to Combat and Monitor Anti-Semitism. Why? Apparently she's been involved with J Street and other "leftwing" organizations that ZOA et al deem insufficiently ardent in their support for the Jewish state, and has suggested that progressive forces need to be more vocal in advancing the peace process.

 

One has to feel a certain sympathy for Ms. Rosenthal, who is forced to defend her own appointment by telling an interviewer:

 

I love Israel. I have lived in Israel. I go back and visit every chance I can. I consider it part of my heart. And because I love it so much, I want to see it safe and secure and free and democratic and living safely."

 

These are fine sentiments, but isn't it odd that she has to defend her qualifications for a position in the U.S. government by saying how much she "loves" a foreign country? For an American official in her position, what matters is that she loves America, and that she believes anti-semitism is a hateful philosophy that should be opposed vigorously. Whether she loves Israel or France or Thailand or Namibia, etc., is irrelevant. (And yes, it's entirely possible to loathe anti-Semitism and not love Israel).

 

But the real lesson of all these episodes is the effect of this litmus test on the foreign policy community more broadly. Groups in the lobby target public servants like Freeman, Hagel, and Rosenthal because they want to make sure that no one with even a mildly independent view on Middle East affairs gets appointed. By making an example of them, they seek to discourage independent-minded people from expressing their views openly, lest doing so derail their own career prospects later on. And it works. Even if the lobby doesn't manage to block every single appointment, they can make any administration think twice about a potentially "controversial" choice and use the threat to stifle open discourse among virtually all members of the mainstream foreign policy community (and certainly anyone who aspires to public service in Washington).

 

The result, of course, is the U.S. Middle East policy (and U.S. foreign policy more generally) is reserved for those who are either steadfastly devoted to the "special relationship" or who have been intimidated into silence. The result? U.S. policy remains in the hands of the same set of "experts" whose policies for the past seventeen years (or more) have been a steady recipe for failure. If a few more Americans read Ha'aretz, they might start to figure this out.

 

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University.

[Nur]

Iraqi cab driver was source for Iraq WMD claim, British MP says

 

By John Byrne

 

December 08, 2009 "Raw Story' -- A British parliamentarian claimed in an report published Tuesday that an Iraqi cab driver was the source of an infamous claim made by Prime Minister Tony Blair that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

 

The member of Parliament, a member of the conservative British Tory Party, claims that he was told by a British intelligence official that the claim actually came from an Iraqi taxi driver, and that it was considered highly unreliable but was tacitly backed by Blair's government in public statements anyway.

 

According to the report, the taxi driver worked near Iraq's border with Jordan. The cab driver is said to have made the comments while transporting two British intelligence officers.

 

"Under pressure from Downing Street to find anything to back up the WMD case, [british intelligence services] were squeezing their agents in Iraq for anything at all," MP Adam Holloway wrote in his report, leaked to the British Daily Mail. "One agent did come up with something - the [claim that chemical weapons could be launched on British forces in Cyprus in] '45 minutes,' allegedly discussed in a high-level Iraqi political meeting."

 

British intelligence officers "were running a senior Iraqi army officer who had a source of his own, a cab driver on the Iraqi-Jordanian border. He apparently overheard two Iraqi army officers two years before who had spoken about weapons with the range to hit targets elsewhere in the Middle East."

 

But in a "footnote to their report," sent to Blair, "it flagged up that part of the report describing some missiles that the Iraqi government allegedly possessed was demonstrably untrue. The missiles verifiably did not exist.

 

"The footnote said it in black and white," Holloway continued. "Despite this the report was treated as reliable and went on to become one of the central planks of the dodgy dossier."

 

Former British intelligence chief John Scarlett will face an inquiry from an investigatory committee Tuesday, where he will likely be asked questions about Holloway's report.

 

The Guardian noted Tuesday that the original intelligence dossier cited by the Blair government didn't specifically say that Hussein had chemical weapons; officials later acknowledged that it was intended to refer to conventional weapons

 

"But, when it was published, some British papers interpreted the dossier as meaning that British troops based in Cyprus would be vulnerable to an Iraqi attack," the paper said. "At the time the government did not do anything to correct this error."

[Nur]

An eNuri Satire ( 2003 Editions )

 

 

Breaking News from: East Leigh, Nairobi.

 

 

SADDAM CAPTURED.

 

 

An urgent Letter from Somali Anarchists.

 

 

Dear President Bush.

 

 

Congratulations for capturing Santa Claus who was hiding in Iraq all these months disguising himself as Saddamn Hussein.

 

In this ( Fadhi Ku Dirir) Armchair Generals coffee shop in Nairobi, most of the anarchists watching the CNN and NBCMSN networks with me were stunned, of how skillfully you caught SANTA in Baghdad while he actually lived in the North Pole where a sizable Somali Community lives herding Reindeer for Santa near Helsinki, Finland. For the first time in history, Americans will enjoy a dark skinned Santa SADDAM being pulled in a camels chariot, giving away free oil to the American people.

 

World anarchy wouldn't have been complete without this stunt of yours that you've pulled just before Christmas, a Christmas with Santa SADDAM bringing all the goodies to conservative American homes on Christmas eve would be a picture perfect holiday, and according to the (AIDDEED) Agency for the International Dissemination of Deception of Euphoric Euthanasia Democracy, the person captured was indeed a Sad Damn guy who was caught seven months ago and kept in the north pole with Santa Clause as a room mate, so that your presidential prayers can be accepted at will, HO HO HO, ( pronounced as OIL, OIL, OIL,) SADDAM coming out of your Texas ranch chimney delivering happiness to the Bush Clan, giving a new meaning to the famous story of Bushladin and the forty Baghdad thieves.

 

The American Professional Liars Association has even confirmed that, Bushladen, I meant Bin Laden, is also at the North Pole, waiting to be released next thanksgiving just in time for the November elections in a similar ceremony in which he is expected to renounce terrorism as a means of opposing freedom by eating in public a McDonald's Big Mac Burger and washing it down with the real thing, Coca Cola, after which he will be appointed to be the new CEO of Halliburton in Iraq for a jubilant Iraqi crowd. Halliburton, Coca Cola and Big Mac being cornerstones of American values, which makes the Somali Anarchists worry and shiver for their safety as America is running out of artificial enemies.

 

But as we have previously offered, we Somali anarchists are very supportive of world chaos, so the more chaos that you can plan and execute, the longer we can operate in east Africa, what are friends for if they are not covering for each other?

 

Dear President Bush, We also want you to know that the Somali Anarchists prayed with you for Santa to come to your home in your Texas ranch, to deliver Saddamn , " Mamma, all I want is Saddam for Chrismas, please..." was your Christmas wish to Mrs. Barbara, and " I just want to pull SADDAMS mustaches and not get hurt" being your last wish. Now you can do it from the comfort of your living room, thanks to the remote controlled mustache puller and shaver developed by NASA to civilize world leaders who have too much facial hair and little understanding of Democracy.

 

But your mom , who agreed to pray for your wish if you behaved like a good Baptist kid for one year, is happy that you deserve this present since you have been a good christian boy this past year by turning your other cheek when the Japanese threatened trade war spear headed by the sushi embargo, if you did not allow their cheap steel to be sold in America thereby threatening the already fragile American Government subsidized steel industry.

 

 

Waddayaknow, you get two blessings for the price of one prayer, Santa dressed as Saddaamn. Anyway, we the Somali Anarchists would like to pay for his costs from the Khat revenues if you would allow him to set up the International University of Anarchy in Somalia with the honorary chairmanship of Coffe Anan, the Deanship of Condi Rice and the Presidency of Powell, three black people who are helping anarchy in our world and proving the notion the Republicans always held that if you let black people rule the world, with the help of a Texan Cowboy, that you would have an ideal anarchist world, our common goal which is progressing just fine.

 

Wishing you a happy Christmas, save some Turkey for Saddamn.

 

 

Cag Biciid

 

For Unregulated World Without a Government.

 

2003 Nurtel Network News

No Noose is a good news