James Risen Might Be Imprisoned for Fighting for Our Constitutional Rights vs. The NSA

60 Minutes interviews both sides and parties of this historic Constitutional controversy of the NSA's surveillance--under the plea of necessity by the Bush administration and continued by Obama--of free Americans for the war on terrorism.

Instead of prosecution by the government, as this WAR ON LEAKS story reveals, James Risen deserves a Medal of Freedom (contrary to giving one to former CIA director George Tenet who supported the lie of WMD) for fighting to preserve our freedoms from the tyranny of government.

Libyan Embassy Attack: A Case of Classic "Blowback" from Interventionist Foreign Policy

In this video commentary from a regional Fox station below the journalist proves very well that the tragic attack and killing of the U.S. Embassy Ambassador in Libya is a classic case of what the CIA calls "blow-back" (i.e. unintended consequences of foreign interventions).  It could also be called the short-sightedness of an interventionist foreign policy.

In other words, the vehement protests and even more serious and deadly attacks being televised by all news agencies are the direct result of bad short term thinking and foreign policy decisions--i.e. meddling in the Middle East, picking winners and losers, in attempt to further "democracy" by revolutions, propping up Arab Spring uprisings and recently overthrowing Gaddafi in Libya in particular by the U.S. and NATO. 

Please note as well, that as during Arab Spring, and sanctions and threatenings against Iran by the U.S. and Israel, tumult in the Middle East (now in the embassy protests and attack) always directly increases oil prices (as traded in the markets, see live chart in upper corner of blog), immediately increasing the gas and fuel prices for all Americans, which immediately causes inflation on all consumers goods.  So yes, foreign policy again directly impacts our domestic tranquility, and lack of it, through its indirect impact upon the economy.  It is a law and maxim that what goes around, indeed, comes back around.  When will Americans learn this connection collectively and demand a change from interventionist foreign policy, particularly in regard to the Middle East?  It is impossible to separate Economic Issues from those of Foreign Policy and "Defense Spending" (as both Obama and Romney as presidential candidates do) as sure as it is to ignore it in regard to the National Debt as well.  (See our earlier articles about Middle East foreign policy and oil prices).

It's time to stop government spending of tax payer's money (increasing the National Debt) on what is called "foreign aid" (as if it's done out of charity instead of manipulation) to all foreign countries (yes, including Israel too) or propping up foreign governments, or helping to destroy others through 'Defense' Spending.  Please note that Al Qaeda began as a CIA supported network to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan!  It's also time for both republicans and democrats to see how tumultuous "democracy" really is in its raw militant form (i.e. mob law), and reject it as a utopian political model, as both James Madison and philosophers as far back as Plato (see quote from Plato's Republic in margin of blog), warned about.  (Hint:  A Muslim form of Democracy is now forming in the Middle East.  How do you like it now?)  There are no checks and balances (as with a Republic) in pure Democracies, which always depend upon coercion and violence to "liberate" some while enslaving others, whether by the majority or the militant minority.  The result is the typical factions we see in the Middle East forming and the violent consequences of such power-struggles.


FOX19.com-Cincinnati News, Weather

Obama's Liberal Drone Wars: The Real Reason Behind U.S. Embassy Protests, Attacks?

As this article puts it:

What's behind anti-US protests in Yemen?

One thing seems clear: it probably isn't a YouTube video that has protestors in Yemen so angry....Frustration with the US has been building up for some time now, and probably has very little to do with the film controversy. They're incredibly angry with the US over civilian deaths in drone strikes and how the State Department handled the uprising, supporting a settlement that granted former president Ali Abdullah Saleh immunity from prosecution.

 This video from Newsy puts the Obama administration's drone strikes in perspective, even as compared to those of former President Bush.

Spooky iSpy: Feds Defiantly Expanding 'Big Brother' Surveillance on Americans

The Federal power grab continues now under Obama as much as it did under Bush.  Now we did not expect any "change" for the better.  Obama has only tried to add the Nanny State to Bush's Security State, neither of which is Constitutional government.  (And the prospects for the next Presidential election are no better).  It is apparent that the Feds have found a way to circumvent the fact that Congress banned them from setting up their "Total Information Awareness" program, previously attempted under DARPA.  Under the plea of "necessity", for "counter-terrorism" purposes of course, they are resurrecting total electronic surveillance on American emails and phone calls, clearly unlawful per the 4th amendment of the Constitution.

During the Bush administration it was already proven that both AT&T and Verizon had setup a secret system for the same purpose contracted through (guess who) two Israeli companies that would tap and sort all phone data (including hi speed internet) from Americans, per this video interview (with the same author/source of the article below, James Bamford) here:




Note one of the former NSA informants in the article says its like a "turnkey totalitarianism state" being setup, very similar to the word we used to describe the NDAA 2012 act in the previous post.  Exactly!  All this while the government says it's "defending freedom" by these measures to "fight terrorism" since 9/11. 

‘Total Information Awareness’ surveillance program returns, bigger than ever | The Raw Story

 According to Bamford, the NSA’s new data center in Utah will be the most all-encompassing spy machine ever conceived, capable of breaking almost any encryption, reading any email and recording any phone call anywhere in the world, even if it’s not made over the Internet. A network of ultra-sensitive satellites enhance the center’s intelligence-finding capabilities with the unique ability to sniff electronic communications from a massive distance.

More troubling still, Bamford’s three covert sources who worked for the NSA reportedly claim that the agency is dumping Americans’ communications into the mix, knowingly violating the U.S. Constitution in pursuit of a modern-day Manhattan Project.

When Congress struck down the Pentagon’s “Total Information Awareness” program, they did, however, authorize funding for ”processing, analysis, and collaboration tools for counter terrorism foreign intelligence,” which is precisely how the NSA describes this data center.

 ...In these latest revelations, one of Bamford’s covert sources claims that the NSA is on the verge of a massive coup, putting the U.S. inches away from “a turnkey totalitarian state.”

 The full article is worth reading.  Then watch this quick video where Judge Napolitano (who knows the law and the Constitution) takes the NSA and government to task about a their new online surveillance system called "Perfect Citizen".

FOX: Two Eye-Witnesses of "Christmas Bomber" Claim Gov't Agents Enabled Event

Ever since the "Underwear Christmas Bomber" story broke numerous questions came up about just how this very odd individual could have boarded the plane without a passport, how such an innocuous "bomb" could possibly have been successfully detonated, and who really was behind it when this young man is very apparently unintelligent and inept.  But since then Michael Chertoff (former head of Homeland Tyranny, aka Security) has profited much by pushing his company's new and controversial airport body scanners into use by TSA while the very unconstitutional Dept of Homeland Security has continued to expand and the PATRIOT ACT (which violates the 4th amendment for every American) has been extended, and the "war on terrorism" (i.e. Operation "Regime Change" in the Middle East with Israel) has continued under President Obama. 

A local FOX news Detroit station has been following the story closely and especially that two eye-witnesses, Kurt and Lori Haskell (married), and both attorneys, saw the man, and insist that he was given special assistance, and an impotent bomb device, deliberately, by U.S. intelligence agents (perhaps as a drill) that ended up being used for propaganda!  The FBI has no comment.

Attempted Plane Attack: Trial Date Set for Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab: MyFoxDETROIT.com

Rep. Ron Paul on Wiki Leaks: "Which is More Dangerous, WikiLeaks or Government Lies for War"?

Republican Representative and former candidate for U.S. President Ron Paul speaks before Congress regarding what he calls the "hysterical over-reaction" to WikiLeaks and reminds everyone that 1) Julian Assange stole nothing, 2) as an Australian he cannot be guilty of treason, 3) its direct parallel to the Pentagon Papers during Viet Nam (published by the New York Times, similar to WikiLeaks today) and the high court cleared the NY Times of any guilt, along with those involved.

He then focuses on the real issue, that WikiLeaks threatens government propaganda for unjust wars upon false pretenses (e.g. like Iraq) and the global (and "neocon") agenda for Empire which spreads lies to justify its course and contain its criticisms and embarrassments.

Freedom of the press has now just moved to the internet and the publishing of "leaks" from "confidential sources" is as old as the New York Times (e.g. Pentagon Papers) and Washington Post (e.g. Water-Gate).

FOX News Does 9/11 Interview About Building 7 Controlled Demolition--3rd Party Candidates Vindicated

Watch this!  Geraldo Rivera in this FOX segment admits the recent ad campaign (during election week in November) in New York City changed his mind, i.e. that there is a compelling case of controlled demolition in the collapse of the 3rd tower!  His interview is with a 9/11 family member and an architectural engineer (among 1, 200 others) who have staked their professional reputations on the line by affirming this position.

Locally in West Virginia, gubernatorial candidates Jesse Johnson (Mountain Party) and Jeff Becker (Constitution Party) have recently publicly stated their own belief that this position is viable, and took heat from the media (which criticism very prejudicially focused more on Becker, less on Johnson).  Their position is vindicated in this FOX Geraldo Rivera segment.

Big Government's Big Secret: The Homeland Security-Industrial Complex

Most everyone, especially among conservatives, have been complaining vehemently about Big Government with just cause.  However, even with the newly elected West Virginia GOP chairman, Mike Stuart, who claims to be a part of the very undefined "tea party" movement, we have heard no willingness to touch the great Leviathan in government that dwarfs the rest of government spending.  That untouchable part would be what is termed "National Defense" (which largely funds Offensive wars for democracy), which has since that "catalyzing event", Sept. 11th, with bipartisan flag-waving support, added a new fraternal twin domestically called Homeland Security.

This new and very unconstitutional agency cloaked in secrecy is nothing less than the beginning of what could be called (in retort to their propaganda) "Home-Grown Fascism".  And mark this, this is the part of Big Government that the neo-republicans, who claim to stand for the Constitution and "limited government" (we wish!), along with the cowardly democrats, are unwilling to question, challenge its legitimacy, or take the budget knife to thus far, even though most other spending issues are minuscule in comparison.  It's time to stop straining at gnats while swallowing camels.  If republicans in particular believe in constitutional and limited government, and "individual liberty" is still part of their platform (which this Leviathan agency also threatens, trampling the 4th amendment in particular), then its time to put Homeland Security spending out in the open and on the table with budget axes in hand.

Republican Congressman Ron Paul foresaw the Big Government (and Big Brother) coming when Homeland Security was proposed before Congress and warned of what would happen in his article The Homeland Security Monstrosity.  He of course was right while the politically-correct blind supporters of the RINO George W. Bush were wrong.  He has just published a new press release on The Bloated Intelligence Bureaucracy, based on this very issue.

In the video below Former National Security adviser Richard Clark here talks with ABC about what could be called the Homeland Security-Industrial Complex (you heard it here first), its Leviathan and secret budgets and a labyrinth of tentacles that reach across the country while everyone from the White House to Congress looks the other way.  The context of the discussion is the Washington Post's new video report called Top Secret America which is bringing some good national attention to this matter.  Note in particular Clark criticism of the Post's report in not going far enough, i.e. the secret spending and extensive spending through government contractors (outsourced secret spending), and names in particular Booz Allen Hamilton, a major contractor benefiting from Homeland Security and the "war on terror", which is loaded with neoconservatives like James Woolsey.  That was a very strong hint on his part as to where the real attention and scrutiny should be directed.

The "New Pearl Harbor"--Defense Secretary Robert Gates: "No Hard Intel on Bin Laden in Years"

In this breaking FOX News video they bring in a former CIA operative (from the spook archives) to do some serious Spinning to explain why Defense Secretary Gates (under both Bush and Obama) said that there has been "no hard intelligence" on Osama Bin Laden "in years"--despite all the "video tapes" and "audio tapes" released to the media (by private neocon "intelligence" firms)!

Watch him weave and dodge this public admission of the man blamed for September 11th (but now swapped for KSM, presently in New York for a 9/11 Show Trial, after being waterboarded 183 times into a "confession" as a patsy), even though the FBI has stated they have "no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to September 11th"!

Of course, after December 2001 (when Bin Laden was reported dead by FOX News also), Bush no longer cared about Bin Laden either (see video on the side of this blog). Keeping this phantom "alive" but unfound has made perfect propaganda for perpetual "war on terrorism", especially in Afghanistan.

Barack W. Bush--Obama's "Preventive War" in Afghanistan

Obushma's Afghanistan war policy--the BUSH DOCTRINE CONTINUES. The word "terrorism" was hardly invoked, but "essential for our national interests....and attacks on our HOMELAND" implied the same thing. It's still all about the 9/11, and only the rhetoric has changed slightly.

See Rachel Maddow's MSNBC video analysis about Obama's Nobel Peace Prize and proof that the Bush Doctrine continues. Powerful analysis.

clipped from www.theweek.com Afghanistan: Barack W. Bush? With his plans for an Afghanistan troop surge, some say Obama is embracing the "extremist" war policies of George W. Bush Obama's plan evokes Bush at his most despicable: "This year's Nobel Peace laureate just escalated the war in Afghanistan for the second time," says Rachel Maddow on her MSNBC talk show. Though Obama tried to frame the troop increase in his own terms, he called Afghanistan a preventative war. And "that's the Bush doctrine in all its Orwellian extremism…the concept of America at war, globally, indefinitely, against anyone at our own digression." (Watch the clip from "The Rachel Maddow Show") Same words, different president: If you compare Obama's Tuesday’s address with Bush’s January 2007 speech outlining his Iraq "surge," says Glenn Greenwald in Salon, you’d be hard pressed to find anything "new and innovative" in Obama’s rhetoric.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Against Israel's War on Gaza: The Censored Christian View

This short video from Rev. Ted Pike of National Prayer Network (who also lobbies against Hate Crime laws) presents an alternative and more historically correct Christian view of Israel, the Jews, and the recent Israeli war with Gaza and Hamas, from a standpoint consistent with the teachings of the Bible. Needless to say you will not hear this view from Michael Agnello on 58Live Talk Radio in Charleston, nor from John Hagee of Christians United for Israel (CUFI; see Bill Moyer's Journal on it's powerful influence on Congress), nor from nominal Christian politicians including George W. Bush or Barack Obama (whose Chief of Staff is Rahm Israel Emanuel). Nevertheless this is the more historically held Christian view, with some slight variations. (This is not necessarily an endorsement of all of Ted Pike's theology or political views).

Unfortunately, this historically held view was been drowned out and overcome by the infiltration of the early 20th century novel teaching of Christian Zionism which was largely started by Cyrus Scofield (and his new Bible) at Dallas Theological Seminary and promoted in the political agenda of the late "religious right", whose most formidable leaders (Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy) have died during the last two years.

Professing Christians and churches in particular should review this presentation and reconsider their position on modern Israel, including its re-establishment and subsequent wars. Many claim that "Christians must support Israel" (confusing the historic biblical nation with the modern secular state) and say incessantly in defense of Israel that "the Jews are God's chosen people" and quote verses (out of context) that say "pray for the peace of Jerusalem" as if this alone is the scriptural basis for unqualified, absolute, and even a "divine right" of Israel to exist, and even for them to make war upon whatever pretext, frequently branding Palestinians and all Arab nations in total as "terrorists". This is the view that the neoconservative "war party" (many of whom are Jewish) and the powerful AIPAC Lobby do not want political Christians to believe, because it threatens their propaganda which has been so effective in creating a new perpetual "war on terrorism" (justified by 9/11) largely centering on the middle east which coincidentally fits so well with the agenda for a "Greater Israel".

By the way, this historic Christian view is virtually consistent with Orthodox Jews who also oppose Zionism and the State of Israel on similar religious grounds, whose public protests against Israel's war and blockade of Gaza never seem to make the mainstream news no matter their numbers! (The same also met with President Ahmadinejad of Iran, whom neocon propagandists describe as "Hitler").

After seeing this video it will become apparent that the superficially based belief of Christian Zionism and unqualified support for the modern state of Israel is in contradiction with both Scripture and reason if one is intellectually honest and has a high view of the Bible's authority.

Alarmism vs. Realistic Threat Assessment of Terrorism--The Government Lies

CATO Institute offers some sanity in this short podcast from the typical propaganda and exaggerated threats about Terrorism that seem to justify the neoconservative (and now Obama) "war on terrorism" and Homeland "Security State" agendas. In fact they prove that the government's latest "WMD report" was based upon nothing, and therefore a fabricated lie to justify policy decisions.

9/11: The Official Story is Mere Allegation and Fiction

THE FBI SAYS THEY HAVE 'NO HARD EVIDENCE' CONNECTING BIN LADEN TO 9/11

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Why do you think the CIA closed its "bin Laden unit" in 2006 if he is wanted "dead or alive"?

THE 9/11 DOCUMENTARY THAT CANNOT BE IGNORED

Go to the 6-minute mark in Loose Change's new Final Cut with rare news clips to see the lack of evidence and the erroneous information which pinned 9/11 on Osama bin Laden (a former CIA asset) and 19 "Islamic terrorists" and justified the neoconservative's Sept. 2000 blueprint for wars for "regime change", "global hegemony", and a "new middle east" upon what they wrote then as a needed "catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor" to justify their agenda.

A LIE LIKE IRAQ

The official story about 9/11 is as much of a lie as the "intelligence" about Iraq having WMD and being an "imminent threat to the U.S.", and designed to justify the neoconservative agenda, upon a false-flag attack, seize control of U.S. government, develop a fascist Homeland Security system of control and surveillance, and launch new wars for democracy for the global agenda. The War on Terrorism is Bogus, a front for global domination.

Cheney likely ordered 9/11 forgery, CIA official admits

A forged letter linking Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks was ordered on White House stationery and probably came from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a new transcript of a conversation with the Central Intelligence Agency's former Deputy Chief of Clandestine Operations Robert Richer posted Friday.

read more | digg story

The FBI Obstructs Justice: Uncovering the Anthrax Cover-Up

THE FORGOTTEN ANTHRAX PROPAGANDA
Colin Powell waving the vial of anthrax at his UN Security Council presentation on February 5, 2003, making a fabricated case for war in Iraq.
CIA Director George Tenet (left), Director of National Intelligence John Negropante (right), perfectly positioned for the cameras as if to stand behind everything Powell presented.

________________

By design, those attacks put the American population into a state of intense fear of Islamic terrorism, far more than the 9/11 attacks alone could have accomplished. Much more important than the general attempt to link the anthrax to Islamic terrorists, there was a specific intent -- indispensably aided by ABC News -- to link the anthrax attacks to Iraq and Saddam Hussein.

-- Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com

By laying all blame for the anthrax letters on the award-winning Ft. Detrick scientist Bruce Ivins it can only be said that the FBI is obstructing justice. In fact, they were pressured to do just that from the very start, from very high up in the chain of command. The FBI official story now, after seven years, is highly incredulous. For whoever was behind the anthrax letters, and its several very specific targets, did more to further the neoconservative propaganda for a "war on terrorism" against radical Islam, to justify war in Iraq and regime change in the middle east, and to coerce Congress into draconian anti-constitutional legislation than any other action, other than 9/11 itself. To suggest that Ivins did all this for monetary gain is contrary to Criminology 101 which seeks solid evidence for "motive, means, and opportunity".

First, lost in the haze is that the Bush administration (per this Daily News article below) pressured the FBI from the very start to pin the anthrax letters on militant Islamics, especially overseas--without any such evidence:

FBI was told to blame Anthrax scare on Al Qaeda by White House officials

In the immediate aftermath of the 2001 anthrax attacks, White House officials repeatedly pressed FBI Director Robert Mueller to prove it was a second-wave assault by Al Qaeda, but investigators ruled that out, the Daily News has learned.

After the Oct. 5, 2001, death from anthrax exposure of Sun photo editor Robert Stevens, Mueller was "beaten up" during President Bush's morning intelligence briefings for not producing proof the killer spores were the handiwork of terrorist mastermind Osama Bin Laden, according to a former aide.

"They really wanted to blame somebody in the Middle East," the retired senior FBI official told The News.

On October 15, 2001, President Bush said, "There may be some possible link" to Bin Laden, adding, "I wouldn't put it past him." Vice President Cheney also said Bin Laden's henchmen were trained "how to deploy and use these kinds of substances, so you start to piece it all together."

Second, from Glenn Greenwald in his blog article at Salon.com. Here is just a small portion, the article should be read in its entirety:

Vital unresolved anthrax questions and ABC News

...If the now-deceased Ivins really was the culprit behind the attacks, then that means that the anthrax came from a U.S. Government lab, sent by a top U.S. Army scientist at Ft. Detrick. Without resort to any speculation or inferences at all, it is hard to overstate the significance of that fact. From the beginning, there was a clear intent on the part of the anthrax attacker to create a link between the anthrax attacks and both Islamic radicals and the 9/11 attacks. This was the letter sent to Brokaw:

The letter sent to Leahy contained this message:

We have anthrax.

You die now.

Are you afraid?

Death to America.

Death to Israel.

Allah is great.

By design, those attacks put the American population into a state of intense fear of Islamic terrorism, far more than the 9/11 attacks alone could have accomplished.

Much more important than the general attempt to link the anthrax to Islamic terrorists, there was a specific intent -- indispensably aided by ABC News -- to link the anthrax attacks to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. In my view, and I've written about this several times and in great detail to no avail, the role played by ABC News in this episode is the single greatest, unresolved media scandal of this decade. News of Ivins' suicide, which means (presumably) that the anthrax attacks originated from Ft. Detrick, adds critical new facts and heightens how scandalous ABC News' conduct continues to be in this matter.

During the last week of October, 2001, ABC News, led by Brian Ross, continuously trumpeted the claim as their top news story that government tests conducted on the anthrax -- tests conducted at Ft. Detrick -- revealed that the anthrax sent to Daschele contained the chemical additive known as bentonite. ABC News, including Peter Jennings, repeatedly claimed that the presence of bentonite in the anthrax was compelling evidence that Iraq was responsible for the attacks, since -- as ABC variously claimed -- bentonite "is a trademark of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program" and "only one country, Iraq, has used bentonite to produce biological weapons."

Third, there is the Democracy Now podcast on anthrax, which includes an interview with Greenwald, and an anthrax researcher who personally new Ivins. These interviews also include sound bites of McCain linking the Anthrax letters to Iraq on the David Letterman Show in 2001, as well as Bush, both knowing full well (per FBI) that there in fact was no link to Iraq, or even "Islamic militants" inside or outside the US!

Anthrax Mystery: Questions Raised over Whether Government Is Framing Dead Army Scientist for 2001 Attacks

---

The FBI’s prime suspect in the October 2001 anthrax letters case died last week in an apparent suicide. Bruce Ivins was an elite government scientist at the biodefense research lab in Fort Detrick, Maryland. He was among the nation’s top experts on the military use of anthrax. But many of his colleagues have expressed deep skepticism over the FBI’s claims. We speak to anthrax expert Dr. Meryl Nass and blogger Glenn Greenwald. [includes rush transcript]

---

LISTEN WATCH

Real Video Stream Real Audio Stream MP3 Download More…

---

Guests:

Glenn Greenwald, attorney and blogger at Salon.com. His recent posts include “Vital Unresolved Anthrax Questions and ABC News”, “Additional Key Facts Re: The Anthrax Investigation” and “Journalists, Their Lying Sources, and the Anthrax Investigation”

Dr. Meryl Nass, expert on anthrax and editor of the blog AnthraxVaccine.blogspot.com

Finally, here is a dated article (when the FBI zeroed and harassed Hatfill with the same zeal as they did Ivins later) about another Ft. Detrick former scientist, who did have access, even motive (to blame Arabs), and an interesting profile. Dr. Zack for some reason is not a suspect while he fits the profile of the crime closer than Ivins. He is Jewish and a dual Israeli citizen, it happens, with a demonstrated hatred for Arabs (see how he persecuted his Egyptian co-worker and was fired for it), much like many of the neoconservatives behind the war on terrorism agenda that they wrote well before 9/11. There is sufficient prima facia evidence here to consider him a suspect whose behavior was both malicious and suspicious. Yet the FBI says now that Ivins is the ONLY suspect and they are convinced he would have been found guilty, contrary to a larger body of evidence and lack of witnesses.

While Media Spotlights One Anthrax Suspect, Another Is Too Hot to Touch

---

Before the investigation of Dr. Hatfill captured national headlines, another insider scientist had come under FBI scrutiny without much media fanfare. It was easy to miss the few stories published in January 2002 about Lt. Col. Philip Zack, who, like Hatfill, also had access to a well-equipped laboratory with lax security. Zack, moreover, actually worked with military-grade anthrax at Fort Detrick.

---

Dr. Zack left Fort Detrick in December 1991 amid allegations of unprofessional conduct. The Jewish scientist and others were accused of harassing their co-worker, Dr. Ayaad Assaad, until the Egyptian-born American scientist quit

---

Inexplicably, the national press ignored these documented unauthorized visits to a top-secret government lab embroiled in the anthrax attacks. Did journalists fear being labeled anti-Semitic for casting suspicions on a Jewish scientist?

---

She is convinced that the FBI knows who sent the anthrax letters

Original news investigative articles from the Hartford Courant are noteworthy too about Dr. Zack, and furthers the details:

Documents from the inquiry show that one unauthorized person who was observed entering the lab building at night was Langford's predecessor, Lt. Col. Philip Zack, who at the time no longer worked at Fort Detrick. A surveillance camera recorded Zack

Zack left Fort Detrick in December 1991, after a controversy over allegations of unprofessional behavior by Zack, Rippy, Brown and others who worked in the pathology division. They had formed a clique that was accused of harassing the Egyptian-born Assaad,who later sued the Army, claiming discrimination.

Assaad said he had believed the harassment was behind him until last October, until after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

He said that is when the FBI contacted him, saying someone had mailed an anonymous letter - a few days before the existence of anthrax-laced mail became known - naming Assaad as a potential bioterrorist. FBI agents decided the note was a hoax after interviewing Assaad.

McCain on David Letterman,
Plays Anthrax Propaganda Card to Justify Iraq War

Netanyahu Rushes for Power in Israel, Before Bush's Term is Up

"Hurry the elections", cries "Bibi"--he wants into power NOW. The Likud Party is linked directly to the neoconservatives in America who are the authors of the "war on terrorism" agenda that was devised BEFORE 9/11. Netanyahu (who is close friends with Larry Silverstein, the WTC leaseholder, and said 9/11 was good for Israel) wants power before the change of President in the U.S. in order to start war with Iran, to continue the neocon agenda beyond the Bush administration's term.

MARK THIS: If he wins, they will attack Iran immediately, and he is pushing hard to get in before Jan. '09, to control US war policy.

Pat Buchanan documented the link earlier:

In 1996, neoconservatives currently serving in the Bush administration wrote a policy paper for Israeli right-wing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the policy paper Douglas Feith (currently Undersecretary of Defense), David Wurmser (VP Cheney’s staff) and Richard Perle (Defense Review Board) called for "removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq".

clipped from ap.google.com Netanyahu calls for early Israeli elections JERUSALEM (AP) — A day after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced he would depart political life, top rival Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday that Israel should get rid of its current governing coalition and go straight to early elections. Polls show the Likud Party's Netanyahu — a former prime minister who takes a hard line on territorial concessions to the Arabs — would most likely win such a race if it were held today. Olmert threw Israel's political system into turmoil on Wednesday by abruptly announcing he would step down after his Kadima Party's leadership race in September, called because of a series of corruption allegations against him. "The right thing to do when the prime minister goes is ... to let the people choose who will lead them and whoever is chosen, he is the one who will need to put together a government," Netanyahu said. The internal turmoil could make it difficult for Olmert to close deals with either the Palestinians or Syria

The Truth About the War in Afghanistan That Every American Should Know

Washington disguised its energy geopolitics by claiming the Afghan occupation was to fight `Islamic terrorism,’ liberate women, build schools, and promote democracy...

In early 2001, six or seven months before 9/11, Washington made the decision to invade Afghanistan, overthrow Taliban, and install a client regime that would build the energy pipelines...

But Washington still kept up sending money to Taliban until four months before 9/11.
The 9/11 attacks, about which Taliban knew nothing, supplied the pretext to invade Afghanistan.

-- Eric Margolis, Foreign Correspondent

Obama's tour in Afghanistan demonstrated that he supports the war there and an expansion of it. In fact he justified the entire "war on terrorism" on his trip, precisely as the neoconservative Bush administration has presented it. In the previous post (below) we highlighted Obama's interview with Lara Logan on CBS where he stated that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are "planning attacks [on America] from here". Based on what evidence other than repetitious allegation? That is a lie straight from the neocon propaganda machine that this "change" candidate is parroting. Not only McCain then, but Obama himself would expand the "war on terrorism", in Afghanistan and even into Pakistan. Obama in fact appeared closer to McCain and Bush in this rhetoric while he claimed Bush and McCain were shifting toward him on Iraq. Americans should not be fooled by this candidate who, like the rest of the candidates that were also members of the Council on Foreign Relations (i.e. McCain, Giuliani, Hillary, Romney, Thompson) will continue the global policy of regime change under guise of a "war on terrorism".

The truth is that most Americans have justly criticized the Iraq war (finely seeing that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, nor had WMD to produce "mushroom clouds") while giving Afghanistan a pass, since the Taliban are based there. This is because the basic argument used against the Bush administration's Iraq war was that IF the "war on terrorism" was legitimate (the premise), THEN it should be waged against those blamed in the official 9/11 story--i.e. bin Laden and the Taliban connected to him in Afghanistan (conclusion). But most have not examined that claim about the Taliban that was asserted as often as Saddam having WMD. To claim that the Taliban, or even bin Laden, were responsible for 9/11 is beyond any evidence available, and they both denied any knowledge or participation (CNN report here) in that "catalyzing event", as the neoconservative's forenamed it in their Project for New American Century policy paper (Rebuilding America's Defenses, Sept. 2000) drafted a year prior to 9/11.

The following article excerpt from Eric Margolis (Foreign Correspondent and Defense Analyst), At Last Some Truth About Iraq and Afghanistan, is a must read then for just how Americans were tricked into war with not only Iraq, but Afghanistan, on the basis of 9/11, while the plans to begin both wars for "regime change", per the neoconservative blueprint for a "new middle east", were already in works, and only waiting on some "catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor" to justify attacking and invading and overthrowing the governments of two sovereign countries. Here is the truth about the War in Afghanistan, and even into Pakistan, which Obama is legitimizing, that every American should know, and consider during this campaign season where the Democrat and Republican candidates are sounding closer together on war policy than ever, and the fraud of a war on terrorism is being perpetuated by both. The question that begs an answer is this: If the war in Afghanistan, like Iraq, is based upon plans laid well before 9/11, and in fact there is no connection between the Taliban and 9/11, how can the war continue to be justified? An oil pipeline from the Caspian Basin through Afghanistan to Pakistan explains a great deal about the "war on terrorism", in this region.

At Last Some Truth About Iraq and Afghanistan

...Afghanistan just signed a major deal to launch a long-planned, 1680 km long pipeline project expected to cost $ 8 billion. If completed, the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline (TAPI) will export gas and, later, oil from the Caspian Basin to Pakistan’s coast where tankers will transport it to the west. ...

But there are only two practical ways to get gas and oil out of land-locked Central Asia to the sea: through Iran, or through Afghanistan to Pakistan. For Washington, Iran is tabu. That leaves Pakistan, but to get there, the planned pipeline must cross western Afghanistan...

In 1998, the Afghan anti-Communist movement Taliban and a western oil consortium led by the US firm Unocal signed a major pipeline deal. Unocal lavished money and attention on Taliban, flew a senior delegation to Texas, and also hired an minor Afghan official, one Hamid Karzai.

Enter Osama bin Laden. He advised the unworldly Taliban leaders to reject the US deal and got them to accept a better offer from an Argentine consortium, Bridas. Washington was furious and, according to some accounts, threatened Taliban with war.

In early 2001, six or seven months before 9/11, Washington made the decision to invade Afghanistan, overthrow Taliban, and install a client regime that would build the energy pipelines. But Washington still kept up sending money to Taliban until four months before 9/11 in an effort to keep it `on side’ for possible use in a war or strikes against Iran.

The 9/11 attacks, about which Taliban knew nothing, supplied the pretext to invade Afghanistan. The initial US operation had the legitimate objective of wiping out Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida. But after its 300 members fled to Pakistan, the US stayed on, built bases – which just happened to be adjacent to the planned pipeline route – and installed former Unocal `consultant’ Hamid Karzai as leader.

Washington disguised its energy geopolitics by claiming the Afghan occupation was to fight `Islamic terrorism,’ liberate women, build schools, and promote democracy. Ironically, the Soviets made exactly the same claims when they occupied Afghanistan from 1979-1989. The cover story for Iraq was weapons of mass destruction, Saddam’s supposed links to 9/11, and promoting democracy.

Work will begin on the TAPI once Taliban forces are cleared from the pipeline route...

Obama's Foreign Policy Goes Neocon--Unjust Wars Will Continue

The real Obama policy, "Al Qaeda, Taliban, war on terrorism" continues. Must see video from CBS interview where Obama:

1 legitimizes the neoconservative war on terrorism as a necessary and true war ;
2 escalate war in Afghanistan for regime change, like Iraq, continues (which is also a civil war);
3 willing to attack targets inside Pakistan--i.e. invade any sovereign country to kill and destroy alleged terrorists (think collateral damage on civilians or wrongly accused from missiles and UAV drones).

Watch the interview, Obama does not answer one "why?" question (a great question) of Lara Logan with any credible response ("they are planning attacks from here?"--evidence please) about the necessity of the war on terrorism , he simply dodges and assumes its legitimacy without reason or debate. UNJUST WAR is the problem here. Where is the protest?



The war on terrorism is not a true or legal constitutional war, and enabling Obama to do the same as Bush without criticism is hypocritical and partisan blindness. It has always been the goal to finish Iraq and legitimize and spread the war on terrorism.

Note the media here in this article, where being "hawkish" is elevated and War equals Patriotism.

The only conclusion one could have then is that a vote for Obama is a vote to continue Unjust Wars under pretense of fighting "terrorism" while it is plainly for "regime change". The war against Afghanistan for the neoconservative agenda is as unjust as the war in Iraq, for there was no evidence that Afghanistan or the Taliban or bin Laden (both of which denied knowledge or participation in 9/11 in BBC and foreign press in Oct. 2001) had anything to do with what the neocons called "the new Pearl Harbor".

Is it enough for hypocrites to have a black man and democrat in the White House to constitute "change"? What has everyone been complaining about for over 5 years, if not unjust war, and how would THIS, from Obama's own mouth, change any of it? Dare we mention again his vote FOR the Telecom Immunity and Spy Powers bill?

There is no escape from these facts, and burying your head in the sand like the proverbial ostrich, or turning your head and voting for Obama CONTINUES THE SAME AGENDA.

clipped from www.cbsnews.com Obama Shows Hawkish Side On Mideast Trip CBSNews.com Reports: Democrat Talks Tough About Afghanistan To Show Skeptics He Can Be Strong Commander In Chief Exclusive: Obama In Afghanistan Presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama speaks with CBS News chief foreign affairs correspondent Lara Logan about his visit to the Middle East and the War on Terror in Afghanistan. | Share/Embed It was an ideal photo opportunity for a candidate looking to convince skeptics of his patriotism - just 37 percent of voters identified Obama as "very patriotic" in a recent CBS News/New York Times poll - and his toughness when it comes to foreign policy. On Sunday, the Illinois senator urged the Bush administration to move more troops into Afghanistan as soon as possible during an appearance on "Face The Nation." He also reiterated his willingness to authorize unilateral U.S. action against terrorist targets in Pakistan's tribal areas if the Pakistani government will not act.

Senators Votes on Telecom/Spy Bill--Obama, Clinton, McCain, Byrd, Rockefeller

Clinton, Nay; Obama, Yea; McCain, No Vote. McCain ducked!

As usual, Byrd got this one right, Nay, (Constitution in pocket) and Rockefeller, Yea, got it wrong, again. See more traitors and defenders of the 4th amendment at the linked source.

clipped from senate.gov U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 2nd Session as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate Vote Summary Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R. 6304 ) Vote Number: 168 Vote Date: July 9, 2008, 02:47 PM Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed Measure Number: H.R. 6304 (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ) Measure Title: A bill to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to establish a procedure for authorizing certain acquisitions of foreign intelligence, and for other purposes. Vote Counts: YEAs 69 NAYs 28 Not Voting 3 Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State Byrd (D-WV), Nay Clinton (D-NY), Nay Leahy (D-VT), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting Webb (D-VA), Yea Obama (D-IL), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting

The Senate Votes to Abolish the 4th Amendment, Permit Spying on Americans