Sunday, January 28, 2007

Was 9/11 really that bad?

What keeps the US banks from crashing?


... and 9/11 was needed for the war. David Bell knows it. To aviod the implication that 911 was an inside job, he wrote this article (for his other employer, the CIA).

The attacks were a horrible act of mass murder, but history says we're overreacting.

By David A. Bell a professor of history at Johns Hopkins University and a contributing editor for the New Republic, is the author of "The First Total War: Napoleon's Europe and the Birth of Warfare as W

January 28, 2007

IMAGINE THAT on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that six hours after that, there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism.

It also raises several questions. Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction? Is the widespread belief that 9/11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time simply wrong? If we did overreact, why did we do so? Does history provide any insight?

Certainly, if we look at nothing but our enemies' objectives, it is hard to see any indication of an overreaction. The people who attacked us in 2001 are indeed hate-filled fanatics who would like nothing better than to destroy this country. But desire is not the same thing as capacity, and
although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States.

Yet a great many Americans, particularly on the right, have failed to make this distinction. For them, the "Islamo-fascist" enemy has inherited not just Adolf Hitler's implacable hatreds but his capacity to destroy. The conservative author Norman Podhoretz has gone so far as to say that we are fighting World War IV (No. III being the Cold War).

But it is no disrespect to the victims of 9/11, or to the men and women of our armed forces, to say that, by the standards of past wars, the war against terrorism has so far inflicted a very small human cost on the United States. As an instance of mass murder, the attacks were unspeakable, but they still pale in comparison with any number of military assaults on
civilian targets of the recent past, from Hiroshima on down.

Even if one counts our dead in Iraq and Afghanistan as casualties of the war
against terrorism, which brings us to about 6,500, we should remember that
roughly the same number of Americans die every two months in automobile

Of course, the 9/11 attacks also conjured up the possibility of far
attacks to come. But then, we were hardly ignorant of these threats before,
as a glance at just about any thriller from the 1990s will testify. And
despite the even more nightmarish fantasies of the post-9/11 era (e.g. the
TV show "24's" nuclear attack on Los Angeles), Islamist terrorists have not
come close to deploying weapons other than knives, guns and conventional
explosives. A war it may be, but does it really deserve comparison to World
War II and its 50 million dead? Not every adversary is an apocalyptic

So why has there been such an overreaction? Unfortunately, the commentators
who detect one have generally explained it in a tired, predictably
ideological way: calling the United States a uniquely paranoid aggressor
that always overreacts to provocation.

In a recent book, for instance, political scientist John Mueller evaluated
the threat that terrorists pose to the United States and convincingly
concluded that it has been, to quote his title, "Overblown." But he
his own argument by adding that the United States has overreacted to every
threat in its recent history, including even Pearl Harbor (rather than
trying to defeat Japan, he argued, we should have tried containment!).

Seeing international conflict in apocalyptic terms - viewing every threat
as existential - is hardly a uniquely American habit. To a certain degree, it
is a universal human one. But it is also, more specifically, a Western one,
which paradoxically has its origins in one of the most optimistic periods
of human history: the 18th century Enlightenment.

Until this period, most people in the West took warfare for granted as an
utterly unavoidable part of the social order. Western states fought
constantly and devoted most of their disposable resources to this purpose;
during the 1700s, no more than six or seven years passed without at least
one major European power at war.

The Enlightenment, however, popularized the notion that war was a barbaric
relic of mankind's infancy, an anachronism that should soon vanish from the
Earth. Human societies, wrote the influential thinkers of the time,
followed a common path of historical evolution from savage beginnings toward
ever-greater levels of peaceful civilization, politeness and commercial

The unexpected consequence of this change was that those who considered
themselves "enlightened," but who still thought they needed to go to war,
found it hard to justify war as anything other than an apocalyptic struggle
for survival against an irredeemably evil enemy. In such struggles, of
course, there could be no reason to practice restraint or to treat the
enemy as an honorable opponent.

Ever since, the enlightened dream of perpetual peace and the nightmare of
modern total war have been bound closely to each other in the West.
Precisely when the Enlightenment hopes glowed most brightly, wars often
took on an especially hideous character.

The Enlightenment was followed by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic
wars, which touched every European state, sparked vicious guerrilla
conflicts across the Continent and killed millions (including, probably, a
higher proportion of young Frenchmen than died from 1914 to 1918).

During the hopeful early years of the 20th century, journalist Norman
Angell's huge bestseller, "The Great Illusion," argued that wars had become
too expensive to fight. Then came the unspeakable horrors of World War I.
And the end of the Cold War, which seemed to promise the worldwide triumph
of peace and democracy in a more stable unipolar world, has been followed
by the wars in the Balkans, the Persian Gulf War and the present global
upheaval. In each of these conflicts, the United States has justified the
use of force by labeling its foe a new Hitler, not only in evil intentions
but in potential capacity.

Yet as the comparison with the Soviet experience should remind us, the war
against terrorism has not yet been much of a war at all, let alone a war to
end all wars. It is a messy, difficult, long-term struggle against
exceptionally dangerous criminals who actually like nothing better than
being put on the same level of historical importance as Hitler - can you
imagine a better recruiting tool? To fight them effectively, we need
coolness, resolve and stamina. But we also need to overcome long habit and
remind ourselves that not every enemy is in fact a threat to our existence.,0,1900868.story?coll=la-home-commentary

From: SarahD <>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 07:08:16 -0600

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 04:50:27 -0800, Roger wrote:
> Was 9/11 really that bad?The attacks were a horrible act of mass murder,
> but history says we'reoverreacting.

I want to see our country's reaction when the real perps of 9/11 go to

I know a man involved in the demolition industry. He examined slow motion
video of the building 7 collapse and he says the building was wired with
explosives - no question about it. He also says the building could not be
wired in 8.5 hours. No-way, no-how. There's your smoking gun proving US
government involvement.

From: "Chom Noamsky" <>
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2007 20:01:00 GMT

Subject: Re: Was 9/11 really that bad?

> and the War on Terror".

All of those attacks still do not amount to a half-day's casualties for
Russia during WWII. You have used this same rationale many times, how US
casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan are insignificant when compared to the
casualties suffered everyday from motor vehicle accidents, smoking, etc.
Also, your comparisons were rather silly and irrational in that they did
compare apples to apples, while the comparison I posted does.

If this is a truly a "war" then America is up against one of the most
incompetent enemies it has ever faced.

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 3:50 PM 0 comments

Friday, January 26, 2007

Bush is winning by failing -- divide and conquer

And what if Bush is already winning?

Mona Sarkis 27. January 2007

Expansion of the conflicts, fragmentation of the region. Strategy without substance, but with success?

George W. Bush wants the “victory " in the Iraq. It underlined that again in its speech for the situation of the nation. Which he understands by it, remained already in his speech from 10 January nebulös: It is a victory against the terrorism, “will not look like those (victories), which obtained our fathers and grandfathers”. Less heavily with the articulation of its conceptions meanwhile many Middle East observers do. Of Bush strategy in the Iraq as in the entire region first the expansion of the local wars (see Alain Gresh) is, for a fragmentation of the middle east (so Walid Charara of the Lebanese daily paper “Al-Akhbar”) a thesis, for which some speaks and at that above all one concerned: the strategy could function.

Democratic reforms do not stand obviously any longer on of Bush agenda, noticed for Abdel Beri Atwan, editor-in-chief of the per-Palestinian daily paper “aluminium-Quds aluminium-Arabi” appearing in London in its comment to of Bush “more again” Iraq strategy. Priority however has the expansion of the conflicts in the middle east. The humiliating Exekutierung Saddam Hussein - besides at the high Muslim victim celebration - by the USA and their “malicious denomination-oriented allied one " in the Iraq was planned already, in order to advance the polarization between Sunniten and Shiites.

Actually many Iraqi Sunniten are convinced the Shiites revenge at Saddam that it concerns a nationally sanctioned murder, with which to take wanted. Also most Sunniten of the neighboring countries sees itself turning it so and with an increasing mixture from fear and anger against the own Shiite fellow citizens and against Iran as the only Shiite state.

Breaks without borders

Accordingly Hosni Mubarak - from concern over the Iranian - quit already the own Egyptian atomic program at the influential Saudi cleric Abdul Rahman aluminium-Barak adopted at the end of of December a Fatwa, in which he the “Verweigerer” (a devaluing name of the Sunniten for the Shiites, because these had refused their acknowledgment to the “quite led” successors of the prophet) as “disbelieving one” diffamed .

Parents of Algerian students ask the responsible authorities in an open letter in the city Schariaa for the protection of their children from teachers, who would obtain Shiite faith property. And on aluminium-Jazeera.Net approximately 29,000 persons take part in one on-line-inquire around to the worsening security situation in the Iraq. Over 73% accuse Iran.

Pass on, believe this and above all the escalations in Lebanon and in Palestine, which possibly flow into civil wars, of Bush “conquer and divide” - strategy Walid Charara, responsible for the opinion sides of the oppositionnear Lebanese daily paper “Al-Akhbar”. Antoine Sfeir might follow here.

For a long time the director/conductor of the Paris Centre asks d'Etude et de Recherche Politiques (CERPO): Why actually “it says that the USA lose (Iraq) the war, if they reach its principal purpose, the Aufsplitterung of the country?” The sample is, so Sfeirs conviction, to which will transfer entire region:

Some Arab states could disintegrate into small units, which are no correct states more, but religious or ethnical communities. “the USA “aim at small units, a kind of duchies, which do not have real power more and which external world not dangerously to become to be able.

Sunniten: Quiet doubts…

The fact that the ditches between the communities in and outside of Iraq already existed before the US invasion into the Iraq does not deny - nevertheless only the removal of Saddams regime opened the can of the Pandorra. Since that time of the USA operated culture of the force does not set however by any means on the canalization of the breaking out, but on soldiers, with whom a civilian society leaves itself hardly to past.

Thus the daily paper asks “Asharq aluminium-Awsat” in view of the recently accomplished substantial military employments against Sunni insurgent ones in the Bagdader Haifa road:

If the fight for control of a road requires this extent at military employment, what will be if we settled from lain the inside, strongly and almost closed quarters of Bagdad to sp

The newspaper continues to ask, as much death and destruction will have which effects on the relationship between crew and Iraqi population. The stress is on “population” and not on a separate Ethnie. This is remarkable, because the newspaper by the Saudi prince Salman is Abdul Aziz controlled and thus is to be added to the per-American “axle of the moderate ones”.

Straight however its alliance with many Sunni dominated states in the region help the acting US president to what his predecessors had remained refused - a new middle east. So anyhow Edward Luttwak, senior Fellow for preventive diplomacy at Washington centers for the Strategic and internationally Studies, which at the same time regards this access to the region not for the result of a thought out strategy, but as a pure coincidence product.

The result however is the same: Bush succeeded it to bring Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordanian one and the Gulf States on its side by making it impossible for them, in the future the interests of the USA to ignore, because this would run their own interests contrary. To those do not only belong the containment of the terrorism, but also the “thing with the democracy”, with which the USA “do not trouble " their “friends " with appropriate behavior became, like Joseph Samaha spöttelt, editor-in-chief of the decidedly against the western colonial policy arguing “Al-Akhbar”.

Differently than Luttwak he does not welcome the development, since she contributes to dangerous regional tensions and thus to, which he calls the “fall of Arab Spezifizitäten”. But is certain also for it: a slight concession to the superpower the USA, but a “crucial turning point in the history of our region " do not represent the “unconditional” declaration of consent, which the “moderate” Arab dictatorships Condoleezza Rice gave recently in Kuwait.

German original article URL:

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 7:50 PM 0 comments

Star Trek a CIA psyop plant

The CIA directed our culture?

Further argument:

BBC Southern counties Radio

Tommy Boyd talked about Star Trek and his saturday show during an
interview with Sci-Fi Universe Sunday evening.

SFU: "What do you think about Star Trek?"

Tommy Boyd: "At entry level it's roller coaster action Sci Fi with
meaningful themes.

Intermediate - it's predictable US TV trash.

Advanced - viewers know a propaganda tool when they see one."

SFU: "What do you think about other Sci-Fi series?"

TB: "I assume we are talking about TV?

I'm not really qualified. I watched Star Trek far more than any other

SFU: "What do you think about the response the show got compared to the
original 1996 broadcast on Talk Radio?"

TB: "The response to the latest show is just starting. Generally the 1996
show was hugely well received, but concentrated on the show's shortcomings
as illustrated by the simple truth that its audience was almost uniquely
adolescent males with dubious social horizons."

SFU: "Can you summarize the whole revelation again for our readers?"

TB: "Sure.

An overview:

The original Star Trek - Kirk and Spock etc had an ever-present sub-text
that American White men will one day rule the Universe, for the good of

Blacks, Aliens, Women and other minority groups could come on board so
long as they danced to the tune of Dixie.

The main bad guys are disturbingly close in looks and behavior to certain
racial stereotypes, which were and remain a concern to America's Right.

The Federation Trekkers never did or ever would encounter a civilisation
so profound they would even consider switching allegiance, or even
adopting some alien ethics.

The show's people were cute enough to throw a few bones to potential
critics to preserve the myth of moral integrity.



Gene Roddenberry was born in El Paso Texas, one-time HQ of the
Confederates during their war to preserve slavery. He was born at the
beginning of the KKK's most influential decade.

His father became an LAPD Cop.

He became a USAF Special Investigations Officer - their role: Counter
Intelligence. He started writing while in their employ.

He trained at the Uni of Columbia, where the significance of symbolism in
literature would have been entrenched.

He became an LAPD Cop, before getting writing work on numerous TV Westerns.

This was at the time when the Cold War with the USSR was being fought with
propaganda, and a real war was being fought against the Vietnamese.

And cigarrettes had just been declared hazardous.

Anyone want to guess his probable politics? His mission? How he got
business to invest in his "vision"?


Maybe he inserted some coded references that would satisfy them a little?


Anyone want to explain the profusion of "K's" in Star Trek's main features?

Star Trek






Why choose "Pike" for the original Captain?

Gen Albert Pike was the KKK's most famous member during their
establishment. A Confederate.

Anyone know a better reason to name your hero after him?


The original programme proposal had a Captain called "April". The Civil
War ran from April 1861 to April 1865.

Anyone got a better explanation?


They went with "Kirk". What's a Kirk?

The flag of the Confederates was a Cross of St Andrew's - a rare symbol
for a flag. The KKK flag was the same.

St Andrew is the Saint of the Scottish Church.

The Scottish word for church is ..."Kirk".

Anyone got a better reason why he chose the name Kirk?


Why call it a "Trek"

"Trek" is speciafically an Afrikaans term, entrenched in the Boer conquest
of Natal Province South Africa, where they "VoorTrekked" into the land
belonging to the black South Africans and ultimately established
Apartheid, the world's worst example of institutionalised White domination
over Black people.


Finally I have a question for Star Trek fans to answer:


Everyone in the media is aware of the control which sponsors exert over
the shows they pay for.

Anyone know who sponsored the first series of Star trek?

Who came in and paid for the resurrection of the show after it was
cancelled having bombed?

Who were the big advertisers on the show?


Roddenberry said he had fights to keep cigarrettes off the show, and a
Christian priest off the Enterprise.

Sounds to me that someone with a commercial and possibly White Protestant
agenda might have been strongarming.


We know what Roddenberry knocked away. What did he have to put into the
show on the money men's insistence?


I suspect Gene Roddenberry simply wanted to be a successful
writer/producer, but even Shakespeare had to write his plays to suit his
King's visions.


Go ahead. You do some work. You might learn more about the real world you
live in today, and if you do I've done more for you than Gene Roddenberry,
who taught you about life on the non-existent Planet Drax etc in two
hundred years time.


And I'm only in for your immortal soul, not your merchandise dollar.


SFU: Finally, how do you respond to those calling the show a ratings stunt?

TB: It's not. I'm fascinated by the discoveries I've unearthed, and expect
that none of the 10 million "fans" of Star Trek - and the American Way -
will have an ounce of good argument or counter evidence to produce. And in
many ways this is how the Amrican dream will end. Not with a bang, but
with a whimper: "He's a jerk I think so...because...
well what does he know... and his arguments...well I never read them
through...they probably did you see the tits on that chick
from Planet Drax!  Star Trek is like so meaningfull..." Meanwhile watch
Europe chugging up your stands rail, the Tiger economies eating your tiny
dollars up and are third world... and Band Aid is singing
songs to keep you in hamburgers and DVDs... 

Re: Are There Some Hidden Meanings In 'Star Trek'? Date: 12-20-2004

Was the original "Star Trek" series nothing more than a propaganda tool
for NBCin the 1960s?

BBC Radio talk show host Tommy Boyd has expressed that possibility on his
radioshow over the years, bringing it to a head last weekend in a radio
where hetalked to fans and journalists who have an interest in the Star
franchise.Boyd has opened himself to a lot of attacks from Star Trek fans
on the
Internet,but he recently told SyFy Portal's Michael Hinman that he stands
by many
of theclaims he has made.

The biggest claim that Boyd made, however, was what exactly the late "Star
Trek"creator Gene Roddenberry had in mind when he created the series. Boyd
to get an idea, they only had to look as far as what Roddenberry's life was
like before "Star Trek.""His flying career for the military was
exemplary," Boyd said.

"He is clearly a flyer of great skill, courage and resource. One can only
admire his
character and integrity. After combat duties, he went to work for an
which was called Special Investigations within the U.S. Air Force.

"Most published biographies of Roddenberry describe this period in the
man's lifeas a time when he investigated plane crashes within the
military. However,
Boyd said it's not entirely accurate."Maybe you're right to trust that the
Internet biographies have the whole picture when they say he was confined
to checking out plane crashes," Boyd said.

"Nevertheless, the official USAF recruitment site states that one of the
two prime missions of his unit was counter-intelligence against foreign
intelligence services. Maybe it wasn't when he was involved. I'm someone
wants to know rather than trust that my hopes are enough.

"Boyd also said that he felt that Roddenberry's later career as a sergeant
in the Los Angeles Police Department was also suspect on the man's later
reputation of being a "liberal humanitarian."

"Gene worked in two of the west's most buttoned-down bastions of the Right
Wing establishment: USAF Special Operations and the LAPD," Boyd said. "I'm
reading nothing into that, only that the facts are there. Make of them
what you
will.Investigate them further."Boyd also said that big advertisers forced
Roddenberry to compromise a lot of his vision, which ended up furthering
their own personal and political agendas.

"My suspicion is that some executives high up in whoever pumped big money
into the early 'Star Trek' battled to shape the show's 'vision' of the
to look like their personal or professional preference," Boyd said. "Gene
back and compromised. That is how you get things done in TV.

"[But] we need to know who were the money men in the early days. Not a
vague'studio' or production company. Names. Backgrounds.

Especially the people who came back and funded the return of the original
All I know is that a struggling company -- Desilu -- found a backer for
the pilot, and that changes were made. Who put up the half a million?
What did they want?"Boyd said that Desilu's biggest corporate backer was
Phillip Morris, who at the time was promoting their cigarettes, and that
rumors have always abounded that the company may have been affiliated
with the Ku Klux Klan. But that's not where the propaganda ends, according
to Boyd.

"Be alert to the climate of the time: a Cold War fought with propaganda,"
he said. "A real war against Asian communists fought with actual weaponry.
The USA was at war, and fighting it on every front. Plus, a world that
learnt in
1965 that cigarettes were bad for you. There's an industry in need of a
future."Other questions that Boyd brings up were brought up on his radio
recently,like the high occurence of the letter "K" in character names and
show'stitle, the use of the names "April" and "Pike" for characters, and
how the
captain's name eventually became "Kirk.""Why are the recurring enemy
so evocative (physically and behaviorally) of racial stereotypes which
[the] right-wing
establishment would regard as domestic and international threats?" Boyd

"If we get some answers to those questions, we can make judgments about its
agenda due to association -- or not-- with neo-political organizations.

"Since Boyd's radio show -- where SyFy Portal's Michael Hinman was one of
the guests featured during the program -- many fans have blasted some of
claims that Boyd has made. Many of those complaints were found on Trek
TrekBBS."This is quite disturbing, what he is doing," said a poster named
Enterpriser on the message boards. "He's not that far away from
defamation at this point.

He's saved by the fact that Mr. Roddenberry is no longer with us. But his
and son live." 'How can you assure me ...' he asks. It's not up to us to
assure him.
He's the one presenting the preposterous theory. It's an extraordinary
claim he's
making. Thus, he must present the extraordinary proof.

"Boyd did state that he felt propaganda pieces in the form of shows like
StarTrek could be a catalyst for World War III. However, when asked if he
could think of any wars in modern history that was started by popular
he couldn't name any."All wars are fought on the basis of 'our' side being
right and the enemy being wrong," Boyd said. "Governments disseminate
the idea through every media they can. 'Star Trek' is all about the near
perfection of our guys and the dreadful activities of certain
enemies -- Klingons and Romulans."Excerpts of the show, including
with Hinman and some other fans, is available on the Internet by clicking
Many of his theories were presentedon his show, which airs in parts of the
Great Britain."Guys like this disguest me, they really do," said Antony F
on the TrekBBS message boards. "This guy is ill, really. If Trek was meant
to be this KKK-funded, racist program, then it really backfired.
His whole obsession is over the fact that the letter 'K' is used a lot in

"What does Boyd think of these kind of responses?

"I have nothing to fear from personal attacks," Boyd said. "I trained for
two years to become a Samurai, and achieved the status of Ronin. Not much
for sword play in the South of England, but I am someone who marches toward
the sound of battle."Is he challenging Star Trek fans to a duel?
Move over Zell Miller.

Received on Tue Jan 11 2005 - 15:45:39 PST



17 November, 2006 Star Trek - Fascistoid CIA propaganda

American cultural assumptions.

In the beginning we have a Kennedy-era scenario stuffed with all the
'can-do' spirit of a Robert McNamara press conference. An Imperial project
was implicit. The program was originally to be called 'Wagon Train to the
Stars', before a canny producer switched to the snappier 'Star Trek'
(appropriating a term from the Boer colonisation of the African interior).
Of course with a black character on the bridge the show was always built
on a paradox, conquering in the name of diversity. By the late 1980s, Star
Trek: The Next Generation firmly espoused a post-Vietnam, post-Cold War,
alien-friendly outlook. As Jenkins notes, the 1987 edition of the Star
Trek writers manual warns:

We are not in buying stories which cast our people and our vessel in the
role of 'galactic policemen' ... Nor is our mission that of spreading 20th
Century Euro/American cultural values throughout the galaxy ... We are not
in the business of toppling cultures that we do not approve of. As the
authors themselves concede, there is room for a detailed study of this
transformation. A lively cultural history of American television
production and viewing could be written around the Star Trek phenomenon.
It would be valuable to look at the behind the scenes debates behind the
voyage from TV fiction's first inter-racial kiss in the 1960s, to the
ambiguously liberal 1990s when, same sex relationships may be shown, but
only after it has been explained that one of the participants is actually
a male alien who has assumed a female body. This book is emphatically not
that or any other kind of history. Instead it has merely succeeded in
opening the door to a subject which, like the Doctor's police box, is
bigger on the inside than it seems from outside. The result is,
nonetheless, as Spock would say: 'fascinating'.



Download AUDIO (in snippets):

full show available, leave a comment.



THE PROPOSITION: Tommy sets the topic for discussion and makes a case for
his views on Star Trek.

CHRIS CALLS: The first caller for the night arguing against Tommy's
proposition is Chris from Leeds.

MICHAEL CALLS: All the way from Tampa, Florida is the second caller of the
night, Michael Hinman.

REX CALLS: A few emails and Rex calls in from Salt Lake City, USA.

SETH CALLS: All the way from Fort Myers, Florida, Seth calls in and he
sounds a lot like Mr Armstrong from Emmerdale...

MIKE CALLS: Mike from St George, Utah calls in.

THE EMAILERS: And the emails flood in...

MORE EMAILS: Much more emails accusing Boyd of being ignorant...

CHRIS RETURNS: Chris has called back from Leeds and he's not very happy...

KEVIN CALLS: All the way from Arizona, USA is Kevin...

EVEN MORE EMAILS: The emailers are getting more angry...

FINAL CALLERS: Tom calls in followed by Bernard to round the show up.

United in Hatred - The Anoraks Are Off -- The Phasers Are Set to Kill

A Star Trek Night Post-Mortem

UK Radio Presenter Incites Temporary Unification of Trek Fandom Whilst
Becoming the Recipient of Ugly Yet Entertaining Internet Retaliation

Hundreds, possibly thousands, of online Star Trek fans (where internal
bickering is more than rife) were brought together (in the Star Trek
spirit of putting aside past differences to fight a common foe) to
participate in a live showdown on BBC Southern Counties radio.

Only the often maligned, and much more revered, Tommy Boyd, could have
united the largely dysfunctional and argumentative Star Trek Community in
their collective hatred.

"I have had a bad day... But that has pissed me off no end. My god... what
a massive wanker. Why Star Trek?"

Source: Trek BBS, Chandler

The topic was Star Trek. The proposition: the danger its influence poses
for our future; and the possible authority that people with a racist
agenda could have imposed upon the shows inception. Purely original
research was put out over the airwaves, and the possibilities explored. No
concrete conclusions were made, but the findings are there for the
conspiracy theorists, and investigative Star Trek journalists, to have fun

"Boyd said that Desilu's biggest corporate backer was Phillip Morris, who
at the time was promoting their cigarettes, and that rumors have always
abounded that the company may have been affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan."

Source: SyFy Portal's Hidden Meanings In Trek Article, Author: Michael

This theory is taken further, in a possible revelation that has never
before been aired among or by the Star Trek fanbase.

"When a writer takes a product to a sponsor, the sponsor wants something
in return. Rarely is that only the smell of straight profits. They have
agenda. I've made over a thousand nationally networked TV shows including
stuff for Disney and the NBA, I know what happens."

Tommy Boyd

It's a bit like panto really. You cast someone as the villain -- and when
they're on stage you get the hisses and the boos. How panto differs from
what happened on Saturday night is that when the actor comes off stage,
most people are asking for their autograph... The is not the case with
Tommy Boyd's Star Trek night. Far from it!

Before the show aired, people wanted blood. One message board advocated
actual violence, flame spamming our email address, and called Tommy every
name under the sun including a w**ker.

"Tommy Boyd Is a complete a**hole,what right does he have to call trek
fans lonesome, antisocial people, F***ers like him should BURN IN HELL!!!
DIE SOB. Also feel free to send flaming emails to him "

Source: Save Enterprise Forums, georgy

During the show, people emailed in calling him names that are illegal to
broadcast and we would never dream of editorialising on this internet site.

"Anyone curious about the ballistic effects of a 5.56x45mm JHP to this
morons skull?"

"I am"

Source: Save Enterprise Forums, Martok201

One fan site decided to put a lot of effort in creating a plaque for Tommy:

The full image can be found here at the Subspace Comms Network

Tommy's response to the plaque:

"The guys with the plaque can't spell "contemptible" - unless they do mean
"contempable" which comes from contemper; means to moderate."

Tommy Boyd

After the show, the knives were further sharpened, weaponry reloaded, and
knuckles ready for further combat. The fact that the show may have brought
up something deep and meaningful about our acceptance of reported events;
and that we should always question that which we believe is true, was lost
on the majority of new listeners.

But not lost, by most accounts from the feedback we've been getting from
the sharp and intelligent representatives of the fanbase that appeared
live on air.

"...I had a great time on Boyd's show. He's very entertaining, and I can
definitely see why he has a following. I had to burst out laughing a few
times, because he's very good at what he does. "

Source: SyFy Portal's Conspiracies Everywhere Article, Author: Michael

It has been said that Tommy Boyd lied about the interacial kiss. Research
has shown that Captain James Kirk actor William Shatner himself had this
to say on page 381 of his Star Trek Memories novel: "The widely held
assumption that Star Trek features the first interracial kiss in the
history of television is absolutely untrue." It was filmed in such a way,
that they appeared to kiss. But their lips never actually touched.

So unless the main actor in that scene was lying, the point still stands
that the kiss never actually happened. It was studio propaganda -- and it
worked. The whole point of the show was based on various possible
behind-the-scenes propaganda devices that may have manifested themselves
in some unsettling observations about the representation of alien races.

"Why are the recurring enemy so evocative (physically and behaviourally)
of racial steroetypes which right-wing establishment would regard as
domestic and international threats?"

Tommy Boyd

It has also been said that Tommy was rude and obnoxious in regard to Star
Trek fans, their lifestyles and their social horizons. Sorry folks but
when you go fishing, you have cut the fish's mouth before you can reel it
onto the boat! Fishing is never a clean business, and millions of people
are happy to eat the fish once the dirty work has been done.

"Your all proving him right by continuing this, and people calling for his
sacking - even calling for TrekBBS to take legal action in one thread???
All this does is prove his point - to a degree where I'm starting to
believe him myself. To use a time worn, but relevant phrase: Get a f***ing
life. It has gone on way too far now."

Source: Trek BBS, Jim Steele

Two excellent interviews have appeared in which Tommy has had his response
to various bright Star Trek journalists still wanting to learn more:

Source: SyFy Portal's Hidden Meanings In Trek Article, Author: Michael

Source: Sci-Fi Universe interviews Tommy Boyd, Author: Michael

So in the interest of providing some further balance to the night, let's
hear from the people who actually got involved and spoke to Tommy during
the show. Surely their views count for a lot more substance because they
can actually back their opinions up through the actual experience of
appearing that night.

The Shrine sent a series of questions to each one of our Volunteers. Below
are the unedited and honest responses from those who got back to us:

1. Did you enjoy debating with Tommy? If not, what didn't you like?

CHRIS: By and large, yes! He's clearly very good at what he does and
whilst it would be interesting to see if he performed as well in a
situation where control didn't rest with him, he's clearly a pro at
debating in that format. Perhaps my only complaint was that he did have
the ability to draw the argument to a close when he so wished (and talk
over the guests!) but I can't see that I went in not fully aware of what I
was getting into!
MICHAEL HINMAN: While I disagree with some of the outlandish claims that
Tommy made, I was afraid he might be like many American radio talk show
hosts where he would try to talk over me. That's why I talked so fast in
the beginning, lol! But Tommy was very polite, and I was highly
KEVIN: Yes I did, I thought it was a fun thing to do.
SETH: I did enjoy the chat, although it was very brief and I didn't get to
talk about the lack of manure in the cargo-holds on the starship
Enterprise. Obviously a conspiracy against Bogdale farmers in the future.

2. What did you think of Tommy Boyd after the discussion?

CHRIS: I was singularly impressed with his manoeuvre at the end of "it was
all silly anyway, but you still couldn't prove it wrong!". I felt he
didn't have the better end of the argument nor did it feel like he'd "won"
the argument; but you had to admire the way he made it seem plain that he
was right. Whilst I don't usually go in for sensationalism and hype, he
seems to wield his words very skilfully and you've gotta take your hat off
to him for that.
MICHAEL HINMAN: Actually, I think I might tune in again. I know a lot of
Star Trek fans are pissy with him right now, and I still think his claims
are very outlandish. But he was entertaining, and kept me interested ...
interested enough to listen again.
KEVIN: I think he's well educated and has insightful ways of interpreting
the media.
SETH: That he's a daft Southern bastard! Captain Kirk is and always will
be the dogs bollocks. Get a life Tommy and pick on some other poor sods,
not us Star Trek fans. Other than that, I really like the man.

3. Does this view differ to your thoughts on Mr Boyd before the show aired?

CHRIS: My father said to me earlier on Saturday, "Son, tell him how you
saw him on kids' TV a decade ago, and he was a w**ker then too!" I confess
after hearing his TalkSport Trek show, I had a pretty low opinion of him.
I feel he's gone from a tabloid-like style to a more broadsheet-like
style; and like such a newspaper, he might be on the opposite side of the
opinion to me but I can at least take him seriously now!
MICHAEL HINMAN: I honestly wasn't that familiar with Tommy beforehand. I
listened to a little bit of his work online before I came on the show, and
I felt he was highly entertaining then. So, I don't think it's too
different. I still think he's highly entertaining.
KEVIN: Before the interview I had feared he was just a blow-hard trying to
get ratings by being caustic on the air.
SETH: Before the show I remember Tommy as that a**e-hole from Children's
television. Thankfully that is now replaced with newer thoughts. I now
know him as that a**e-hole from BBC radio!

4. What are your reactions to the proposition that the KKK *may* have had
a slice of the Star Trek pie, or that somebody, other than Gene
Roddenberry, influenced the way that minorities are being perceived on the
show in a negative light?

CHRIS: If they did have such an involvement, it has backfired
spectacularly. If such a subtext was there, it was so subtle that
generations have missed it and instead seen a positive, upbeat take on the
future where equality is everything. You can never say that they didn't
have involvement; but you can never say that the Americans landed on the
moon and you can never say Tony Blair is a closet transvestite. I just
don't happen to believe any of those assertions because they seem a tad
MICHAEL HINMAN: Herb Solow was the man who served as the network's
representative on the set, and I know that there was a lot of conflict
over what the network wanted, and what Gene wanted. Gene was hardly a
perfect man. No one denies that. But wanting to gain more influence for
organizations like the KKK? I don't think so. And not even because he was
from Texas. I'm from Pennsylvania, that doesn't make me Amish.
KEVIN: I think that is a conclusion reached rather at arm's length. There
are certainly elements of latent racism but they are, in my opinion,
rather diluted and there is too much counter-evisence to support this.
SETH: Complete and utter bollocks. If true then why didn't Captain Kirk
wear a white hood? Roddenberry was allegedly boning the actress who plays
Uhura. And anyone can tell you if you're having sex with a lady on the
side you have to keep her bread buttered the right way. You can't hide
anything from women.

5. Is there anything you would like to say to Tommy that you didn't get a
chance to during the broadcast?

CHRIS: There were plenty of issues I wanted to brush but obviously Tommy
wanted to move on rapidly (or perhaps he was frightened he'd be proven
wrong!). I did want to tell him I'd seen him on the Sooty show at age five
emerging from a giant television, and that at the time I was not a fan of
his CITV replacement with a giant animated caterpillar.
MICHAEL HINMAN: Yeah ... I'm really sorry that you turned a major,
well-organized fan base against you. But hey, at least they'll be
listening to what you might say next!
KEVIN: Many of the actors playing Klingons were white, and there are a
host of white-skinned bad guys throughout the different series. In another
instance it is said that Khan's villany is supported by his Latino
qualities. "White" is a rather loose term in the USA due to our history of
cross breeding, and personally Ricardo Montalban strikes me as a white guy.
SETH: I would just like to tell Tommy that there are conspiracy theories
for everything. It doesn't make it true. In fact I have heard a a theory
that the reason Tommy was axed from Children's television is because he
got caught shafting Anne Diamond behind the TV-AM sofa. Just a rumour like.

6. Would you ever be willing to talk to Tommy again on a future show (Star
Trek or other based)?

CHRIS: Probably so. I think more than anything else, it's the challenge
that would motivate me. It would be interesting to see whether more
chatting with Tommy would lead me to respect his work more or revert back
to thinking he was an overpaid sensationalist hack.
MICHAEL HINMAN: Tommy can bring me on anytime he likes. I love talking
movies and television, and I would enjoy speaking with him again.
KEVIN: Of course, although I was not a vitriolic as the other guests as I
agreed with many of Tommy's points I thought it was great fun.
SETH: Oh absolutely. I would be willing to give Tommy a right seeing too
on the radio again about anything (that's metaphorical you understand).

7. Finally, any additional comments?

CHRIS: Yes! Those emails he read out near the end of the show that he
attributed to me weren't. For the record, none of my e-mails got on to the
show. Oh, and Allison is very nice on the phone. Can we see a show where
she presents and callers have to get through Tommy instead to get on air?
MICHAEL HINMAN: No further comments.
KEVIN: Please give me a heads up if the show plans on having me on again.
SETH: Yes, there was a lesbo kiss on Deep Space 9, so you were wrong that
there aren't any gays on the show. The fact that they were man and wife
(male and female) in a past life does not discount that fact. Anyway I
have yet to see how that story ends as my video chews up from too much
freeze-frame. Don't tell the wife!

"I have nothing against Star Trek fandom. I wonder though, what percentage
are white middle class youths compared to minorities?"

Tommy Boyd

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 5:13 PM 1 comments

Thursday, January 25, 2007

White House Safe from Satire

After Stephen Colbert’s performance in 2006: White House press corps
learns its lesson

By David Walsh - 25 January 2007

The decision by the White House Correspondents’ Association to invite
impersonator Rich Little to provide entertainment at its annual dinner in
April captures something essential about the American media.

Last year’s event was dominated by the appearance of comic Stephen
Colbert, who skewered George W. Bush and his administration, as well as
the Washington press corps. The latter, along with the White House, was
not amused. Initially, the media attempted to conceal Colbert’s comments
from the public. His monologue received no mention from the New York Times
in its first article and the Washington Post buried his commentary,
leaving out the most pointed jokes. The performance only became widely
known through a video that appeared on the Internet, which was downloaded
millions of times within the first 48 hours.

At the dinner, Colbert, assuming his persona of a right-wing buffoon,
ironically mocked Bush. Referring to the president, seated only a few feet
to his right, he declaimed: “We’re not so different, he and I. We get it.
We’re not brainiacs on the nerd patrol. We’re not members of the
factinista. We go straight from the gut, right sir?”

And: “I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for
things. Not only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft
carriers and rubble and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a
strong message: that no matter what happens to America, she will always
rebound—with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world.” The comic
rejected the claims of those who were suggesting that a personnel shakeup
at the White House was merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
“This administration is not sinking. This administration is soaring. If
anything, they are rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg!”

Colbert reserved one of his sharpest barbs for the White House press corps
itself, whose leading lights were in attendance: “Over the last five years
you people were so good—over tax cuts, WMD intelligence, the effect of
global warming. We Americans didn’t want to know, and you had the courtesy
not to try to find out. Those were good times, as far as we knew.

“But, listen, let’s review the rules. Here’s how it works: the president
makes decisions. He’s the Decider. The press secretary announces those
decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make,
announce, type. Just put them through a spell check and go home. Get to
know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you’ve
got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid
Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration.
You know—fiction!”

Having learned its lesson, the spineless White House Correspondents’
Association (WHCA) decided to avoid controversy in 2007 by inviting the
68-year-old Little, whose impersonation of Richard Nixon in the early
1970s represented the height of his contribution to political humor.

Little dropped out of the limelight some time in the 1980s. He lives in
Las Vegas and continues to tour his act. His schedule for January and
February includes shows at the Suncoast Casino and Hotel in Las Vegas; the
Soboba Casino in San Jacinto, California; the North Iowa Community
Auditorium in Mason City, Iowa; Youkey Theatre at the Lakeland Center,
Lakeland, Florida; the Cumberland County Civic Center Crown Theatre in
Fayetteville, North Carolina; and the Central Auditorium in Findlay, Ohio.

On January 17, the Las Vegas Review-Journal ran an article on Little’s
appearance at the correspondents’ dinner. It noted that Little wouldn’t
“be mentioning Iraq or ratings when he addresses the White House
Correspondents’ Dinner April 21. Little said organizers of the event made
it clear they don’t want a repeat of last year’s controversial appearance
by Stephen Colbert, whose searing satire of President Bush and the White
House press corps fell flat and apparently touched too many nerves. ‘They
got a lot of letters,’ Little said Tuesday. ‘I won’t even mention the word
“Iraq.”’ Little, who hasn’t been to the White House since he was a
favorite of the Reagan administration, said he’ll stick with his usual
schtick—the impersonations of the past six presidents. ‘They don’t want
anyone knocking the president. He’s really over the coals right now, and
he’s worried about his legacy,’ added Little, a longtime Las Vegas

Steve Scully, a producer at C-Span and the current WHCA president, denied
putting pressure on Little: “I cannot be more clear that we never
mentioned Iraq, we never gave him any guidelines. The only thing we told
him is that we want to follow the policy of the Gridiron Dinner, which is
‘singe, don’t burn.’”

After Little denied having even made the remarks to the Las Vegas
newspaper, its reporter commented: “Let’s go to the replay. Early in the
interview, Little said, ‘I won’t even mention the word Iraq. It’s not
appropriate. You just want to be entertaining.... I won’t do anything
close to over the line.’ He added, ‘They said, from ...,’ he paused,
without finishing the sentence. ‘They thought my approach was more
appropriate for their kind of thing. They don’t want Bill Maher or a
comedian who’s going to be biting and perhaps knock the president in any

In an interview with the Washington Post’s Paul Farhi, Little made the
same point: “One of the reasons they picked me is because I’m not
controversial.... They did get some flak about the guy they had last year.
I don’t think they wanted someone political or controversial again.”

Little seems a safe choice. On his personal web site, he includes an
extended and heartfelt tribute to the late Ronald Reagan, which includes
these gems: “He was unlike any celebrity I have ever known. When talking
with him, you became unaware of the fact that you were talking with the
President of the United States. The quickest way to become Ronald Reagan’s
friend was to tell him a great joke. He would then come right back at you
with a joke of his own. You could then tell him another joke, and he’d
have another story to tell you. This could go on endlessly, even if there
was a war on. ...

“He was nice to everyone and always appeared interested in anything you
had to say. I think he was a great President because everyone liked him,
even if they were opposed to his politics.... I will miss Ronald Reagan
... to me he was a lovable grandfather.”

Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times noted in a recent column that
Little “was a guest on a radio show I hosted about 10 years ago, and even
then, after he ran through about a dozen voices, I finally had to say,
‘Can you imitate anybody’s who’s alive?’ Mr. Little was not amused.”

Exemplifying the American media’s spirit of self-censorship and all-round
philistinism, Scully remarked to the press, “My approach is to try to make
it [the annual dinner] a comfortable venue that is enjoyable, funny and
interesting.... But you don’t want to offend anyone.” According to Editor
& Publisher, he “contends that Colbert’s appearance was a success and
played no part in the choice of Little. ‘I think some of the criticism of
Colbert was overblown,’ he said. ‘We didn’t hear anything from the White
House.’ ... Scully added that getting the hottest, hippest entertainer is
not always the best thing for the Washington crowd, whose participants
span many different decades. ‘There are some people who think if you don’t
know Stephen Colbert, you don’t get his brand of humor,’ Scully said. ‘You
want someone who appeals to the [right-wing columnist] Bob Novaks and the
bloggers of the world.’” In another comment, Scully suggested that the
correspondents didn’t want to make Bush a “political piñata.”

No one with a brain in his or her head will believe that the WHCA didn’t
hear from the White House about Colbert’s performance, directly or
indirectly. Bush was obviously livid, as was his wife. One top Bush aide
was quoted as saying, “Colbert crossed the line.” Several aides and
supporters walked out before the comic had finished.

Ron Hutcheson, a McClatchy Newspapers reporter and former correspondents’
association president, acknowledged that Colbert’s impact had played a
role in the choice of Little. “It is certainly a safe choice, which might
be nice,” he said. “My personal feeling is that this [the selection of
Little] is about ENOUGH.... We don’t need to have a blogfest and a
partisan slugfest after the dinner. We don’t need that.”

What can one say? The media and political establishment is impervious to
the sentiments of the population. The war in Iraq is a disaster, the
administration’s policies have been rejected by the population, Bush is
widely despised. Colbert spoke for millions last year, telling the
president of the United States what a scoundrel he was.

The media, on the other hand, lives and breathes in Bush’s universe. They
felt Colbert had been too harsh, unfair, bullying.

In the case of the White House correspondents, they literally breathe the
same air. These are individuals who fly on Air Force One, who joke around
with Bush and his cohorts, whose careers depend on their ability to be
intimate with the president. They may be Republicans or Democrats, it
hardly matters, but they are part of Washington’s well-heeled, incestuous

In addition to Scully, who worked as a teenager on Jimmy Carter’s
presidential campaign, the WHCA includes among its officers Ann Compton of
ABC News (she serves as the organization’s vice president). Her official
biography reveals that Compton “is now covering a sixth President for ABC
News in a career that has taken her to the White House, Capitol Hill and
through seven presidential campaigns. She is the National correspondent
for ABC News Radio, based [in] Washington, DC. On September 11, 2001, Ms.
Compton was the only broadcast reporter allowed to remain onboard Air
Force One during the dramatic hours when President Bush was unable to
return to Washington.”

Another WHCA officer, its treasurer, is Jennifer Loven of Associated
Press. Her husband, Roger Ballentine, was a senior adviser to the John
Kerry campaign in 2004 and is currently president of Green Strategies Inc,
an environmental lobbying firm. Ballentine was a senior member of the
Clinton White House staff, serving as chairman of the White House Climate
Change Task Force and deputy assistant to the president for Environmental
Initiatives. Prior to being named deputy assistant to the president,
Ballentine was special assistant to the president for Legislative Affairs,
where he focused on energy and environment issues.

WHCA secretary Peter Maer of “CBS News”, according to the network’s
biography, “has covered the White House since 1986.... A frequent flyer on
Air Force One, Maer has traveled to nearly 40 countries and every State of
the Union with Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush,
Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter.”

WHCA board member Steve Holland of Reuters was cited in a USA Today
article in 2001 on Bush’s “Western White House” in Crawford, Texas.
“Holland, who started covering the White House when Bush’s father was in
charge, is wistful when he recalls cooler summer sojourns in
Kennebunkport, Maine. ‘If only he had his father’s preference for vacation
spots,’ Holland says. Despite fond memories of Kennebunkport and President
Bill Clinton’s trips to chic Jackson Hole, Wyo. ... and Martha’s Vineyard,
Mass., Holland says he’s content at the Western White House.”

It comes as no surprise that these people were made unhappy by the
performance of Colbert, who committed the fatal error of telling certain
elementary, indisputable truths about the Bush administration, truths
which the mass media knows but never repeats. By their ridiculous actions,
the members of the White House press corps only confirm the point the
comic was making about their toadying. Indeed, by bending over backward so
far with their choice of the anodyne, Reagan-loving, all-but-forgotten
Little, the White House correspondents have demonstrated their
subservience and cowardice more graphically than Colbert could possibly
have done.

See Also:
Bush, US media respond to Stephen Colbert’s comic assault: “We are not
amused” [5 May 2006]

Following his attack on satirist Stephen Colbert Columnist Richard Cohen
denounces his critics [11 May 2006]


Full text TRANSCRIPT of Stephen Colbert's monologue at the White House
Correspondents Dinner:

Saturday, April 29, 2006 :

"Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Before I begin, I've been asked to make
an announcement. Whoever parked 14 black bullet proof S.U.V.'S out front,
could you please move them. They are blocking in 14 other black
bulletproof S.U.V.'S and they need to get out.

Wow, wow, what an honor. The White House Correspondents Dinner. To just
sit here, at the same table with my hero, George W. Bush, to be this close
to the man. I feel like I'm dreaming. Somebody pinch me. You know what,
I'm a pretty sound sleeper, that may not be enough. Somebody shoot me in
the face.

Is he really not here tonight? The one guy who could have helped. By the
way, before I get started, if anybody needs anything at their tables,
speak slowly and clearly on into your table numbers and somebody from the
N.S.A. Will be right over with a cocktail.

Mrs. Smith, ladies and gentlemen of the press corps, Mr. President and
first lady, my name is Stephen Colbert and it's my privilege tonight to
celebrate our president. He's no so different, he and I. We get it. We're
not brain hacks on the nerd patrol. We're not members of the fact police.
We go straight from the gut, right sir? That's where the truth lies, right
down here in the gut.

Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your
head? You can look it up. I know some of you are going to say I did look
it up, and that's not true. That's because you looked it up in a book.

Next time look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our
nervous system works. Every night on my show, the Colbert report, I speak
straight from the gut, ok? I give people the truth, unfiltered by rational
argument. I call it the no fact zone. Fox News, I own the copyright on
that term.

I'm a simple man with a simple mind, a simple set of beliefs that I live
by. Number one, I believe in America. I believe it exists.

My gut tells me I live there. I feel that it extends from the Atlantic to
the Pacific, and I strongly believe it has 50 states. And I cannot wait to
see how The Washington Post spins that one tomorrow. I believe in
democracy. I believe democracy is our greatest export. At least until
China figures out a way to stamp it out in plastic for three cents a unit.

In fact, ambassador, welcome, your great country makes our happy meals
possible. I said it's a celebration. I believe the government that governs
best is the government that governs least. And by these standards, we have
set up a fabulous government in Iraq.

I believe in pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. I believe it is
possible -- I saw this guy do it once in Cirque du Soleil. It was magical.

And though I am a committed Christian, I believe that everyone has the
right to their own religion, be it Hindu, Jewish or Muslim. I believe
there are infinite paths to accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior.

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe it's yogurt. But I refuse to believe it's
not butter. Most of all I believe in this president.

Now, I know there's some polls out there saying this man has a 32%
approval rating. But guys like us, we don't pay attention to the polls. We
know that polls are just a collection of statistics that reflect what
people are thinking in "reality." And reality has a well-known liberal

So, Mr. President, pay no attention to the people that say the glass is
half full. 32% means the glass... it's important to set up your jokes
properly, sir. Sir, pay no attention to the people who say the glass is
half-empty, because 32% means it's 2/3 empty. There's still some liquid in
that glass, is my point, but I wouldn't drink it. The last third is
usually backwash.

Folks, my point is, that I don't believe this is a low point in this
presidency. I believe it is just a lull, before a comeback.

I mean, it's like the movie "Rocky." The president is Rocky and Apollo
Creed is everything else in the world. It's the 10th round. He's bloodied.
His corner man, Mick, who in this case would be the Vice President, and
he's yelling cut me, Dick, cut me, and every time he falls, he says stay
down! Does he stay down? No. Like Rocky he gets back up and in the end
he... Actually, he loses in the first movie. Ok. It doesn't matter.

The point is that this is the heart-warming story of a man who was
repeatedly punched in the face. So don't pay attention to the approval
ratings that say 68% of Americans disapprove of the job this man is doing.
I ask you this, does that not also logically mean that 68% approve of the
job he's not doing? Think about it. I haven't.

I stand by this man. I stand by this man because he stands for things. Not
only for things, he stands on things. Things like aircraft carriers, and
rubble, and recently flooded city squares. And that sends a strong
message, that no matter what happens to America, she will always rebound
with the most powerfully staged photo ops in the world.

Now, there may be an energy crisis. This president has a very
forward-thinking energy policy. Why do you think he's down on the ranch
cutting that brush all the time? He's trying to create an alternative
energy source. By 2008 we will have a mesquite-powered car.

And I just like the guy. He's a Good Joe. Obviously loves his wife, calls
her his better half. And polls show America agrees. She's a true lady and
a wonderful woman. But I just have one beef, ma'am. I'm sorry, but this
reading initiative. I've never been a fan of books. I don't trust them.
They're all fact, no heart. I mean, they're elitist, telling us what is or
isn't true, what did or didn't happen. What's Britannica to tell me the
Panama Canal was built in 1914? If I want to say it was built in 1941,
that's my right as an American. I'm with the president, let history decide
what did or did not happen.

The greatest thing about this man is he's steady. You know where he
stands. He believes the same thing Wednesday, that he believed on Monday,
no matter what happened Tuesday. Events can change, this man's beliefs
never will.

And as excited as I am to be here with the president, I am appalled to be
surrounded by the liberal media that is destroying America, with the
exception of Fox News. Fox News gives you both sides of every story, the
President's side and the Vice-President's side.

But the rest of you, what are you thinking, reporting on NSA. wiretapping
or secret prisons in Eastern Europe? Those things are secret for a very
important reason, they're superdepressing. And if that's your goal, well,
misery accomplished.

Over the last five years you people were so good over tax cuts, WMD
intelligence, the affect of global warming. We Americans didn't want to
know, and you had the courtesy not to try to find out. Those were good
times, as far as we knew.

But, listen, let's review the rules. Here's how it works. The President
makes decisions, he's the decider. The Press Secretary announces those
decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make,
announce, type. Put them through a spell check and go home.

Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel
you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid
Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration.
You know, fiction.

Because really, what incentive do these people have to answer your
questions, after all? I mean, nothing satisfies you. Everybody asks for
personnel changes. So the White House has personnel changes. Then you
write they're just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

First of all, that is a terrible metaphor. This administration is not
sinking. This administration is soaring. If anything, they are rearranging
the deck chairs on the Hindenburg.

Now, it's not all bad guys out there. Some heroes, Buckley, Kim Schieffer.
By the way, Mr. President, thank you for agreeing to be on my show. I was
just as shocked as everyone here is I promise you. How is Tuesday for you?
I've got Frank Rich, but we can bump him. And I mean bump him. I know a
guy. Say the word.

See who we've got here tonight. General Moseley, Air Force Chief of Staff.
General Peter Pace. They still support Rumsfeld. You guys aren't retired
yet, right? Right, they still support Rumsfeld.

Look, by the way, I've got a theory about how to handle these retired
generals causing all this trouble, don't let them retire! C'mon, we've got
a stop-loss program, let's use it on these guys. If you're strong enough
to go on one of those pundit shows, you can stand on a bank of computers
and order men into battle. C'mon.

Jesse Jackson is here. I had him on the show. Very interesting and
challenging interview. You can ask him anything, but he's going to say
what he wants at the pace that he wants. It's like boxing a glacier. Enjoy
that metaphor, because your grandchildren will have no idea what a glacier

Justice Scalia's here. May I be the first to say welcome, sir. You look
fantastic. How are you? (gestures "up yours" in imitation of Scalia's
reported gesture)

John McCain is here. John McCain. John McCain. What a maverick. Somebody
find out what fork he used on his salad, because I guarantee you wasn't a
salad fork. He could have used a spoon. There's no predicting him. So
wonderful to see you coming back into the Republican fold. I have a
summerhouse in South Carolina, look me up when you go to speak at Bob
Jones University. So glad you've seen the light.

Mayor Nagin is here from New Orleans, the chocolate city. Yeah, give it
up. Mayor Nagin, I would like to welcome you to Washington, D.C., The
chocolate city with a marshmallow center. And a graham cracker crust of
corruption. It's a Mallomar, is what I'm describing, a seasonal cookie.

Joe Wilson is here, the most famous husband since Desi Arnaz. And of
course he brought along his lovely wife Valerie Plame. Oh, my God! What
have I said. I am sorry, Mr. President, I meant to say he brought along
his lovely wife, Joe Wilson's wife. Pat Fitzgerald is not here tonight?
Dodged a bullet.

And we can't forget man of the hour, new Press Secretary, Tony Snow.
Secret service name, Snow Job. What a hero, took the second toughest job
in government, next to, of course, the ambassador to Iraq. Got some big
shoes to fill, Tony. Scott McClellan could say nothing like nobody else.

McClellan, eager to retire. Really felt like he needed to spend more time
with Andrew Card's children.

Mr. President, I wish you hadn't made the decision so quickly, sir. I was
vying for the job. I think I would have made a fabulous press secretary. I
have nothing but contempt for these people. I know how to handle these
clowns. In fact, sir, I brought along an audition tape and with your
indulgence, I'd like to at least give it a shot. So, ladies and gentlemen,
my press conference."

(Colbert shows a video segment, in which he portrays an incompetent Press


Colbert shows a video of a mock press conference. It opens with him at a
podium, addressing the assembled Washington press corps.

COLBERT: I have a brief statement: the press is destroying America. OK,
let's see who we've got here today.

COLBERT (acknowledging various reporters): Stretch! (David Gregory nods)

Sir Nerdlington! (reporter nods)

Sloppy Joe! (reporter nods)

Terry Lemon Moran Pie! (Terry Moran nods)

Oh, Doubting Thomas, always a pleasure. (Helen Thomas smiles)

And Suzanne Mal -- hello!!

(Suzanne Malveaux stares at Colbert, looking unhappy. Colbert mimics
putting a phone to his ear and mouths "call me.")

REPORTER: Will the Vice President be available soon to answer all
questions himself?

COLBERT: I've already addressed that question. You (pointing to another

REPORTER: Walter Cronkite, the noted CBS anchor, . . .

COLBERT (interrupting): Ah, no, he's the former CBS anchor. Katie Couric
is the new anchor of the CBS Evening News. Well, well, how do you guys
feel about that?

You, tousle-haired guy in the back. Are you happy about Katie Couric
taking over the CBS Evening News?

DAN RATHER: No, sir, Mr. Colbert. Are you? (Laughter)

COLBERT: Boom! Oh, look, we woke David Gregory up. Question?

DAVID GREGORY: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?

COLBERT: I don't know. I'll ask him.

(Colbert turns to Rove) Karl, pay attention please! (Rove is seen drawing
a heart with "Karl + Stephen" written on it.)

GREGORY: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003 when you
were asked specifically about Karl, and Elliott Abrams, and Scooter Libby,
and you said "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me
that they are not involved in this." Do you stand by that statement?

COLBERT: Nah, I was just kidding!

GREGORY: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything! You stood
at that podium and said . . .

COLBERT (interrupting): Ah, that's where you're wrong. New podium! Just
had it delivered today. Get your facts straight, David.

GREGORY: This is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before
us after having commented with that level of detail and tell the people
watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk. You've got to . . .

(Colbert is seen looking at three buttons on the podium, labeled "EJECT,"
"GANNON" and "VOLUME." He selects the "VOLUME" button and turns it. We see
Gregory's lips continue moving, but can't hear any sound coming out.)

COLBERT: If I can't hear you, I can't answer your question. I'm sorry! I
have to move on. Terry.

TERRY MORAN: After the investigation began, after the criminal
investigation was underway, you said . . .

(Colbert presses a button on the podium and fast-forwards through most of
Moran's question.)

MORAN (continuing): All of a sudden, you have respect for the sanctity of
a criminal investigation?

COLBERT (seen playing with rubber ball, which he is bouncing off attached
paddle): No, I never had any respect for the sanctity of a criminal
investigation. Activist judges! Yes, Helen.

HELEN THOMAS: You're going to be sorry. (Laughter)

COLBERT (looking vastly amused, mockingly): What are you going to do,
Helen, ask me for a recipe?

THOMAS: Your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands
(Colbert's smile fades) of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and
Iraqis for a lifetime.

COLBERT (interrupting): OK, hold on Helen, look . . .

THOMAS (continuing): Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out
not to be true. My question is why did you really want to go to war?

COLBERT (again interrupting): Helen, I'm going to stop you right there.
(Thomas keeps talking.) That's enough! No! Sorry, Helen, I'm moving on.
(Colbert tries to turn her volume off, but the knob falls off his

(Various reporters start shouting questions at Colbert.)

COLBERT (agitated): Guys, guys, please don't let Helen do this to what was
a lovely day.

(Reporters keep shouting at him.)

COLBERT (putting his fingers over his ears and shouting in a high-pitched
voice): Bllrrtt! No, no, no, no, no. I'm not listening to you!

Look what you did, Helen! I hate you!

(Helen Thomas glowers at Colbert.)

COLBERT (frantic): I'm out of here!

(Colbert pulls back the curtain behind him, desperately trying to flee. He
says, "There is a wall here!" The press corps laughs. Colbert has
difficulty finding a door from which to exit the room, echoing Bush's
experience in China. He finally finds the door and hurries through it.)

COLBERT: It reeks in there! Ridiculous! I've never been so insulted in my
life! Stupid job.

(Colbert continues walking away. We hear sinister-sounding music playing.
We see Helen Thomas walking behind Colbert.)

(Colbert looks behind him, sees Thomas, and starts running.)

(Colbert trips over a roller skate, and yells "Condi!" We see a close-up
of Helen Thomas' face, looking determined and angry. Colbert, increasingly
panicked, gets up and continues running, running into a parking garage. He
reaches an emergency call box, and yells into it.)

COLBERT: Oh, thank God. Help me!

ATTENDANT: What seems to be the problem, sir?

COLBERT: She won't stop asking why we invaded Iraq! ATTENDANT: Hey, why
did we invade Iraq?

COLBERT: NO!!! (runs toward his car)

(We see Helen Thomas, still walking toward him.)

(Colbert reaches his car, and fumblingly attempts to open it with his key.
He is in such a desperate hurry that he fumbles with the keys and drops
them. When he picks them up, he looks back and Helen is even closer. In
his frantic rush, Colbert just can't get the keys into the lock.)

(Just as his anxiety is getting completely out of control he suddenly
remembers that he has a keyless remote -- so he just pushes the button on
the keychain and the car unlocks immediately with the usual double squeak
noise. Colbert jumps in and locks the door, and continues to fumble trying
to get the car started. He finally succeeds, and looks up to see Helen
standing in front of the car, notepad in hand.)


(Colbert puts the car into reverse and drives off, tires squealing. Thomas

(Colbert is shown taking the shuttle from Washington, D.C. to New York. A
car and driver are waiting for him at Penn Station. The uniformed man
standing alongside the car opens the door and lets Colbert in.)

COLBERT: What a terrible trip, Danny. Take me home.

(The driver locks the doors, turns around, and says, "Buckle up, hon."

COLBERT (horrified face pressed against car window): NO!!!


STEPHEN COLBERT: Helen Thomas, ladies and gentlemen. Mr. Smith, members of
the White House Correspondents Association, Madame First Lady, Mr.
President, it's been a true honor. Thank you very much. Good night!

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 5:59 PM 0 comments

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Murder USA Modus Operandi

America’s shadow
By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal Associate Editor

Jan 23, 2007, 01:10

In his book, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, Peter Dale Scott talks about America’s destructive actions rooted so deep in its politics that they prove not to be anomalies but integral parts of our political psyche. Scott invokes Jung’s buried shadow, “the repository for repressed unpleasantness.” Yet the shadow (as in who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men), can still be exposed by the freedoms still available to us in America. And this is our salvation.

Healing, as Scott writes, “can come from an enlargement of insight,” which suggests optimism. He adds “for if America were no more than its shadows depicted here, logic and common sense would rule out the writing and publication of this book.” And so Deep Politics is an invitation to understand beyond political paradigms of logic or reason the irrational and/or criminal forces at work in the woodwork, chewing down the State House while other carpenters toil incessantly to Raise High the Roof Beams.

And so, according to Scott, the murder of John F. Kennedy was not a historic one-off, but the body politic’s modus operandi, cloned in the assassinations of Robert F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, and I might add John Lennon and the attempted assassinations of George Wallace, Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. Scott reports that within the investigatory process of the Warren Commission, there were some 21 or more violent deaths. And 16 more that died at the time of the Garrison investigation of 1967, later immortalized in Oliver Stone’s milestone film, JFK, not to mention our memory.

Along with these shadows (a term also used in theater to describe the dark side of a character), comes the cast of suspects, the usual round of lone nut gunmen, Mafiosi, tainted patriots, CIA and Secret Service “Secret Sharers,” dark operatives, drug runners, money launderers, pimps, generals, defense contractors, politicians, spinmeisters, spymasters, the hated minority, world leaders, plotters, the vicious and/or bereaved Americans. This cast persists from drama to drama.

In fact, we can follow it via Watergate to Iran-contra and Iraqgate to 9/11 to find the lone terrorist patsies capped by bin Laden, the NORAD generals, the CIA/FBI/NSA nexus, the corrupt politicians, the cabinet, the hapless president, the vice president who would be king, the drug-runners, money-launderers, defense companies, corporate donors, spinners, military bases where assassins train, Wall Street where financial hitmen train, and so on.

In fact, in a separate article JFK and 9/11, Scott elaborates on these two American real-life tragic movies, their similar devices in scripts and players, and how they play over and over again on the unsuspecting and suspecting public, shadows (paradigms) projected by light on a huge white screen of time.

It is my impression that the desire to absorb the shadow paradigms may be also at the root of our fascination with political cum sci-fi melodramas, movies from Dr. Strangelove to The Matrix to The Good Shepherd, whose truly dark scenarios are missing from “All the News That’s Fit To Print” and the everyday media, whose real/life counterparts are scathingly replayed on the Internet for their agog scholars.

Perhaps our blindness towards America’s shadows is that we so recognize them in fiction that we no longer fear them in reality, even though they have the potential to lull us into a virtual Apocalypse Now. For instance, let me deal with a major example from Scott’s book, a staple of the American shadow, the obfuscation to make war.

Two scenarios: NSAM 263 AND NSAM 273

National Security Action Memoranda 263 was issued by John F Kennedy on October 11, 1963. It was Kennedy’s last NSAM policy directive issued on Vietnam. Simply stated, it called for a withdrawal of 1,000 troops, combatants, from Vietnam. Beyond that stunner, was Kennedy’s firm ambition, made known to Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and the generals, to withdraw the balance of the troops by the end of 1965. The NSAM document, Scott points out, is on the screen of Stone’s JFK for six seconds, fast enough in film time to see, but merely a blip to fully understand. And to watch it morph, supposedly following in Kennedy’s directive steps to NSAM 273, is mind-boggling. This National Security Action Memo was issued only four days after Kennedy’s death by Lyndon Johnson, giving General Maxwell Taylor, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the permission to escalate “to insure victory” and take the “war North.”

For Kennedy’s NSAM 263, as Scott tells us, “reflected the ‘political’ priority of avoiding an unlimited commitment to the war, by the signal (important politically but not militarily) of withdrawing 1,000 troops. Johnson’s NSAM 273, while deceptively reiterating language from a still earlier and lower-level document about withdrawal, chose instead the ‘military’ option of escalation, and also reversed Kennedy’s most recent Vietnam policy NSAM.”

Beyond that Johnson had an ongoing flow of information from the military of the darker, truer picture of Nam events, via a back channel. This while the military and Johnson forwarded a rosier series of reports to Kennedy (who never saw the darker), though Kennedy bought none of it.

Stone’s JFK critics from Leslie Gelb in the Times to Alexander Cockburn in The Nation, Scott points out, “replaced this verifiable issue of fact by an unverifiable one: whether or not JFK would have pulled the United States out of Vietnam.” That is speculation not history. And it was the escalation permitted by NSAM 273 that led to the military bombing of North Vietnam. This, in turn, led to US destroyer patrols and the August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incidents, which had been discussed in the Pentagon before but only then received presidential authorization. The falsified attacks on American warships in the Gulf of Tonkin led to a full-out escalation into perdition.

Supposedly, McNamara himself never saw the plans until November 20. But there’s no question that NSAM 273 wants the US to fight. NSAM 263 expresses Kennedy’s desire for limited engagement and ends with his assassination. This is the shadow of our history and its movie running in memory.

The execution of the scenario

With NSAM 263, Kennedy bucks the intense bureaucratic opposition, from the career generals to the fresh-stung Bay of Pigs attendees; from the CIA and Cuban loyalists to the fired CIA director and assistants; from the frustrated defense industrialists who saw millions, billions slipping away, to the oil-thirsty corporations eyeing Southeast Asia for petro-profits; from the diehard anti-communist ideologues thinking JFK was going soft on commies to the drug lords of the Mafia and their CIA partners anxious to peddle their wares in the fog of war; from the open-pocket politicians to the close-mouthed killers; in short, from all came back the shock wave of triangulated assassination as if set in motion by the laws of physics and nature itself.

And so, the Secret Service turns the Kennedy car left off the planned route of Main Street to a short distance on Houston Street to a left again onto Elm Street into Dealey Plaza, a long volley of shots exploding from the front, the right and the rear, killing Kennedy, wounding Texas Governor John Connally, eight wounds in all, the limousine slowed from 25 to 10 mph, then sped up on the direct route to Parkland Hospital; the full 26 seconds of shadows and cutouts caught on the dress manufacturer Abraham Zapruder’s 8-millimeter camera. The film, film for the folly, for perpetuity, for Life Magazine, for prevarication, recut that very night by the CIA.

And behind the four door Lincoln convertible (a bullet hole in the upper right of its windshield), we find at a reasonable distance the finned Cadillac convertible with the vice president in mint condition. Johnson was host that previous evening to Allen Dulles, former CIA chief, the soon to be member of the Warren Commission. It is a feeding frenzy, blood on the water.

And the cast of characters caught on stills standing in the Plaza or in front of the Texas School Book Depository are alleged to include rightwing extremist Joseph Milteer, CIA agent Lucien Conein, the CIA's Colonel Edward Lansdale and GHW Bush, among others. This with multiples of the lone goat Oswald identified here and there and caught in a matter of minutes, just like Sirhan Sirhan, Talmadge Hayer, John Hinckley, Arthur Bremer, and so on, systemic, repeating themselves, Sam Giancana, Jimmy Roselli, Carlos Marcellus, Santo Trafficante, players in a national drama that will be revived when necessary like Hello Dolly or even Sondheim’s Assassins.

The drama shakes the paradigm of propriety to pieces: that this couldn’t happen but did happen and will happen time after time, one way or the other, to replace those who get in the way of those with the more profitable direction. The 9/11 Commission in for the Warren Commission, the obfuscators greasing the wheels of progress and war, the giant reels of the projector showing us the news of democracy in action from Cuba to Vietnam, Iran to Iraq, Chile to Nicaragua, and so on -- American as apple pie. And with a president who knows better today that he must surge in Iraq in his blue serge suit, red tie and white shirt. So it goes. It is endemic this epidemic of “killing and creation” as our world turns.

Beyond it all, the indelible sunshine of life, the cloudless blue skies of November 22, 1963, in Dallas and September 11, 2001, in New York City, and all the days between. Days of the fall, the coming thanksgiving for all we have and have not, for how it is, and can be, for better or for worse.

Thanks to Peter Dale Scott, poet, professor, political seer, for seeing the shadow, and Oliver Stone for putting it on film. After all what is film, like life, but the capture of shadow and light?


Peter Dale Scott - JFK and 9/11

Insights Gained from Studying Both
by Dr. Peter Dale Scott

The assassination of John F. Kennedy took place 43 years ago on Friday, November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas. The following text is the transcript of a lecture delivered by Peter Dale Scott in Dallas on November 18, 2006.

When I first imagined doing this talk I thought well I probably knew more at this stage about 9/11 than most people here, who are professionally concerned with JFK.1 But in preparing this talk, which I only began last Monday, has been a real learning experience for me. Taking a lot of things which I had already knew about each, but which I had never really put together before -- when I did they gave me a clearer view of what was happening behind the scenes in both operations. Because certain things repeat themselves.

These things that repeat themselves include what we might call external features – which you are very familiar within the JFK case - the ability of the government to establish a guilty party or parties immediately, and the press and media consumption of that product to the exclusion of all other possibilities.

Eventually, in both cases a commission is set up – the Warren Commission in 1963 and the 9/11 Commission this time in 2003.

And the starting point for both commissions is to validate what was already decided by the FBI on the day in question. That is the first of the common features that I would like to look at a bit more closely because it sort of hit me between the eyes when I thought about the two together.

Now if you remember the case of Oswald, and I have to do this from memory here, so correct me if I am wrong about the details, but within minutes of the assassination and long before Oswald is picked up in the Texas Theater, they put out on the police network and possibly other networks, a description of the killer – five foot ten – 165 pounds (WR 5), which exactly matches what is in his FBI file, exactly matches what’s in CIA documents about him. 2

One of the problems is it doesn’t match the actual height and weight of the man picked up and charged, which is more like five foot nine and 140 pounds.3 And it’s also very suspect because as far as we can trace the origins of this exact fit with the FBI file, it’s attributed to Howard Brennan 4– who saw someone two blocks from here in the sixth floor window, from the waist up. So you’ll have to figure out how they were able to get that exact. It appears they already knew who was going to be charged before they found him in the Texas Theater.

Now the parallel to that for 9/11 is, I have to say, even more astounding, because of Richard Clarke, who was director for counter-terrorism activities in the White House, and a very important eyewitness. His book Against All Enemies is almost totally ignored by the 9/11 Commission, and it had to be ignored by the Commission because it is at odds, in many important respects, with what the 9/11 Report says (which I will get back to). But he tells us that at 9:59 am on September 11, which is the time when the second tower collapses, the North Tower, the FBI already had a list of the alleged hijackers. 5

This is extraordinary in the first place because the FBI always says about itself that it doesn’t do much intelligence in the field of terrorism; its specialty is criminal investigation afterwards. They had the names of hijackers at 9:59; at 9:59 am Flight 93 had not yet crashed. And even more astonishingly, if we believe the 9/11 Report (which of course on this point I do not believe), NORAD, which was searching for the hijacked planes, wasn’t aware that Flight 93 had been hijacked until 10:08, which is nine minutes later.

("I don't buy the idea that we didn't know what was coming," a former FBI official with extensive counter-terrorism experience has since said. "Within 24 hours [of the attack] the Bureau had about 20 people identified, and photos were sent out to the news media. Obviously this information was available in the files and somebody was sitting on it.")6

So it’s worth thinking about that for a moment, the two events together. And then in the other cases that we know about, how the identity of the person who is ultimately going to be identified as the culprit is established at the very beginning - Sirhan Sirhan, the bag with the gun that identifies James Earl Ray – it isn’t investigative work AFTER the assassination, that finds these people, it is just following up what is already there, from the very beginning.

As I say that is the first thing that strikes my mind about the similarities between the two events. And then we come to what I call the internal continuity of content. Historically I was first drawn to this because when the news of the Watergate break-in was in the New York Times, on June 17, 1972, which I remember quite vividly, there was Frank Sturgis, alias Frank Fiorini, that I had already written about in The Dallas Conspiracy a year before, because of his role in perpetuating false Oswald stories, what I now call Phase One Oswald stories, linking him falsely to Cuba.

I could go on and on about that, but I just wanted to say, in the new paperback edition of Lamar Waldon’s book Ultimate Sacrifice, we find validation of a very old story that Hunt and McCord, who we may loosely call two of the Watergate burglars, certainly the two who were controlling the fate of the rest, worked together in 1963.7

This is an old charge, which was largely forgotten, but is revived in this book, and in my mind credibly. I just put myself on record that I was not impressed with the hardbound edition of Ultimate Sacrifice, and only this week just began reading my copy of the paperback edition. And I have issues with a lot of the things in there, but I am convinced it has to be taken seriously, and that whether or not he is right about his central thesis, he is more right about the supporting details that he has gathered for it and it has the advantage of being thoroughly documented book. The quality of the documentation goes up and down, but there is a great deal of it.


Now I want to come to a common denominator between what happened in 1963 and what happened in 2001. It is not often discussed, but by coincidence, I think it is being discussed right now in the other place, as we call it [i.e. the Lancer Conference], the role of the White House Communications Agency. You are all JFK researchers. How many of you have ever asked yourself about the role of the White House Communications Agency – WHCA on 11/22/63–? Anybody?

Rex!8 (laugh) Well I am indebted to Rex [Bradford], who of course is administering the web site of the Mary Ferrell Foundation. There are quite a few documents there, and I am going to draw on those documents. That is what’s so wonderful about the Mary Ferrell Foundation, you never have to go to the National Archives again, you just give a few touches of the fingers on the keyboard and you get these things.

It’s going to help us with what I consider a very crucial and unresolved question of 9/11, and I’m sorry I have to telescope here. My big question and the focus of my forthcoming book - The Road to 9/11 - out of that huge book with 14 chapters, there are only two on 9/11 itself, and both of them are looking exclusively really, almost exclusively, at what Dick Cheney did between 9 am and 10:39 on that morning -- because there are different accounts of it, and interestingly there are different accounts from Dick Cheney himself, incompatible accounts. And I believe it is a very important issue because either he was in the bunker, what we call the PEOC under the White House, or not, when two crucial orders were made, a Stand Down order that got all the planes down on the ground, that came out of the bunker, and a Shoot Down order, to shoot down any remaining hijacked planes. (At this point there was only one – Flight 93, which of course is the plane that should not have been shot down, according to the official version, because the passengers were taking care of the problem themselves.)

And there is no doubt, everybody agrees, including the 9/11 Report, that both these orders occurred. There is no doubt that the first was at 9:42; and there is great confusion as to whether the second order was around 9:45 (Richard Clarke says it was before Air Force One took off at 9:54) or when the Report indicates: probably about 10:15, which of course is after Flight 93 had already crashed.9

Now when did Dick Cheney go into the PEOC? He spoke to Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" five days afterward, on September 16, and said he got there before the plane, if that is what it was, flew into the Pentagon, which was at 9:37. And I believe what he said on September 16.

Then he was interviewed by Newsweek, and that appeared in Newsweek on December 31; and it is the basis for the story in the 9/11 Report: that he "arrived", and that’s the Report’s word, in the bunker "shortly before 10 [am], perhaps at 9:58."10

You notice if that was the case, he was not present for either order, though we have many sources to say that he was there for the first, and the only coherent reading of Richard Clarke’s book is that he transmitted to Clarke the shoot down order sometime before 9:54.

What I think happened -- and this is where we will get back to JFK -- is that Cheney did indeed arrive quite early in the bunker, as Norman Mineta, who was also there, testified. (There’s a very interesting story there that I can’t get into here.)11 And THEN Cheney left, and this is the interesting thing, he left the bunker, went back into the tunnel leading to the bunker – and from the tunnel he made the crucial phone call to Bush and perhaps an even more crucial phone call to Rumsfeld, which Rumsfeld has referred to but which the Report ignores, which was about three things:

1) protecting Air Force One, which was irrelevant;

2) orders (disputed) about planes, which may have involved the shoot-down order;

3) Continuity of Government.12

I wish I could get into this -- it is the heart of my book: instituting COG, Continuity of Government (which I call Change in Government, because it is often called a plan for the suspension of the U.S. Constitution – and that is a pretty accurate summary of it).13

How many of you did know that it was actually instituted on 9/11? That is perhaps one of the most important things that happened on 9/11, and it happened because of this phone call, and there is no record of the phone call.14 And I think it’s pretty obvious that there is no record of the phone call because he wasn’t in the bunker where people were taking notes and logs were being kept. He went to a back channel from a secure phone somewhere. There’s no question, everyone agrees, even Cheney himself, that he used a secure phone in the tunnel at this time.15

Now this matter could be resolved by going to the records of the White House Communications Agency. They kept logs. The Secret Service kept logs. And we have logs from that day that which record a trivial phone call at 9:15 am and another trivial phone call at 10:15 am.

But Thomas Kean, the commission chairman, complained publicly that the logs were not complete. 16 We have the equivalent of an 18 minute gap, which some of you will remember from the Watergate investigation.17 The 9/11 Commission does not present any records from the logs for the time of the phone call, either because they never saw them, possibly because the logs had been massaged and cleansed and purged before they got to them, possibly because the commission purged them themselves or, and this is what I believe, and I think you should think about very seriously, because the phone in the tunnel was a back channel for which normal logs were not kept, possibly because it was a higher classification because it involved Continuity of Government.

And one of the things I would press for is for Congress, when we start suing for the records that don’t get released in 2009, 18– to get released all of the documents pertaining to COG, which I believe will tell us all about warrant-less wiretapping, about the building of detention camps for large numbers of undesirable people like US, and so on and so on. I think this is a very important topic.19

Let me see where I am from my notes here. Anyway, so because I noticed this gap. First of all by the way, I had a researcher contact the press officer of the WHCA and they very helpfully said to put in a FOIA request. Well, the poor old ARRB wasn’t able to spin significant documents from the WHCA so I didn’t bother to try on my own.20 I did go however, to their web site, and what I read there was, and this is a direct quote now: "The WHCA was a key player in documenting the assassination of President Kennedy."

Well this struck me as extremely interesting! Because I don’t know who they documented it for; but on the basis of my research, they didn’t document it for the Warren Commission. Because the Warren Commission never got their records. And neither did the ARRB. And there is actually a section of the ARRB Report where they say – and I think they were much too limited in their curiosity, but it came to their attention that edited phone calls out of Air Force One flying back to Washington were, in of all places, the LBJ Library. Well then they figured if the edited records are at the LBJ Library we should get the unedited set released. Their report said, though, "The WHCA could not produce any records." 21

What they really should have asked for, and I believe this would have documented the assassination, were WHCA records BEFORE the shots were fired, leading up to the moment the shots were fired, but as I said, they only requested records from Air Force One, which is to say some time after.

However a few documents from 1963 were released. (And this is the beauty of the Mary Ferrell Foundation: you can read them there.) And what we read there is remarkably resonant to what I found out in respect to 9/11. In the post-shooting period, the regular switchboard in Washington was out of touch with Dallas, and the only way they could communicate was to patch though to Fort Worth, which in turn would then patch through to Dallas. But at the same time there was a back channel, just like I was talking about 9/11. The back channel was set up at Parkland Hospital, through the Secret Service, and the main WHCA switchboard was unaware of it.22

And this is what really gets interesting, because in 9/11 I became fascinated with the WHCA channel – which in effect was the Secret Service channel, so the Secret Service knew everything of what was happening on 9/11 immediately, including what was on the screens at FAA or NORAD. That information was going directly and immediately to the Secret Service and therefore of course to Cheney, who had a Secret Service agent with him. That I think will turn out - I make this prediction, that if we ever get to the next layer of what happened on that day, you will become extremely interested in that Secret Service network with the White House Communications Agency. And I say it involves two levels, you will find a regular channel set of communications and the back channel, where the significant action is happening.

What was really interesting, to judge from the reports they filed, the WHCA regulars were completely unaware that a back channel was operating.

I read this from the Mary Ferrell Foundation site: "Direct communication was set up immediately, outside of Emergency Room at Parkland, with Mr. Behn" (the Special Agent in Charge of the White House Secret Service detail.) So it wasn’t even a back channel back to the WHCA but it went to the head of the Secret Service detail in his office in Washington, "which became the Washington Command Post and Clearing House."23

Now what do we know of what’s happening at that Command Post on that day? Almost nothing. But from what I learned from 9/11, that is where we should look to learn more about JFK. And I think potentially, and here I am only speculating, that if we ever get to the pre-shot WHCA records, we will learn things like why Winston Lawson for example, stopped right in front of the TSBD where a man was having a so-called epileptic fit, which led to the Dallas Police ordering a direct pathway for an ambulance be open to Parkland Hospital.24

So when the shooting of the president occurred, the President’s car was like a pea in a pea shooter, there was only one way to go - the path to Parkland was open while access was blocked so the epileptic could arrive. For those of you who know the story, there was a man who when he got there, got off the stretcher and said he felt fine and didn’t have an epileptic fit at all. He had changed history, he had affected history, but he didn’t have an epileptic fit. 25


I was thinking of two or three more points. Here’s a broader one, where now you say, "There he goes again…" on the question of drugs.

In Deep Politics, and especially in Deep Politics II (which thanks to Rex, is about to be reissued I believe, and will be available shortly from the Mary Ferrell Foundation), I discuss the importance of the Mexican drug traffic as a factor – which is

1) connected to Jack Ruby, 26

2) connected to the Mexican DFS, which taped Oswald in Mexico City,

3) connected to Richard Cain, this multifaceted mob and law enforcement figure, who was the chief link between Sam Giancana and the Mexican establishment. And he may have very well, as I say in Deep Politics II, - his specialty was wiretapping, and it’s conceded publicly that he did wiretapping in Mexico of foreign embassies in Mexico City for the Mexican government, which certainly sounds pretty relevant to the over hearing of the man identifying himself as Lee Oswald, and also some of the Cubans, we’ll come back to them again, the Cuban students particularly Cubans students who were involved in drug trafficking.27

At that point, when I first wrote this I had not yet looked at the new version of Ultimate Sacrifice; and realized that the Mexican drug connection is, if anything, even more important in Waldron’s book than it is in mine, which may explain my new partiality to want to take that book seriously. He brings in people like, for example the French Connection, and whoever he was (Jean) Souêtre or (Michael Victor) Mertz, who was reportedly in Dallas November 22, 1963.28 He ties those people to Marcello, and to Trafficante and to Rosselli and there are more people, I could give the rest of my talk on that theme, but I won’t.

Now the current position of the George W. Bush administration and how they feel about drug traffickers. How many are following the case of Luis Posada Carriles?

Nobody denies he is a terrorist, he boasts to being a terrorist. He blew up an airliner in 1976 and he once boasted of bombing a Cuban resort in 1998 which resulted in the death of a tourist. He actually had interviews with an American journalist to try to draw publicity to this fact and he complained no news covered it, and said, in effect, "What’s the point of killing tourists if the tourist traffic is going to continue?" 29

Later he was ultimately picked up for trying to assassinate Castro in Panama in the year 2000.

Well we now know how tolerant the Reagan/Bush I administration was towards him because Bush Sr. arranged for Felix Rodriguez to be running the Ilopango Base in El Salvador, who turned around and gave a job to Luis Posada Carriles, who was still wanted for these crimes, but was now on the run. When that closed down in the 1990s, and now I am quoting from a Mexican journalist for Por Esto, "Posada Carriles was protected in Guatemala, Belize and Mexico by narco-traffickers in the Central American cartel headed by Otto Herrera García, an associate of the major Mexican trafficker Ismael Zambada."30 The State Dept website says of Otto Herrera García: "In 2001, alone, his organization moved approximately 12 metric tons of cocaine, and may have the ability to smuggle as much as 2 tons of cocaine into the United States each month."31

Well you would think that Posada would be in the bad graces of the American government, but No. He was smuggled into this country and the man who smuggled him in, who clearly committed a crime, has not been arrested for any crime. And when Posada once again called attention to himself, and got himself detained, he once again asked for asylum, and I think he will get it. Because the U S government has either to extradite him, which I guarantee they won’t do, or prosecute him, or release him. At this point the clock is ticking, and they have three months left on how long they have to decide what to do with him.32

They know how long they have to decide on what do with him. The reason they cannot prosecute him is because when he came back, the FBI in Miami decided not to prosecute him and destroyed all of the Luis Posada Carriles files. The man who did this is a Cuban-American whose father came out of that exile network where they all knew each other and protect each other and such protection exist. And I am in such a burn over this.33

Orlando Bosch, who was a co-conspirator in blowing up the plane, and was able to pay for an acquittal in Latin America, came back without a record, was sponsored for US citizenship and obtained it, championed by Jeb Bush.34

And then shortly before, - and this gives me even more of a burn, shortly before 9/11 occurred, the two men who are confessed killers of former Chile Ambassador to U.S. Orlando Letelier and Ronnie Moffitt right in Washington, who it took years to get them convicted because of the interference from George Bush, Sr., they were finally convicted. And after serving seven years for this spectacular terrorist assassination, they were, I don’t know they were was paroled or pardoned, but anyway they were let out of jail by the George W. Bush administration, after serving only seven years.

So those Cuban exiles still have their claws into the intelligence-security-justice network that is so interwoven with them – and that is going to be the theme of the second half of my talk.

Well, so drugs are still a factor with intelligence, and the question is, now that we are facing al Qaeda, what is the relationship of al Qaeda to Drugs? And is it similar to what I think was drugs in being in the background of the John F. Kennedy assassination?

Well there are two takes on this. Let me give you first of all, what the British Parliament was told on October 4, 2001 and that is that "al Qaeda’s activity includes substantial exploitation of the drug trade from Afghanistan."35

Now let’s look at what the 9/11 Commission said on the same subject. They didn’t have to say anything about drugs by the way, but they went out of their way to say this: "While the drug trade was a source of income for the Taliban, it did not serve the same purpose for al Qaeda, and there is no reliable evidence that Bin Laden was involved in or made his money through drug trafficking."36

And this was after the U.S. Central Command reported that in December, 2003 a dhow was intercepted near the straight of Hormuz carrying almost two tons of hashish, valued at up to $10 million dollars. And the Cent Com statement said that there were, and I quote, "clear ties" between the shipment and al Qaeda.37 If that is true, then why did the 9/11 Report go out of its way to say that there is no evidence of a connection between Bin Laden and drug trafficking?

I want to close this part of my talk on the allegations of Sibel Edmonds. Unfortunately we don’t really know what they are because she is under a gag order. That for reasons of state she is not able to tell the public what she told the FBI. She was a whistleblower, who naively did what a whistleblower should do in the name of protecting the American public order, and got fired for it. And she is still fighting to appeal her case. She can’t talk, but she has talked here and there. And my friend Daniel Ellsberg is very interested in her case; and very recently he summed up what she is saying for KPFA, my local Pacifica radio station. This is Ellsberg’s summary of what Sibel Edmonds is saying:

Al Qaeda, she’s been saying to Congress, is financed 95% by drug money, drug traffic to which the U.S. government shows a blind eye, has been ignoring because it very heavily involves allies and assets of ours, such as Turkey, Kyrayzstan, Tajikistan, Pakistan, Afghanistan - all of the Stans, in a drug traffic where the opium originates in Afghanistan, is processed in Turkey and delivered to Europe where it furnishes 96% of Europe’s heroin by Albanians, either in Albania or Kosovo, Albanian muslims in Kosovo, basically the KLA Kosovo Liberation Army (which we backed heavily in that episode at the end of the century, that’s last century) ---–

[I will interrupt at this point. In my book, I’m sure I think I quite adequately document that:

A) That the KLA was deeply involved or its leaders were deeply involved in drug trafficking and have used the NATO intervention as a way to consolidate a drug route through Kosovo and

B) that they were very heavily involved with al Qaeda. Al-Zawahiri’s brother came to organize KLA things and al-Zawahiri himself may have come to Kosovo.

C) At the same time key KLA leaders were allied with PMCs – Private Military Corporations -- notably DynCorp. Those of you who were here last night heard Cynthia McKinney ask about DynCorp – and why the defense department worked with them. There are war crimes attributed to KLA leaders who in Croatia worked hand in glove with DynCorp.

I’m cutting out a lot here that is relevant. But Sibel Edmonds says] "Suitcases of cash were delivered to the Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert at his home near Chicago from Turkish sources, knowing that a lot of that is drug money." 38

These are very serious charges that were aired to some extent in some in Vanity Fair.39 And they are so important that the media, predictably, ignored them. And I’m drawing attention to what she is saying not because what she is saying can be proven, but these charges are very serious and not just pertinent to 9/11 alone, but to the whole fabric of how this country is run.

I consider this a top priority for testing the honesty and credibility of the new Democratic leadership in Congress. Will they pursue these matters? I hope that by hook or by crook you will try and put pressure on the new Democratic Congress to deal with these matters, so that we get a proper investigation of them for the first time.

And to close this section, whatever is the extent of what she is describing, it’s not just her. There was another witness, Indira Singh, who was talking at a 9/11 conference up in Canada; and she said, "I was told that if I mentioned the money to the drugs around 9/11 that would be the end of me." 40

This is a woman who has nothing to do with Sibel Edmonds, but alluded to the same thing in the background of 9/11.41 And we need to learn more about that. And I suspect that whatever the situation is, it’s something which goes back to at least as far as 1963, and would then explain the same background for the Kennedy assassination.

One thing we can say with confidence: the flow of Afghan heroin west through Turkey is a problem that can be traced back to the CIA’s involvement with Pakistan’s ISI intelligence service, with the drug-linked Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), and with Islamist Afghan mujahedeen like Gulbuddin Hekmatyar in the 1980s.42

In fact the web of influence she describes corresponds closely to BCCI’s influence in the 1980s, when the head of BCCI used to boast to the head of Pakistan of BCCI’s role in getting aid for Pakistan approved by the US Congress.43


This is all preliminary stuff – now I get to the real stuff - Double Agents.

In Deep Politics I explored at some length the possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald was, as Silvia Odio had heard, a possible (and this is a quote) "double agent…trying to infiltrate the Dallas Cuban refugee group."44

I went back and looked to see what I had to say about this in Deep Politics, and I must say in the light of 9/11, it blew my mind. I’m going to read from my own book, something that I had forgotten.

The preceding chapter considered the possibility that Oswald was associated with anti-Kennedy Cubans in order to investigate them on behalf of a federal agency. But we saw it alleged that Oswald was a double agent collaborating with some of these groups, either (as I suspect) because he or his handlers shared their goals [that is, anti-Kennedy goals], or possibly because he or his handlers had been "turned" by those they were supposed to investigate. Such a possibility was particularly likely with targets, like Alpha 66, about which the government itself was conflicted, of two minds. 45

Remember that Alpha 66 in early 1963 conducted a series of raids, not just against Cuba, but against Soviet ships in Cuba. It was obviously trying to shipwreck the US – Soviet understanding on Cuba, and really, in a sense was trying to torpedo the whole Kennedy policy of détente with the Soviet Union. And so there is no ambiguity about the total disapproval of the Justice Department (which cracked down on them and made a public announcement that they had to cease), and also the continuing support for Alpha 66 from the CIA.46

Now Waldron says David Atlee Phillips – and I don’t know if there really is any evidence on David Phillips in 1963 -- had an Alpha 66 connection at some point.47 I don’t know it was Phillips, but it was certainly a group that was close to Phillips, and may I add, extremely important to this book, the paperback edition of Ultimate Sacrifice.

Let me read one more paragraph from my book Deep Politics:

Here it is relevant that Alpha 66, although anti-Kennedy, was being used operationally by military intelligence. There are signs, though complex and inconclusive, that Oswald’s strange and self-incriminating behavior in New Orleans and Dallas was staged to be documented in the secret files of military intelligence.48

And here I will summarize this very briefly. I go into how when he is arrested he volunteers – he asks for an FBI agent. (This is an experiment we could all do – get ourselves arrested for a misdemeanor, and then say we’d like the FBI to come and interview us. This is what Oswald did. How many of us are going to get the FBI to come down on Saturday morning to talk to us?)

Well anyway, Oswald had no trouble doing this and he also talked to the police. In both cases he was talking about A. J. Hidell, and in both cases that information ended up somehow, via the FBI agent with Army Intelligence, and via Police Captain Martello with Naval intelligence. So Oswald was enriching the files on himself in a way that would lead to his death in Dallas in November 1963.49

Well, what is so arresting about the connection here to 9/11?


Because I want to talk about another double-agent – an unmistakable and very important one: Ali Mohammad. How many people have heard of the name Ali Mohammad before today? Almost nobody. Well listen to this, as it is important. There is a quite a lot about him on now on my web site because I’ve been talking about him.

It is striking that he was undeniably working for US Army Special Forces, working with the CIA, almost certainly admitted to this country on a CIA visa, and in his last years certainly working with the FBI. He was actually detained in Canada by the RCMP, and he said, phone this number and you will release me; and they phoned the San Francisco office of the FBI, and sure enough they released him immediately.50

And that meant he was able to go to Kenya, photograph the Kenyan embassy, and deliver the photographs personally to Bin Laden, who told Ali Mohammad where to plant the bomb.51

And there is this new book: in fact it arrived the day before I caught a plane to come to Dallas, so I haven’t had a very good read of it, but I’ve been following Peter Lance. It is Peter Lance’s book, Triple Cross – How Bin Laden’s Master Spy [that’s Ali Mohammad] Penetrated the CIA, the Green Berets and the FBI and Why Patrick Fitzgerald Failed to Stop Him.

This is a very interesting story and there’s quite a lot more on my web site.52 What is particularly important here is that Ali Mohamed was not only protected under the George W. Bush administration - but from as early as 1990 when the FBI SOG Special Operations Group in New York photographed him training terrorists in terrorist activities – sharp shooting, etc.

I’m going to name the names of some of his disciples,53 and you can remember them for sixty seconds and then you can forget them:

El Sayyid Nosair, who went on to murder Meir Kahane, the Jewish racist, almost immediately, was trained in sharp shooting by Ali Mohammad;

Mohammed Salameh, who went on to participate in the first WTC bombing in 1993;

and finally there’s a man called (Clement) Rodney Hampton-El, who is the one American-born black Muslim in the group, who clearly had Army backing. He was allowed to go to Fort Belvoir, and an Army major gave him a list of Muslims in the US Army whom he could recruit to go to Bosnia.54

Ali Mohamed trained these Islamists to fight in Afghanistan. So you might say: Well of course we were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, so it makes sense that it was okay for them to approve this kind of activity. The problem is the Soviets had totally withdrawn from Afghanistan by early 1989, and all of this training was going on in late 1989-90, at a time when the U.S. government, to paraphrase what I just said about 1963, was of two minds about what to do in Afghanistan.

Remember that Gorbachev was now the President of Russia, and that the State Department, and I believe the White House, attached a lot of importance from Reagan’s last years on to working with the Soviet Union.

The man the Soviets left in charge of Kabul, I think his name is Najibullah,55 said in effect, "You may not like me in the West, but I’m the best you are going to get, and if you get rid of me you will have a nation of drug traffickers," which is essentially what we now have de facto in Afghanistan. His prediction was entirely correct. The CIA was way off base here.

The CIA were backing Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, whom some people call the leading heroin trafficker in the world, to get rid of this secular, anti-Islamist government in Kabul, which we would I think, we would pay an awful lot of money to get back at this stage as preferable to what we have.

Meanwhile a State Department official, Edmund McWilliams, objected that "Pakistani intelligence and Hekmatyar were dangerous allies," and that the United States was making an important mistake by endorsing ISI’s puppet Afghan interim government.56. But Ali Mohamed’s training, both in Afghanistan and later around New York, was precisely designed to strengthen the Arab Afghans in Brooklyn who intended to go support Hekmatyar.57

So this is a conflicted program and the fact that Ali Mohammad was doing it, earned him high-level protection. And there is so much I’m not telling you about how he was actually flying to Afghanistan and fighting while he was on the US Army payroll, which is a definite no-no. And his commanding officer didn’t like it, but there was nothing he could do about it because Ali Mohammad was apparently being directed by another agency.58 And you can only guess what that other agency would have been.

Well anyway, the new book by Peter Lance confirms that Ali Mohammed was one of al Qaeda’s top trainers in terrorism –yes, top trainers in terrorism, including top training in hijacking: how to bring on box cutters, where to sit in the plane.59 (And that’s not against the Soviets, because you couldn’t hijack a Soviet plane, because no civilians ever got on a Soviet plane in Afghanistan.)

Mohamed has also been called one of the primary sources for the infamous Aug. 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) entitled `Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S.’"60 At the heart of that August 6 PDB was unmistakably a disguised double reference to Mohamed himself.61

To sum up: Mohamed was a top trainer. He was an operative for the CIA and the Army, and in my book I write that in 1990 his trainees intended to help the CIA support the drug trafficker Hekmatyar in Afghanistan, even after the Soviets withdrew.

Back in 1990 the FBI knew these people were involved in conspiratorial activity. As I said, they photographed, they videotaped Ali Mohamed training these people. Then very shortly afterwards, Nosair went out and shot Meir Kahane, and because of his own lack of cool, ended up being shot himself and arrested.62

The police and the FBI told the public that he was, and we’ve heard this kind of language before, a "lone, deranged gunman." who, and this is the FBI speaking, "acted alone."

Here you have a guy who was part of a tolerated conspiracy, and when it went public, - I don’t think they anticipated the killing of Kahane, that is their response.

First of all they knew he wasn’t alone because they had film of him training these other people. All of his trainees were members of the al-Kifah Center in Brooklyn, which served as the main American recruitment center for the network, which after the Afghanistan war, became known as al Qaeda. And it has been said that the murder of Kahane was the first al Qaeda attack in America.

The al-Kifah Center was headed at the time, by the Blind Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who like Ali Mohamed, had been admitted to the US on a CIA visa, despite being on a State Department watch list. And as he had done earlier in Egypt, he issued a fatwa that permitted his followers to rob banks and kill Jews.66

Now in November 1990, three of Mohamed’s trainees conspired together to kill Meir Kahane, the racist founder of the Jewish Defense League. The actual killer, El Sayyid Nosair, was caught by accident almost immediately; and by luck the police soon found his two co-conspirators, Mahamud Abouhalima and Mohammed Salameh, waiting at Nosair’s apartment.

So they had the other two conspirators, and this is also what they found at Nosair’s house, and I am quoting,

There were formulas for bomb making, 1,440 rounds of ammunition, and manuals from the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg marked ‘Top Secret for Training’ [May I say those manuals were supplied by Ali Mohamed – the double-agent, and became the basis for the al Qaeda’s own manual, which was mostly written by double-agent Mohamed] along with classified documents belonging to the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff. The police found maps and drawings of New York City landmarks like the Statue of Liberty, Times Square – and the World Trade Center. The forty-seven boxes of evidence they collected also included the collected sermons of blind Sheikh Omar, in which he exhorted his followers to "destroy the edifices of capitalism."67

So all three – Nosair, Abouhalima and Salameh -- had been trained by Mohamed. The FBI had photographed them, and if they had moved on and seized all three of them we probably would not have had the first World Trade Center bombing. And we almost certainly would not have had the so called Landmarks Conspiracy, where there was a plot to blow up other landmarks you just heard mentioned, like the Statue of Liberty.

The police on the case thought at the beginning that they were facing a conspiracy.68 And yet only hours after the killing, Joseph Borelli, Chief of NYPD detectives, struck a familiar American note and pronounced Nosair a "lone deranged gunman." And some time later, he actually told the press - and this is the real giveaway, that "There was nothing at Nosair’s house, nothing that would stir your imagination. Nothing has transpired that changes our opinion that he acted alone."69

So if 47 boxes of incriminating evidence is remembered by this man as "nothing," then he either has an astonishingly bad memory, or that this is how the US law enforcement system treats people who are marginally attached to intelligence operations, covert operations, even controversial operations which are opposed by other elements of the US government. 70

Now Borelli himself was not acting alone in this matter. His position was also that of the FBI, who said they too believed "that Mr. Nosair had acted alone in shooting Rabbi Kahane." "The bottom line is that we can't connect anyone else to the Kahane shooting," an FBI agent said.71

So there is an MO here. And I want to go back to what I was saying at the very beginning. To end up having a unsolvable crime, somebody has pre-selected a candidate or candidates. And the ideal pre-selected candidate will be one about whom the truth will never emerge, because of the candidate’s controversial involvement in previous covered-up operations. This will guarantee that an institutional cover-up, already in place, will be extended to cover the new crime, even if it is a major one.

Oswald was one such pre-selected candidate. Those conspiratorially involved with Ali Mohamed and with 9/11 would also seem to fit the same description. That is what struck me most when I went back to compare the two events, or meta-events.

I should make clear that with respect to 9/11, I have certain knowledge of only one fact: that there has been and continues to be a massive cover-up. I have not yet assimilated the earlier cover-up of Ali Mohamed in 1990 into my theory of what happened in 2001. But I commend this to you as something which merits further investigation.

In this talk I’m not getting into the question of conspiracy. But of course there has to be a conspiracy theory about 9/11.You cannot say 9/11 was someone acting alone. To avoid a serious "conspiracy theory," the best you can come up with is something like "19 lone nuts acting together."

Just in case you don’t remember it, the FBI identified these names before 10 o’clock on that morning. And within two weeks there were five, six or seven people, in various places (nearly all turned out to be pilots, by the way) who said, "That’s my name; yes, I went to that flight school;" two or three even said "that’s my photograph that was published." But they also said "it’s not me," and you had to sympathize with their logic: "it’s not me because I’m still here and I’m still alive." And it was bad enough that the Saudi government officially protested to the United States government. In response to these problems, FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on September 20, 2001, that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers was in doubt.72

How many of you have looked at the 9/11 Report? You’re a virgin audience here. The 9/11 Report has a great deal to say about the 19 hijackers, but it’s never hinted that there had ever been a shadow of suspicion as to who they really are. Which is just one of the many indications this was not a very profound investigation.

And like the Warren Commission Report, they already knew were they had to end up because it had been pre-defined for them. They already knew. But it is the combination I want you to think about. The truth about the predesignated culprit or culprits is unpursuable because he/they were part of an operation too embarrassing to disclose. Which in the case of 9/11 is a scandal. I mean these people could have been stopped back in 1990 and weren’t.

And I haven’t gone into the Patrick Fitzgerald part of it. This is a very important book by the way, Triple Cross. And he has another book, A Thousand Years for Revenge, which is almost as important.

My final words are words that I have said I think on many occasions, and are a propos on many subjects:

That when we look at something like the JFK Assassination or 9/11, throw in Iran-Contra – or the bombing of Letelier, we are looking at meta-events. Meta-events, unlike most events, are not treated normally in the US press; but are what John [Judge] called this morning a hidden history. And they are reserved for a special kind of treatment, and that requires, among other things, a special kind of audience, people like you.

Because we stumble upon it somewhere, in this case with JFK, we are open to the fact that it happens elsewhere. And like I said before and will say so again, and my final words to you is to understand any of these events in real depth, you have to go beyond bullet angles at Dealey Plaza, and films from the same place, and look at what is on-going in this country.

And I’ll remind you again of the possible involvement of the drug traffic. And to get to any kind of level where we can cope and deal with these kinds of problems in our country, we have to see the continuity and deal with it every time it surfaces.

Because if we don’t deal with it this time, and we probably won’t, it will surface again.

Thank you very much.

1 My thanks to Bill Kelly for transcribing this talk and making the text available online.
2 E.g. CIA Cable 74830 of 10 Oct 63 to Mexico City,; reproduced in John Newman, Oswald and the CIA (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1995), 512.
3 Manning Clements FBI FD-302 of 11/23/63; in Warren Report, 614.
4 WR 5. Brennan subsequently failed to pick out Oswald in a police line-up (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact [Mary Ferrell Foundation Press, 2006], 10-13, 78n).
5 Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terrorism (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004), 13-14.
6 William Norman Grigg, "Did We Know What Was Coming?" New American, 3/11/02, Cf. the remarks of Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer of the Pentagon Able Danger project: "We were amazed at how quickly the FBI produced the name and pictures of all 19 hijackers. But then again, we were surprised at how quickly they’d made the arrests after the first World Trade Center bombing. Only later did we find out that the FBI had been watching some of these people for months prior to both incidents" (Peter Lance, Triple Cross [New York: Regan/HarperCollins, 2006], 383).
7 Lamar Waldron, with Thom Hartmann, Ultimate Sacrifice (New York: Carroll and Graf, 2006), 74, 170.
8 Before giving the talk I had already discussed WHCA documents with Rex Bradford, the only person to raise his hand at the conference in response to my question.
9 9/11 Report, 41.
10 9/11 Report, 40.
11 Discussion in David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (Northampton, MA: Olive Branch Press/Interlink, 2004), 220-23..
12 Clarke, Against All Enemies, 8; 9/11 Report, 38. The two accounts agree about Air Force One and COG, but not about the planes (Clarke: "tell the Pentagon they have authority from the President to shoot down hostile aircraft;" 9/11 Report: "The White House requested…a fighter combat air patrol over Washington, D.C.")
13 See James Mann, Rise of the Vulcans (New York: Viking, 2004), 138-45, 295-96.
14 9/11 Report, 41.
15 9/11 Report, 40.
16 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean later complained that "The phone logs don’t exist, because they evidently got so fouled up in communications that the phone logs have nothing. So that’s the evidence we have." "There's no documentary evidence here," added Vice-Chairman Lee Hamilton. "The only evidence you have is the statements of the president and vice president" (9/11 Commission, Hearing of 6/17/04, ).
17 "Most Americans have heard of the ‘18 minute gap’ in a Nixon Presidential tape--the erasure was part of a cover-up for which Nixon was driven from office. But few know of the erasure of a 1963 conversation between President Lyndon Johnson and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, a call recorded less than 24 hours after the murder of President Kennedy. This new documentary short, The Fourteen Minute Gap, relates Rex Bradford's discovery of the erasure, initial denials by the LBJ Library, and his failed attempt to get the story into the national media" (Rex Bradford, "The Fourteen Minute Gap," ).
18 Supporting evidence for the 9/11 Report is scheduled for release on January 2, 2009. See 9/11 Commission, Media Advisory, 8/20/04, ; Thomas H., Kean, and Lee H. Hamilton, with Benjamin Rhodes, Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission (New York: Knopf, 2006), 312: "All of our records were transferred to the National Archives, with an agreement that they would be made public at the beginning of 2009."
19 Peter Dale Scott, "Homeland Security Contracts for Vast New Detention Camps," Pacific News Service, 2/8/06,
Censored 2007: The Top 25 Censored Stories (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2006)
20 In the 1990s the Assassination Records Review Board attempted to obtain from the WHCA the unedited original tapes of conversations from Air Force One on the return trip from Dallas, November 22, 1963. (Edited and condensed versions of these tapes had been available since the 1970s from the LBJ Library in Austin.) The attempt was unsuccessful: "The Review Board’s repeated written and oral inquiries of the White House Communications Agency did not bear fruit. The WHCA could not produce any records that illuminated the provenance of the edited tapes." See Assassinations Records Review Board, Final Report, Chapter 6, Part 1, 116,
21 "The Review Board’s repeated written and oral inquiries of the White House Communications Agency did not bear fruit. The WHCA could not produce any records that illuminated the provenance of the edited tapes." See Assassinations Records Review Board, Final Report, Chapter 6, Part 1, 116, Cf. p. 155.
22 NARA Record 172-10001-10003 (11/22/63), WHCA statement, "Dallas.": "Direct communication set up immediately between Agent directly outside of emergency room [in Highland Hospital] and Mr. Behn [Special Agent in Charge, White House Secret Service detail] in his office in Washington which became the Washington Command Post and clearing house."
23 NARA Record 172-10001-10003 (11/22/63), WHCA statement, "Dallas."
24 Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 273-74, 277-78; quoting 23 WH 841, "cut all traffic for the ambulance going to Parkland."
25 Scott, Deep Politics, 273-74, 277-78.
26 Scott, Deep Politics, 127-46.
27 Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics Two, 135-36.
28 Waldron, Ultimate Sacrifice, 513-15, 525-26, 647-48, 785-86, etc.
29 Ann Louise Bardach, Washington Post, 11/12/06, Posada had complained "of the U.S. media's reluctance to believe reports about a series of bombings in Cuba, which he hoped would scare tourists and investors away from Castro's island." Cf. New York Times, 7/12-13/98.
30 Quoted by Al Giordano, Narco News Bulletin, 6/21/05,
32 In August 2003, the Miami bureau of the FBI made the startling decision to close its case on Posada. Subsequently, according to the FBI, several boxes of evidence were removed from the bureau's evidence room. Since then, in a change of heart, Justice Department has reopened the case, by pursuing, not Posada, but the files of the NYT reporter (Ann Louise Bardach) who interviewed him. She fought back with a report on her problems in the Washington Post (11/12/06): "Justice Department …struck a plea deal for about two years in prison for Posada's comrades Santiago Alvarez and Osvaldo Mitat, who had been facing up to 50 years in prison for the illegal possession of hundreds of firearms." Santiago Alvarez, formerly of Comandos L, is one of the Cuban terrorists who pledged participation in the Revolutionary Junta of Paulino Sierra Martinez, whose connection to the JFK assassination is discussed by Robert Blakey and myself (Deep Politics, 89-90, 329-30).
33 Bardach, Washington Post, 11/12/06.
34 Bardach, Washington Post, 11/12/06.
35 "Evidence Presented to the British Parliament, 4th October 2001," Los Angeles Times, 10/4/01. Cf. e.g. Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 9/30/01; Asia Times, 12/8/01; New York Times, 10/4/01, 10/11/01; San Francisco Chronicle, 10/4/01. For further documentation, see Peter Dale Scott, Drugs, Oil, and War [Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2003], 32, 36.
36 9/11 Report, 171,
37 "US `seizes al-Qaeda drugs ship'," BBC News, 12/19/03.
38 Daniel Ellsberg with Kris Welch, KPFA, 8/26/06,
39 Vanity Fair, September 2005.
40 Indira Singh testimony, 9/11 Citizen’s Commission, 128, Indira Singh was a one-time senior employee of J.P. Morgan, who was fired after she shared her concerns about an Arab-financed contracting firm with her bank and the FBI.
41 The most sensational charge of a direct 9/11-drug connection is made by Daniel Hopsicker in his self-published book Welcome to Terrorland. "Hopsicker is still researching the three Huffman-trained 9/11 pilots, who he says had financial, drug-trafficking and military intelligence ties to the U.S. government. He is developing suspicions that Atta and the entire school were involved with Osama bin Laden in heroin trafficking. Hopsicker reports that on July 25, 2000, the DEA in Orlando discovered more than 30 pounds of heroin inside a Learjet owned by Wally Hilliard, owner of Huffman Aviation. Earlier that month, on July 3, Atta and Marwan Al-Shehri had started flight lessons at Huffman. Hopsicker claims it's not a coincidence that Atta was allegedly importing heroin with Hilliard's help, selling Afghanistan's notorious opium and heroin to finance the Taliban. Hilliard would not be interviewed for this story. `The apparatus that Osama bin Laden set into place along with the CIA back in the '80s, still exists,’ Hopsicker says. `The FBI is protecting an operation set in place back in the '80s...a money-laundering device to funnel money to the Afghan Mujahedeen and to flood this country with heroin’" (Sander Hicks, Long Island Press, 2/26/04, Hopsicker’s charges are reported, but only minimally corroborated, in Sander Hicks, The Big Wedding (Vox Pop #2, 2005), 31-39. Most other researchers, myself included, are looking for more independent corroboration.
42 Scott, Drugs, Oil, and War, 27-58.
43 Peter Truell, and Larry Gurwin, False Profits: The Inside Story of BCCI, the World’s Most Corrupt Financial Empire (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992), 132.
44 Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, 252; quoting Lucille Connell, 26 WH 738.
45 Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, 257.
46 Hinckle and Turner, Deadly Deceits, 173-76.
47 Waldron, Ultimate Sacrifice, 187-88.
48 Scott, Deep Politics, 257.
49 Scott, Deep Politics, 257-58.
50 Lance, Triple Cross, 123-25.
51 Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (New York: Knopf, 2006), 198.
53 Lance, Triple Cross, 47-51.
54 United States v. Omar Ahmad Ali Abdel Rahman et al., Federal Court, SDNY, 15629-30, 15634-35, 15654, 15667-68, 15671, 15673; Kohlmann, Al-Qaida’s Jihad, 72-74; J.M. Berger, "Al Qaeda Recruited U.S. Servicemen: Testimony Links Plot To Saudi Gov't,", In my talk, I said erroneously that Hampton-El was recruiting for Afghanistan.
55 I mistakenly said "Rabbani." I have corrected my spoken text in this section to present my argument more accurately.
56 Steve Coll, Ghost Wars (New York: Penguin Press, 2004), 196; cf. 197-202.
57 Cf. Lance, Triple Cross, 20, 66.
58 Cf. Lance, Triple Cross, 43: "Ali Mohamed defied his commanding officer and prepared to go [to Afghanistan] anyway. At that point, it seems clear that he was serving two sets of masters at Bragg."
59 Lance, Triple Cross, 365, 382; J.M. Berger [ed.], Ali Mohamed: An Intelwire Sourcebook (Intelwire Press, 2006), 14; cf. Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (New York: Knopf, 2006), 181.
60 J.M. Berger, "Unlocking 9/11: Paving the Road to 9/11," IntelWire, FBI Agent Cloonan said on the National Geographic Show that "If you look at the six- or seventeen sentences that are in there, from what I’ve seen, all that information came from Ali. "National Geographic Presents Triplecross;" Berger, Ali Mohamed, 20. But Cloonan’s statement exaggerates; one section of the PDB is clearly from Millennium plotter Ahmed Ressam.
61 9/11 Report, 261-62: "Al-Qa’ida members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qa’ida members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ [Egyptian Islamic Jihad] member lived in California in the mid-1990s." Ali Mohamed is simultaneously one of the two found guilty in the embassies plot (the other was his friend Wadih el Hage), and also the EIJ member who lived in California.
62 Lance, Triple Cross, 56-58.
63 Newsday, 11/8/90; quoted in Peter Lance, 1000 Years for Revenge (New York: Regan Books, 2003), 35.
64 New York Times, 12/16/90.
65 Rahman was issued two visas, one of them "by a CIA officer working undercover in the consular section of the American embassy in Sudan" (Peter L. Bergen, Holy War, Inc.: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden [New York: Free Press, 2001], 67). FBI consultant Paul Williams writes that Ali Mohamed "settled in America on a visa program controlled by the CIA" (Paul L. Williams, Al Qaeda: Brotherhood of Terror [Upper Saddle River, NJ]: Alpha/ Pearson Education, 2002], 117).
66 Wright, The Looming Tower, 177.
67 Lance, 1000 Years, 34. Cf. John Miller and Michael Stone, with Chris Mitchell, The Cell (New York: Hyperion, 2003), 45.
68 Miller and Stone, The Cell, 43: "Nosair, the NYPD had already learned, had apparently not acted alone…Lieutenant Eddie Norris…seemed to be looking at a conspiracy involving three and possibly more assassins."
69 New York Times, 11/8/90; Robert I. Friedman, Village Voice, 3/30/93.
70 John Miller, who went on to be the assistant director of public affairs for the FBI (Lance, Triple Cross, 115), blames the culture of the NYPD: "The previling theory in the NYPD was, `Don’t make waves.’…So in the Nosair case, when Chief Borelli turned a blind eye to the obvious, he was merely remaining true to the culture of the NYPD" (The Cell, 44-45.) Miller’s unlikely explanation suppresses the relevant fact that the FBI turned a blind eye to the obvious as well.
71 New York Times, 12/16/90.
72 BBC, 9/23/01; Newsday, 9/21/01; Paul Thompson, The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute (NewYork: HarperCollins/Regan Books, 2004), 498.

Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is a poet, writer, and researcher. His chief poetry books are the three volumes of his trilogy Seculum: Coming to Jakarta: A Poem About Terror (1989), Listening to the Candle: A Poem on Impulse (1992), and Minding the Darkness: A Poem for the Year 2000. In addition he has published Crossing Borders: Selected Shorter Poems (1994). In November 2002 he was awarded the Lannan Poetry Award.
An anti-war speaker during the Vietnam and Gulf Wars, he was a co-founder of the Peace and Conflict Studies Program at UC Berkeley, and of the Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA).
His poetry has dealt with both his experience and his research, the latter of which has centered on U.S. covert operations, their impact on democracy at home and abroad, and their relations to the John F. Kennedy assassination and the global drug traffic. The poet-critic Robert Hass has written (Agni, 31/32, p. 335) that "Coming to Jakarta is the most important political poem to appear in the English language in a very long time."

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 6:18 PM 0 comments