HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Octafish » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 220 Next »

Octafish

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Member since: 2003 before July 6th
Number of posts: 54,902

Journal Archives

Thank goodness for terrorism.

It's held the fort long enough for Putin and Xi to get their houses of enemies in order for the return of business as usual.

Before the collapse, CIA saw writing on the wall. Which is why they didn't "predict the collapse."



1980 campaign:

Agents for Bush


by Bob Callahan*
Covert Action Information Bulletin, Number 33 (Winter 1990)

EXCERPT...

Bush and Terrorism

The Bush presidential campaign not only set the tone for the role and structure of the intelligence apparatus in the new Reagan administration, it also took up a new foreign policy theme which would reap huge political dividends in the years to come. This new theme was terrorism/counterterrorism.

In July 1979 George Bush and Ray Cline attended a conference in Jerusalem where this theme was given its first significant political discussion before leaders of Israel, Great Britain and the United States.

It would take an enormously important event to keep a major American presidential candidate away from campaigning on the Fourth of July weekend. For George Bush, the Jerusalem Conference on International Terrorism was such an event. The Jerusalem Conference was hosted by the Israeli government and, not surprisingly, most of Israel’s top intelligence officers and leading political (figures) were in attendance. (6)

Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin rose to the podium on July 2, 1979 to provide the conference with its opening address. By the summer of 1979, even Menachem Begin was willing to join in the bashing of his old Camp David friend, Jimmy Carter – a practice which had become almost endemic by the fall of 1979.

The Israelis were angry with Carter because his administration had recently released its Annual Report on Human Rights wherein the Israeli Government was taken to task for abusing the rights of the Palestinian people on the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Israel’s new anti-Carter tone was mile, however, compared to the rhetoric of the two separate U.S. delegations which attended the conference. The first delegation was led by the late Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson of Washington. It included the noted black civil rights leader Bayard Rustin; Ben Wattenberg of the American Enterprise Institute; and Norman Podhoretz and Midge Decter of Commentary Magazine. The members of this delegation were registered Democrats, yet all became very active in neo-conservative politics during the Reagan years.

The Republican delegation was led by George Bush. It included Ray Cline and two important members of Bush’s Team B form his CIA days – Major General George Keegan, a Bush supporter who had served as intelligence chief for the United States Air Force; and Harvard professor Richard Pipes. (7)

Looking for a mobilizing issue to counter the Carter-era themes of détente and human rights, the Bush people began to explore the political benefits of embracing the terrorism/anti-terrorism theme.

As Jonathan Marshall of the Oakland Tribune explains: “At the conference, Ray Cline developed the theme that terror was not a random response of frustrated minorities, but rather a preferred instrument of East bloc policy adopted after 1969 when the KGB persuaded the Politburo of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union to accept the PLO as a major political instrument in the Mideast and to subsidize its terrorist policies by freely giving money, training, arms and coordinated communications.(8)

In Ray Cline’s imagination, terrorism had now hardened into a system – an international trouble making system. Richard Pipes elaborated on the Cline hypothesis. “The roots of Soviet terrorism, indeed of modern terrorism,” Pipes states, “date back to 1879….It marks the beginning of that organization which is the source of all modern terrorist groups, whether they be named the Tupamaros, the Baader-Meinhoff group, the Weathermen, Red Brigade or PLO. I refer to the establishment in 1879 of a Congress in the small Russian town of Lipesk, of an organization known as Narodnaya Volya, or the People’s Will.”(9)

According to Philip Paull, who wrote his master’s thesis on the subject of the Jerusalem Conference, “If Pipes was to be believed, the Russians not only support international terrorism, they invented it!”(10)

The Bush/Cline/Pipes definition of terrorism was of course both expeditious and powerfully political. “Left out of their equation,” Jonathan Marshall comments, “was any mention of terrorist acts by CIA-trained Cuban exiles, Israeli ties to Red Brigades, or the function of death squads from Argentina to Guatemala. Soviet sponsorship, real or imagined, had become the defining characteristic of terrorism, not simply an explanation for its prevalence. Moreover, there was no inclination whatsoever to include, under the rubric of terror, bombings of civilians, or any other acts carried out by government forces rather than small individual units.” (11)

Within days after the conference the new propaganda war began in earnest. On July 11, 1979, the International Herald Tribune featured a lead editorial entitled "The Issue is Terrorism," which quoted directly from conference speeches. The same day Congressman Jack Kemp placed selected quotes from the conference in the Congressional Record. In his syndicated column of July 28, 1979, former CIA employee William F. Buckley blasted two of his favorite targets in one single mixed metaphor: “No venture is too small to escape patronage by the Soviet Union,” Buckley stated, “which scatters funds about for terrorists like HEW in search of welfare clients.” Then in August, George Will, who also attended the conference, wrote about it in the Washington Post.

Before the year was out Commentary, National Review, and eventually New Republic writers would all church out yard after yard of copy on this theme. Soon after, Claire Sterling, who had also attended the conference, would create the first "bible" of this new perspective with the publication of her highly controversial book, The Terror Network.(12)

With the help of George Bush and Ray Cline, the Jerusalem Conference had managed to start a propaganda firestorm.

In the following decade, the theme of terrorism/counter-terrorism would grow increasingly important to George Bush. He would become the ranking authority on this subject in the Reagan White House. Indeed, it would be Bush’s own Task Force – the Vice President’s Task Force on Combatting Terroris, -- which would eventually provide Oliver North back channel authorization through which he would bypass certain dissenting administration officials in his ongoing management of the Reagan/Bush Secret War against Nicaragua.(13)

CONTINUED...

PDF: https://archive.org/details/GeorgeBushTheCompanysMan-CovertActionInformationBulletinNo.33



And that is how Poppy got his clue.

ACLU: Why Prosecution of Chelsea Manning Was Unconstitutional



Why the Prosecution of Chelsea Manning Was Unconstitutional

Dror Ladin, Staff Attorney, ACLU National Security Project
& Esha Bhandari, Staff Attorney, ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project

Disclosures of government information happen all the time, whether by officials seeking to advance their interests or by whistleblowers exposing misconduct for public benefit. But only one person in our history has ever been sentenced to decades in prison for disclosing truthful information to the press and public: Chelsea Manning.

The government targeted Manning for discriminatory prosecution, using the archaic Espionage Act of 1917. The vagueness of that law enables the government to go after speakers and messages it dislikes — often as it simultaneously leaks information to further its own agenda. For that reason, the ACLU filed a brief yesterday in support of Manning’s military court appeal, explaining why her conviction under the Espionage Act should be overturned as unconstitutional.

Leaks often come from the highest levels, including from CIA directors and the president’s staff. People holding those positions of power have not been prosecuted under the Espionage Act for their disclosures. Many of these leakers seek to influence and even manipulate public opinion by promoting the government’s chosen messages: that drone strikes work, that torture is effective, that the United States is doing everything right. Others pursue their own personal agendas, like Gen. David Petraeus, who shared highly classified information with his biographer.

No leakers were charged with violating the Espionage Act for many decades after it was passed.

But that has changed, dramatically. As we have previously written, the Obama administration has used this World War I-era anti-spying law to go after those whose disclosures run contrary to the government’s preferred narratives. That has resulted in a reality in which a general like Petraeus serves no jail time after sharing top secret information to serve his self-interest, while Manning gets decades in prison.

President Obama recently demonstrated this unfairness when he defended Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information by telling an interviewer that “there’s classified, and then there’s classified.” That’s exactly the problem: The government’s selective prosecution means that information is likely to be considered really classified when it’s embarrassing to the government or when someone like Manning discloses it.

Manning’s severe punishment is a perfect example of the government picking and choosing who can speak to the press. Even more disturbing is the fact that the law forbade Manning from mounting a defense that took into account the public interest in any of her disclosures. It violates the First Amendment for the government to punish the disclosure of truthful information without any consideration of whether the information was important to public discourse — and leaves the government free to inappropriately crack down on disclosures about its own illegality or misconduct.

The selective prosecution of those who disclose government information is profoundly dangerous to our democracy. Using the Espionage Act to punish government leakers or whistleblowers risks chilling speech on matters of significant public concern, and it gives the government too much power to maintain secrecy about matters that are critical for an informed public to hold its government accountable. The American people lose a vital check on our government when it is free to punish anyone who discloses truthful information that the government doesn’t want us to know.

SOURCE w links, etc.: https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/why-prosecution-chelsea-manning-was-unconstitutional

Just Us playing politics.

David Bonior, Frank Church, Otis Pike, Gary Hart and other great Democrats were targeted by the Right for supporting democracy, justice and equal rights for Cubans and Nicaraguans and El Salvadorans and others brutalized by the 1-percent. Liberals, in other words.

GOP Michigan legislature redistricted one great Party Whip out of his seat. Other liberal, progressive and humanitarian Democrats, likewise got the ziggy in the press and at the ballot box for opposing genocide in the name of capitalism.



CIA Out of Control

Russ Baker
Village Voice, Sept. 10, 1991

EXCERPT...

Dellums press secretary Max Miller says the representative from Berkeley, together with majority whip David Bonior--another outspoken liberal--made an agreement with Speaker Thomas Foley to maintain a low profile in return for gaining seats on the committee. After one full round of legislation and briefings, Miller says, Dellums will be heard from. "They wanted to find out as much as they could before speaking out." Meanwhile, the energetic Oliver North, in his role as president of something called the Freedom Alliance, has launched a campaign to collect a million Dump Dellums signatures. He calls Dellums "a pro-Marxist, antidefense radical," who would be a threat on the "supersensitive" committee. Putting Dellums on the panel, North says, was an "extremely reckless and very dangerous appointment."

And those who make trouble get trouble. Reports and rumors that the apparatus pokes into the personal lives of members of Congress underlines the danger of investigating national security agencies. "There's a little bit of fear that if you do go after the intelligence community, your career is threatened," says McGehee, author of "Deadly Deceits: My 25 years in the CIA." Even the complacent Senate intelligence committee chair David Boren has reason to worry. According to the "Voice"'s Doug Ireland (see Press Clips, May 28), Boren faced a vicious primary battle in his first senatorial campaign, during which his opponents accused him of being a homosexual. At a press conference, Boren swore on a white Bible that he was not. "It would therefore be utterly churlish," Ireland wrote, "to speculate on whether or not the Company has a file on the state of its tamed watchdog's libido." Since then, Boren has called Robert Gates "one of the most candid people we've ever dealt with."

Leading congressional critics of the CIA have been defeated, despite their long, distinguished careers in Washington and Congress's nearly foolproof 98 per cent reelection rate. Both Otis Pike and Frank Church were defeated soon after chairing their precedent-setting '70s hearings. Pike's report had been so incendiary that Congress voted not to release it before the White House had a chance to censor the document. (It was ultimately leaked to and published by the "Voice.") Pike's committee staff director had been warned by the CIA special counsel, "Pike will pay for this, you wait and see--we'll destroy him for this," according to "The New York Times." Also defeated were outspoken senators Dick Clark, Birch Bayh, and Harold Hughes. Foreign money--possibly South African--is believed to have financed the defeat of Clark, a vocal critic of the CIA and U.S. ties with South Africa.

Challenging the CIA also means trying to rein in dictatorial tendencies that naturally accrue to the occupant of the Oval Office. "Every president of the United States, no matter what he says before he becomes president, about how he's going to clean things up," says Marchetti, "once he gets in there and finds out that's *his* agency, that's *his* intelligence community, hey, all bets are off."

One man who told the truth blew his chance to become CIA director, thanks to "reformer" Jimmy Carter. Hank Knoche, acting director following Bush's retirement, had been called down to a Senate committee. "The chairman was complaining that `we just don't know what's really going on,'" says Marchetti, who was privy to the details of the incident. "They asked about covert action operations: `Do we know all the stuff that's going on? Could you tell us more about them?'" Asked to reveal the 10 largest ongoing operations, Knoche offered to name a few of the lesser ones, despite urgings from his aide that he keep his mouth shut. President Carter reportedly heard about it, and was none too happy. Instead of Knoche, the odds-on favorite for the slot, he named intelligence novice and old Naval Academy chum Admiral Stansfield Turner. "Hank learned his lesson that day," says Marchetti.

CONTINUED...

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.conspiracy/G8CP9pwqjvU



Heh heh heh.

''Charity'' as defined by ''Tax Shelter''

How Charity Navigator puts it:

Why isn't this organization rated?

We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity's atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.

What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

It simply means that the organization doesn't meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=311580204#.V0ByAvkrK00


Oh. And thanks for the smear! You really are thoughtful.

Of course you'll probably say you have incontrovertible proof that Clinton has spent it all on a Sharia Law sneak attack she plans to launch on inauguration day.


As for religion and politics:

For 15 years, Hillary Clinton has been part of a secretive religious group that seeks to bring Jesus back to Capitol Hill. Is she triangulating -- or living her faith?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/09/hillarys-prayer-hillary-clintons-religion-and-politics

So does David Bonior.

He and other great Democrats were targeted by the Right for supporting democracy, justice and equal rights for Cubans and Nicaraguans and El Salvadorans and others brutalized by the 1-percent.

GOP Michigan legislature redistricted one great Party Whip out of his seat. Other liberal, progressive and humanitarian Democrats, likewise got the ziggy in the press and at the ballot box for opposing genocide in the name of capitalism.



CIA Out of Control

Russ Baker
Village Voice, Sept. 10, 1991

EXCERPT...

Dellums press secretary Max Miller says the representative from
Berkeley, together with majority whip David Bonior--another
outspoken liberal--made an agreement with Speaker Thomas Foley to
maintain a low profile in return for gaining seats on the committee.
After one full round of legislation and briefings, Miller says,
Dellums will be heard from. "They wanted to find out as much as
they could before speaking out." Meanwhile, the energetic Oliver
North, in his role as president of something called the Freedom
Alliance, has launched a campaign to collect a million Dump Dellums
signatures. He calls Dellums "a pro-Marxist, antidefense radical,"
who would be a threat on the "supersensitive" committee. Putting
Dellums on the panel, North says, was an "extremely reckless and
very dangerous appointment."

And those who make trouble get trouble. Reports and rumors that
the apparatus pokes into the personal lives of members of Congress
underlines the danger of investigating national security agencies.
"There's a little bit of fear that if you do go after the
intelligence community, your career is threatened," says McGehee,
author of "Deadly Deceits: My 25 years in the CIA." Even the
complacent Senate intelligence committee chair David Boren has
reason to worry. According to the "Voice"'s Doug Ireland (see Press
Clips, May 28), Boren faced a vicious primary battle in his first
senatorial campaign, during which his opponents accused him of being
a homosexual. At a press conference, Boren swore on a white Bible
that he was not. "It would therefore be utterly churlish," Ireland
wrote, "to speculate on whether or not the Company has a file on the
state of its tamed watchdog's libido." Since then, Boren has called
Robert Gates "one of the most candid people we've ever dealt with."

Leading congressional critics of the CIA have been defeated,
despite their long, distinguished careers in Washington and
Congress's nearly foolproof 98 per cent reelection rate. Both Otis
Pike and Frank Church were defeated soon after chairing their
precedent-setting '70s hearings. Pike's report had been so
incendiary that Congress voted not to release it before the White
House had a chance to censor the document. (It was ultimately
leaked to and published by the "Voice.") Pike's committee staff
director had been warned by the CIA special counsel, "Pike will pay
for this, you wait and see--we'll destroy him for this," according
to "The New York Times." Also defeated were outspoken senators Dick
Clark, Birch Bayh, and Harold Hughes. Foreign money--possibly South
African--is believed to have financed the defeat of Clark, a vocal
critic of the CIA and U.S. ties with South Africa.

Challenging the CIA also means trying to rein in dictatorial
tendencies that naturally accrue to the occupant of the Oval Office.
"Every president of the United States, no matter what he says before
he becomes president, about how he's going to clean things up," says
Marchetti, "once he gets in there and finds out that's *his* agency,
that's *his* intelligence community, hey, all bets are off."

One man who told the truth blew his chance to become CIA
director, thanks to "reformer" Jimmy Carter. Hank Knoche, acting
director following Bush's retirement, had been called down to a
Senate committee. "The chairman was complaining that `we just don't
know what's really going on,'" says Marchetti, who was privy to the
details of the incident. "They asked about covert action
operations: `Do we know all the stuff that's going on? Could you
tell us more about them?'" Asked to reveal the 10 largest ongoing
operations, Knoche offered to name a few of the lesser ones, despite
urgings from his aide that he keep his mouth shut. President Carter
reportedly heard about it, and was none too happy. Instead of
Knoche, the odds-on favorite for the slot, he named intelligence
novice and old Naval Academy chum Admiral Stansfield Turner. "Hank
learned his lesson that day," says Marchetti.

CONTINUED...

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/alt.conspiracy/G8CP9pwqjvU



That's good DNA.

From Dead Broke to now among the Richest of the Rich.

What more proof do you need?

Repeal Glass Steagall and get millions from UBS?

Help get 52,000 Americans with offshore accounts at UBS off the hook?

Have enough money to say you don't need anymore to clients in UBS Wealth Management?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511200048


Thank you.

"If you want to get along, go along." -- Speaker Sam Rayburn (D-Texas)

You are most welcome, JonLeibowitz! I very much appreciate that you understand and care.

You understand how important something that happened more than half a century ago is upon our political, social, environmental, and economic reality today. The assassination of President John F. Kennedy changed the trajectory of the country. We went from a nation that could do anything -- from peace on earth to going to the moon. Imagine what we could have done if we were still led by men and women of vision? Now we are told we can't afford to do anything, let alone try raising taxes on the wealthy in the wealthiest times in history.

Mr. Lane worked to expose the government's lies regarding the assassination of the President, even if it included defending the accused assassin in public. It's pretty clear that the nation has not been a working democracy in a long time. We now are manipulated and misled by oligarchs and plutocrats and their toadies on tee vee and in Washington while getting misused and abused by the banksters and warmongers. These people have zero interest in peace, let alone the well-being of 99-percent of the planet.

Mr. Lane stood up to power. He said the Warren Commission case -- based on FBI investigations led by J. Edgar Hoover and information passing through gatekeepers that included the former (and still-head in his mind) head of the CIA, Allen Dulles -- did not make sense. He said they ignored eyewitnesses, evidence and logic to build a case, a theory, that Oswald was the lone assassin.

Mr. Lane discovered the actual reasons for ignoring the facts supporting conspiracy -- from the evidence in Dealey Plaza, such as shots from behind the picket fence, where most eyewitnesses are recorded as saying some fire came; to the plots broken up in Chicago and Miami (and possibly Tampa and other places) where the conspirators had tried to assassinate President Kennedy -- and the resulting cover-up.

President Johnson apparently realized that plotters, including officials in intelligence community, had intentionally created a false trail leading to Oswald and from Oswald to Cuba and from there to the Soviet Union and the KGB. LBJ had to twist Chief Justice Warren's arm to get him to cross over to forbidden territory from his branch of government by stating if he didn't, 150 million Americans might die in a nuclear war with the Soviets.

So, they came up with a commission that buried the truth and avoided war. It's only been recently that we've been able to put together a somewhat more complete picture, wherein those who benefited the most from the assassination -- the Military-Industrial Complex and secret government that manages it and us, the ultra rich cronies of Allen Dulles and Prescott Bush.

I'm proud to write I learned a lot of it on DU and am so thankful you and so many DUers care. Thank you for your kind words, JonLeibowitz! Very much appreciate that you care about Mr. Lane and what he dedicated much of his life.

So why do you have to insult his memory and smear his good name?

If you disagree, show why.

Here's some of why he is correct regarding the CIA playing a role in the death of the president:

KENNEDY MOVES AGAINST THE CIA

In his best-selling, Plausible Denial in which he pinpoints the CI A's role in the JFK assassination conspiracy, veteran JFK assassination investigator Mark Lane commented on the CIA's move against the president:

"If the CIA operatives, officers, and former officers believed that the defense of their Agency and their nation required the elimination of President Kennedy because he was about to dismantle their organization, one could comprehend, while neither accepting nor condoning their viewpoint, that their concept of self-defense required them to use deadly force. Most relevant, therefore, is not what Kennedy was or was not about to do vis-a-vis the CIA, but what the leaders of the Agency believed he might do.

"John F. Kennedy made it clear that he planned to destroy the CIA. The New York Times reported on April 25, 1966, under a subheadline, "Kennedy's Bitterness,' that 'as the enormity of the Bay of Pigs disaster came home to him, said to one of the highest officials of his Administration that he wanted 'to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.'

"He clearly was not suggesting a modest legislative proposal or executive order to modify or reform the organization. The total destruction of the Agency was his apparent objective."

SOURCE: http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Assassinations_page/Chapters_Nine-Sixteen_FJ.html


PS: You can disagree, I really don't mind as I learn from those who show me where I'm wrong. Just don't expect me to to take your word on it, Logical. Post your evidence for why you say Lane was wrong.

The commissioners all have passed. Some staff are still with us.

What one said last year re the Warren Commission findings:



Crumbling consensus: Warren Commission staffer recants, says there was a JFK conspiracy

by Jefferson Morley

EXCERPT...

From Politico, a Warren Commission staffer recants

In 1964 Slawson exemplified the lawyers chosen to investigate JFK’s murder. The product of the finest universities and law school, they were the ones who could put to bed the “rumors” and the “speculation” about the crime of Dallas. They were superior to what Richard Hofstadter called “the paranoid style in American politics.” They were smart, honest, and they knew how Washington worked. And they trusted the very best men of the CIA.

Now they know better. Howard Willens, a colleague of Slawson’s on the Commission, told JFK Facts last year, “I was naive, to say the least, about the CIA.” CIA deputy director Richard Helms and counterintelligence chief James Angleton were “untruthful” with investigators, he admitted.

Slawson told Shenon it had never occurred to him that the CIA “tried to sabotage us.”

CONTINUED w/links to sources, etc....

http://jfkfacts.org/the-consensus-is-crumbling-warren-commission-staffer-recants-says-there-was-a-jfk-conspiracy/



The CIA lied. The CIA director who literally and figuratively ran the Warren Commission, Allen Dulles, hid evidence from the panel, including how the CIA contracted with the Mafia for murder in 1960, under his watch.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 220 Next »