Oct
06

Roseanne KCAA Part 3 Oct 6 2013 Parenti and Giraldi

YouTube Preview Image
Oct
06

Roseanne KCAA Part 1 Oct 6 2013 Parenti and Giraldi

YouTube Preview Image
Oct
04

Two Articles of Interest by Phillip Giraldi (Sunday KCAA Guest)

 

Unknown

Coming to Terms With Iran

It only requires a little flexibility from both sides

by , October 03, 2013

President Barack Obama perhaps fortuitously did not shake hands with his Iranian counterpart at the United Nations General Assembly meeting last week, but his brief phone conversation with Rouhani should encourage just a ray of optimism that Washington’s most bloviated foreign policy issue of the past thirty years might somehow be resolved. The green light for Secretary of State John Kerry to meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif to discuss the Iranian nuclear program should also be seen in positive terms, even if Kerry is an unlikely Great White Hope given his ineptitude relating to the Middle East Peace talks and Syria, as hitherto Washington has eschewed any direct talks with Tehran. To his credit, Obama has made his move in the face of heavy opposition from the Israel Lobby and its friends in congress and the media, which have begun to do battle over the issue.

As many informed observers, including former senior government intelligence analystsPaul Pillar and Flynt and Hillary Leverett, have noted, closing a deal with Iran is actually quite simple and everyone in Washington and Tehran knows what must be done. The problem is that hardliners in Iran are resistant to any rapprochement with the west and, more importantly, the Israel Lobby conditions and even dictates the positions that the United States is able to take. Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and is entitled to develop nuclear technology, including enrichment, for peaceful purposes like the generation of electricity and creating isotopes for medical applications. The Iranian people strongly support that right and find it bizarre that they are being subjected to a barrage of Washington-inspired United Nations Security Council resolutions that condemn it for behaving like every other NPT signatory that has a nuclear energy program. The country’s nuclear facilities are inspected by the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency and the inspectors have reported that there has been no significant diversion or loss of enriched uranium that might be used in a weapon. Indeed, Iran has recently de-weaponized much of its nuclear fuel by converting it into plates fit only for medical purposes .

If Washington truly wants to come to an understanding with Tehran it knows it has to accept that Iran has a right to a civilian nuclear program. Indeed, both the Bush and Obama Administrations have on occasion conceded that to be the case though sometimes also suggesting that a secret, more insidious nuclear program might simultaneously exist. If Tehran wants a deal with Washington it too knows what is required: a transparent and inspected program that will satisfy the White House that no weapons are being planned or developed. This might well include no capability to enrich nuclear fuel at all requiring it instead to buy the fuel from others. Tehran has already indicated it might be willing to go down that road when it discussed such a possibility both with the Turks and Brazilians and also with the Russians before Washington characteristically changed its mind and rejected such an arrangement.

Tehran and Washington then have to agree to opening up the Iranian nuclear program to outside inspectors while also simultaneously easing the current international sanctions on Iran. That way there would be something that Rouhani can present to his people as a net gain in helping is devastated economy to recover while Obama can claim that a rigorous inspection regime will prevent Iran from ever developing a nuclear weapon. Everyone wins, except Israel and its powerful lobby in the United States, which have constantly moved their red line but now oppose any Iranian nuclear program of any kind.

As Paul Pillar notes, “Benjamin Netanyahu will not support any agreement between the United States and Iran. Or to be more precise, he will not support any agreement that is at all reasonable…and thus has any chance of being negotiated…He is doing what he can to destroy the prospects for an agreement.” The Lobby’s attempt to derail the negotiations started almost immediately. Rouhani’s unscripted response to a question about the Holocaust, in which he said he was a politician not a historian, was immediately cited by the punditry as Holocaust denial, which it clearly was not. Not that the issue is relevant anyway, but Foreign Minister Zarif chose to address it more directly on the weekend, confirming that the Holocaust had taken place and that it was a “heinous crime” and a “genocide.” His explanation was predictably ignored by most of the mainstream media.

Typical of the level of invective unleashed against Iran was a September 27th op-ed by leading neocon Charles Krauthammer entitled “The real Rouhani” for the Washington Post which was full of false information intended to poison the waters if anyone should even attempt to negotiate with Tehran. Krauthammer claimed that there is no such thing as an Iranian moderate, that Iran has no right or need to develop nuclear energy, that it has nearly enough nuclear material on hand already to construct a bomb, and that the entire Rouhani appeal is a trick to have sanctions lifted with no concessions by Tehran in return. Oh yes, and their favorite refrain is “Death to America” while they are denying the Holocaust and plotting to “eradicate” Israel. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) could not have said it better and might well have provided Krauthammer with this “talking points.”

Brian Williams on NBC’s Friday prime time news also did his bit to make the American viewer understand the Iran is a perfidious place given to lying about its secret weapons of mass destruction, asserting on national television that Iran’s leaders are “suddenly claiming they don’t want nuclear weapons,” adding that “Skepticism is high and there’s a good reason for it.” Williams does not write his own scripts but clearly someone with an agenda did have a hand in telling him what to say. The fact is that no Iranian leader has ever called for nuclear weapons and the only skepticism comes from people like Williams who know what they are expected to report to hew to the conventional wisdom on Iran.

On the following day the Washington Post featured the headline article on its front page “Obama, Iranian president speak by phone,” asserting in the third paragraph that Washington was seeking “…a deal over Iran’s uranium-enrichment program, which the United States, Israel and other nations believe is cover to develop nuclear weapons.” What the Israeli government actually believes can certainly be questioned and its moral high ground for condemning anyone, considering that it is a secret nuclear power, is a bit shaky, but the US intelligence community has concluded that Iran halted its weapons program in 2003 and has not restarted it. In the judgment of both the Agency and even Mossad, Tehran has not made the essentially political and economic decisions to develop a weapon, so asserting a general view among the “informed” that Iran is developing nuclear weapons is more than a bit of a stretch. According to President Hassan Rouhani and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, their country has no intention of doing so, and they note that the Iranian religious leadership has issued a fatwa condemning such a development.

A former intelligence officer friend of mine, reacting to the Obama-Rouhani phone call, predicted that there would be Washington Post op-eds by Senators McCain, Menendez, and Graham attacking Iran in response. A Menendez-Graham piece“Unseduced by Iran’s charm offensive” did indeed appear on Sunday, stating that the U.S. should “take whatever action necessary” to prevent Iran from acquiring a “nuclear weapons capability” that would be “threatening the very existence of our ally Israel.” It might be noted that Israel is no ally, that many in Israel admit that Iran is no existential threat, and that Iran already has a nuclear “capability.” So that leaves “take whatever action necessary” as the core message, doesn’t it? Nor is there any mention of how Iran might actually threaten the United States, possibly because Iran does not threaten the United States.

The Menendez-Graham op-ed was followed up on Monday by a blog by neocon Jennifer Rubin “On Iran, a bad call,” which describes the phone call between the two heads of state as “deeply worrisome” because the event was greeted with enthusiasm by the “chattering classes.” Rubin as usual doth protest too much as she is a poster child for everything that is wrong with the chattering classes that she denigrates. Her own newspaper the Post has repeatedly featured op-ed, editorials, and news pieces slamming Iran and opposing any attempts at rapprochement, so it is not as if there is a widespread wave of “chattering” enthusiasm greeting the news of talks between Iran and the US at least if one judges from the mainstream media.

And then there is, of course, this week’s visit of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the UN and to Washington. It was preceded by the phony news of the arrest in Israel of an Iranian “spy” who was allegedly carrying photos of the US Embassy in Tel Aviv, a crude attempt to influence American opinion by suggesting that Iran was planning to attack a US diplomatic facility. On Monday Netanyahu met with Obama and warned him that already harsh sanctions should be further tightened in light of Iran’s nuclear program, noting that a “credible military threat” must back up any negotiations. He demanded that Iran’s nuclear program be dismantled. At the United Nations on the following day he asserted that “Rouhani doesn’t sound like Ahmadinejad. But when it comes to Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the only difference between them is this: Ahmadinejad was a wolf in wolf’s clothing. Rouhani is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, a wolf who thinks he can pull the eyes — the wool over the eyes of the international community.” He describes Rouhani as smiling “…a lot because smiling never hurts; pay lip-service to peace, democracy and tolerance; offer meaningless concessions in exchange for lifting sanctions; ensure Iran retains sufficient nuclear material and infrastructure to race to the bomb at a time that it chooses.” And a big lie unsupported by even a shred of evidence never hurts: “… in the last three years alone, Iran has ordered, planned or perpetrated terrorist attacks in 25 countries on five continents.” For Netanyahu, nothing ever changes.

For Netanyahu, Krauthammer, Rubin, Menendez, and Graham apart from complete surrender on all issues and total disarmament there is absolutely nothing that Iran could possibly do to confirm that it is actually seeking some kind of accommodation. And even then they would object that it is all a trick and that Tehran has a secret program to attack Israel. Graham and Menendez, who are senators ostensibly elected to represent the American people, should wake up because change is coming. Israel and the United States are not two parts of the same organism. The US, which is struggling economically, desperately needs peace instead of another round of Asian wars. Most Americans are beginning to understand that. If Israel is threatened by anyone it certainly has itself at least partly to blame and Tel Aviv is, at the end of the day, responsible for its own security, which it is well equipped to do thanks to the generosity of the American taxpayer.

In its own interests, Washington should be racing to talk to Iran to find an exit from the longest running unnecessarily sustained neither-war-nor-peace conflict since the cold war. American politicians and media talking heads who say otherwise are being led by the nose by the likes of Netanyahu, a charlatan who has contempt for a congress and White House that he believes he can control. Along the way one might note that the past twelve years of war have not exactly delivered anything positive for the American people, quite the contrary. An unnecessary armed conflict with Iran, which might easily be avoided, could well be the final blow that will sink the American ship of state.

 

Defeating AIPAC Starts with Syria

by , September 12, 2013

In the second century B.C., Cato the Elder, a Roman Senator, would end every speech he made with the admonition “Delenda Est Carthago,” meaning that the city of Carthage, Rome’s perennial rival, must be destroyed. Among other claims, the Romans accused the Carthaginians of engaging in human sacrifice to their god Ba’al Hammon, something that one might describe as the “red line” of that era as Greco-Roman culture abhorred the practice and condemned those who engaged in it. Even though Rome dominated the Mediterranean and Carthage was in decline, Cato believed that one day the ancient resentments would again rise to the surface and a resurgent Carthage would discover a new Hannibal and take revenge. In other words, the survival of Carthage was seen as a threat to the continued existence of the Roman Republic. Cato’s argument was convincing enough to many Romans that it resulted in the Third Punic War in which Carthage was indeed destroyed.

I mention Rome and Carthage to illustrate the fact that there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to making compelling arguments about what today might be termed national security. There is in today’s world no Carthage to serve as a counterpoint to America’s new Rome, but in a nation where corruption enabled by the art of lobbying has become so refined that interest groups are able to dominate the political discourse the real enemy is internal. It is plausible to argue that the nation’s legislature is only marginally answerable to the citizens that have elected it. This has nowhere been more evident than in the still ongoing debate over America going to war against Syria, which the White House intends to initiate to establish its “credibility” in spite of the clear evidence that Damascus poses no actual threat to the United States or its interests. Even if one considers a government killing its own citizens as humanitarian grounds for outside military intervention, which I do not, the White House has failed to produce any compelling evidence that the Syrian government actually used chemical weapons against its own people. Ordinary American citizens have responded to the mess of pottage they have been served by writing and calling their congressmen and, overwhelmingly, saying “no.” Even normally bellicose evangelical Christians are surprisingly nearly two to one opposed. But still congress dithers.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) has weighed into the debate big time, unleashing hundreds of its activists on Capitol Hill, buttonholing congressmen and staffers alike. This is how it works according to a congressional staffer: “First come the phone calls from constituents who are AIPAC members. They know the Congressman and are nice and friendly and just tell him, or whichever staffer the constituent knows, just how important this vote is to him and his friends back in the district. Then the donors call. The folks who have hosted fundraisers. They are usually not only from the district but from New York or LA or Chicago. They repeat the message: this vote is very important. Contrary to what you might expect, they do not mention campaign money. They don’t have to. Because these callers are people who only know the Congressman through their checks, the threat not to write any more of them is implicit. Like the constituents, the donors are using AIPAC talking points which are simple and forceful. You can argue with them but they keep going back to the script… Then there are the AIPAC lobbyists, the professional staffers. They come in, with or without appointments. If the Congressman is in, they expect to see him immediately. If not, they will see a staffer. If they don’t like what they hear, they will keep coming back. They are very aggressive, no other lobby comes close. They expect to see the Member, not mere staff. Then there are the emails driven by the AIPAC website…and then the ‘Dear Colleague’ letters from Jewish House members saying how important the vote is for Israel and America. They also will buttonhole the Members on the House floor… And, truth be told, all the senior Jewish Members of the House are tight with AIPAC. Also, the two biggest AIPAC enforcers, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and his Democratic counterpart, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, are fierce AIPAC partisans, and they make sure to seek out Members on the floor to tell them how they must vote. On anything related to Israel, they speak in one voice: AIPAC’s. Obviously, there is no counterpart to this on the antiwar side. No anti-AIPAC to speak of. AIPAC owns this issue. It gets what it wants.”

AIPAC carefully avoided naming Israel in its statement of support for Obama even though it prides itself on being America’s pro-Israel lobby, presumably because it wishes to avoid Syria being labeled as Israel’s war if the bombing turns out badly. Which it will. AIPAC cares nothing for the fate of Syrian civilians but it does fear that failing to attack Damascus could possibly strengthen noninterventionist sentiment when it comes time to confront Iran, which it regards as Israel’s principal enemy. Its statement asserts “America’s allies and adversaries are closely watching the outcome of this momentous vote. This critical decision comes at a time when Iran is racing toward obtaining nuclear capability. Failure to approve this resolution would weaken our country’s credibility to prevent the use and proliferation of unconventional weapons and thereby greatly endanger our country’s security and interests and those of our regional allies.” The White House, for its part, is increasingly playing the Israel card to gain support, with the Israeli media even reporting that Obama has asked Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to intervene directly in lobbying American Jews to support an attack.

So AIPAC and the other components of the Israel Lobby, which are marching in lock step on this issue, are basically advocating a series of wars in which the United States will do the fighting and dying to make the world safe for Israel. They have chosen to go on the offensive over the issue of Syria to head off any developing peace agenda. Alan Dershowitz, noted Israel-firster from the world of academia, makes the argumentin his usual obtuse fashion: “Congress should first authorize the president to keep his commitment with regard to Syria. Then it should authorize the president to keep his far more important commitment with regard to the red line against Iran. This dual congressional action will strengthen America’s position in the world…” Dennis Ross, who until quite recently exploited a series of top level U.S. government posts to shamelessly promote Israeli interests, spoke recently before a gathering of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), observing several times that approval of an attack on Syria would legitimize taking similar action against Iran in the future. Ross’s open advocacy for the Jewish state while in government earned him thesobriquet of “Israel’s lawyer” and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice once testily interrupted him at a meeting, telling him that when the Likud position was needed they would call on him. Unfortunately, Ross was not and is not unique in US government circles when it comes to dealing with the Middle East.

If congress eventually approves the Obama program, now temporarily on hold, it will be because it fears AIPAC more than it does the voters in this country. That is not to say that there are not other constituencies that want to attack Syria for other reasons, but the critical component that will ultimately tip the scales towards war is the influence wielded by AIPAC. Which means that if Syria is actually attacked by the United States it will and should rightly be regarded as AIPAC’s war, a conflict which could also be fairly described as a victory of a foreign interest group over the American people.

AIPAC operates with a budget exceeding $50 million and has several hundred full time staff. Let there be no mistake about what the organization is and what it stands for: it wants the United States to start what almost certainly would quickly escalate into a major war on behalf of another country as a prelude to yet another war against yet another Middle Eastern country. AIPAC is a tax exempt foundation which claims to be educational, though anyone on Capitol Hill would be able to testify that it is anything but. President John F. Kennedy, recognizing the danger it posed, tried to get it listed by the Treasury Department under the Foreign Agents Registration Act but was killed before he could complete the process. AIPAC does indeed have the right to organize and express any view that it sees fit but it should not be able to do so on the taxpayer’s dime as an exempt organization and it should be clearly understood that it is an organization that exists to support its own perception of Israeli interests first and foremost. Congressmen should be able to tell AIPAC lobbyists to go away without fear of reprisals.

If the United States is ever again to be free of the danger posed by well-funded special interests like AIPAC it must first recognize that it has a problem and then take steps to find a remedy. To be sure powerful interests will strike back hard, but a good first step to demonstrate seriousness would be for congress to vote against President Obama’s plan to attack Syria should it be brought to the floor in the next several weeks. It would be a major defeat for AIPAC and it could substantially shift perceptions in the United States, opening the door to a freer discussion of the interventionist foreign policy that has produced so many ills over the past twelve years. Putting the AIPAC genie back in the bottle would do just that, removing at a stroke the Israeli stranglehold on US policy in the Middle East and holding the White House accountable every time it seeks to initiate a war of choice.

Read more by Philip Giraldi

Oct
03

Sunday 10-6-13 KCAA Guests Michael Parenti and Phillip Giraldi

photo.PNG

 

KCAA Radio Presents Co-Hosts 

 

Roseanne Barr and Kathleen Wells Sunday October6, 2013

 

 2:00pm Eastern   11:00am Pacific  8:00am Hawaii

 

with Guests

 

Michael Parenti and Phillip Giraldi

Click Here for Direct Link to Broadcast and UStream

 

Michael Parenti

Michael Parenti  is an internationally known, award winning scholar, with a Ph.D. in political science from Yale University.  His twenty-five books include The Face of Imperialism (2011); God and His Demons(2010); and The Assassination of Julius Caesar (2003). He  recently published an “ethnic memoir” of his childhood entitled Waiting for Yesterday: Pages from a Street Kid’s Life.  

Hundreds of his articles have been published in scholarly journals, popular magazines and newspapers, books of collected readings, and online publications.

Dr. Parenti lectures frequently across North America and abroad.          His work covers a wide range of subjects, including politics, history, empire, wealth, class power, culture, ideology, media, environment, gender, and ethnic life. For further information, visit his website: www.MichaelParenti.org.

 

Phillip Giraldi -

Philip Giraldi is a former counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and a columnist and television commentator who is the Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a group that advocates for more even handed policies by the U.S. government in the Middle East.

Giraldi was employed by the CIA for eighteen years working in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain and is fluent in Turkish, Italian, German, and Spanish.

Since 1992 Giraldi has consulted for several Fortune 500 corporate clients. President of San Marco International, an international security management and risk assessment consulting firm and a partner in Cannistraro Associates, another security consultancy. Giraldi has written columns on terrorism, intelligence, and security issues for The American Conservative magazine, Huffington Post, and Antiwar.com and op-ed pieces for the Hearst Newspaper chain. He has been interviewed by Good Morning America, 60 Minutes, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, National Public Radio, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the British Broadcasting Corporation, al-Jazeera, al-Arabiya and other outlets. During the 2008 presidential primaries, Giraldi served as a foreign policy adviser to Ron Paul.

Original.AntiWar.com

 

 

Oct
03

Former CIA Officer, Phillip Giraldi to Guest on Sunday’s Radio Show

Unknown

 

Phillip Giraldi -

Philip Giraldi is a former counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and a columnist and television commentator who is the Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a group that advocates for more even handed policies by the U.S. government in the Middle East.

Giraldi was employed by the CIA for eighteen years working in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain and is fluent in Turkish, Italian, German, and Spanish.

Since 1992 Giraldi has consulted for several Fortune 500 corporate clients. President of San Marco International, an international security management and risk assessment consulting firm and a partner in Cannistraro Associates, another security consultancy. Giraldi has written columns on terrorism, intelligence, and security issues for The American Conservative magazine, Huffington Post, and Antiwar.com and op-ed pieces for the Hearst Newspaper chain. He has been interviewed by Good Morning America, 60 Minutes, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, National Public Radio, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the British Broadcasting Corporation, al-Jazeera, al-Arabiya and other outlets. During the 2008 presidential primaries, Giraldi served as a foreign policy adviser to Ron Paul.

Click Here for Link to Phillip Giraldi Website Original.AntiWar.com

 

,

Sep
29

Seymour Hersh Concurs with Wayne Madsen

Seymour Hersh Concurs with Wayne Madsen Osama Killing a Hoax

Wayne Madsen Report

May 2-3, 2011 — Bin Laden: Body buried at sea, shoddy proof of death — another “Made in Hollywood” performance from “Ari Gold”

Years after Public Enemy Number One, Osama Bin Laden, was reportedly killed in the mountains of the Afghan-Pakistani border region or died from kidney failure in his native Hadhramaut region of Yemen, President Obama pulled the Bin Laden rabbit out of his political hat during a Sunday late-night television address, when many Americans were already watching the tube, thus increasing Obama’s market share for his “surprise announcement.” After all, Obama, who has close links to Oprah Winfrey and Rahm Emanuel’s super-Hollywood agent brother, Ari Emanuel, depicted as the vile “Ari Gold” in fiction, is well-aware of TV Sunday prime time ratings.

So, in a few words, Obama announced that Bin Laden had been killed by a U.S. team that caught the wily Saudi Arabian terrorist mastermind by surprise. Bin Laden was not caught in a cave or some other underground facility in Waziristan but in a $1 million walled-off estate in Abbottabad, a military cantonment where a number of active and retired members of Pakistan’s military and intelligence community lived. Abbottabad is also home to Pakistan’s version of West Point, the Kakul Military Academy, where the firefight between U.S. Navy SEALS and Bin Laden’s security guards allegedly took place a mere 800 meters away.

Up until the 1980s, the mountains around Abbottabad were dotted with small U.S. National Security Agency (NSA)/U.K. Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) listening posts in places like Bada Bier and Parachinar were used to eavesdrop on signals from the Soviet Union and China. It was a time period when Bin Laden was operating his mujaheddin forces in Afghanistan under the aegis of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency and its CIA overseers.

Abbottabad is also very familiar to the CIA and U.S. Special Forces, which operated from the nearby Kalabagh air force base, which has reportedly been used in the past by U.S. Special Operations forces, including U.S. Marines. Why Bin Laden would want to locate a massive safe house in the heart of Pakistani and American counter-insurgency and intelligence activity is curious.

Bin Laden’s body was reported by the Pentagon to have been buried somewhere in the north Arabian Sea from the aircraft carrier, USS Carl Vinson. The Pentagon has assured the public that they confirmed Bin Laden’s identity through DNA sampling and are “100 percent” certain that the body they buried in the sea was that of Bin Laden. The question remains as to where Bin Laden’s comparative DNA samples were obtained over the past several years when the terrorist mastermind was supposedly a phantom-like fugitive.

However, the word from WMR sources at NSA is that no signals intercepts, from Pakistan or U.S. military sources, indicate that the man shot to death in Abbottabad was Osama Bin Laden. After the so-called killing of Bin Laden, operators were deluged with intercepted chatter about Bin Laden having been killed. However, not once did signals intercept operators, linguists and intelligence analysts based in Pakistan, Afghanistan, NSA headquarters at Fort Meade, Maryland, or on ships offshore — who would have been cleared for and involved with the top secret mission to kill Bin Laden — pick up any intelligence about Bin Laden prior to his reported assassination by the U.S. Special Forces “kill” team acting on the direct orders of President Obama.

George W. Bush and other neo-con leaders, like Obama, have often pulled the Bin Laden rabbit out of their hat, years after reports of the Al Qaeda leader’s death in either thr Afghanistan-Pakistan border region or Yemen. On September 7, 2007, WMR reported: “‘Osama bin Laden’ supposedly appears in a new videotape with a dyed and trimmed beard and talking about Democratic control of Congress and the coming to power of Nicolas Sarkozy in France and Gordon Brown in Britain. ‘Bin Laden’ also refers to George W. Bush as the ‘leader of Texas.’ He also talks of the Democrats’ failure to ‘stop the war.’ “Bin Laden,’ who once recommended William Blum’ s book ‘Rogue State,’ is back in the Book-of-the-Month Club business in plugging Noam Chomsky and ex-CIA ‘Bin Laden Unit’ chief Michael Scheuer. ‘Bin Laden’ also mentions ‘neoconservatives’ like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Richard Pearl [sic], meaning Richard Perle. He also refers to Colin Powell and Richard Armitage and ‘their blood history of murdering humans.’ Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair also gets honorable mention. ‘Bin Laden’ also states that President John Kennedy was killed and ‘corporations were the primary beneficiary of his killing.’ Days before a huge anti-war march in Washington, on September 15, Bin Laden states that carrying ‘anti-war placards’ in the streets is of no use. As if expecting that many people will view the tape as a fake, the neocon media and their usual ‘sources’ and ‘experts’ are already claiming that it is quite common for Arab mean to dye their beards to make themselves look younger.”

On September 9, 2007, WMR reported on how “Al Qaeda” video and audiotapes are transmitted to the news media as authentic: “The so-called ‘Osama Bin Laden tape’ was not only transmitted via the auspices of the Search for International Terrorist Entities (SITE) Institute, a Washington, DC-based research institute with links to Israeli right-wing Likud elements, but U.S. intelligence officials are now claiming that large portions of the ‘Bin Laden’ speech were written by Los Angeles native Adam Gadahn, born Adam Pearlman, (aka Azzam the American), the number three man in charge of Al Qaeda, whose grandfather, Carl K. Pearlman, was a member of the board of the Anti Defamation League (ADL), an important component of the Israeli Lobby in the United States. Carl Pearlman, a prominent California urologist, was the chairman of the Orange County Bonds for Israel campaign and the United Jewish Welfare Fund. SITE and an Israeli intelligence front operation in Washington, MEMRI (the Middle East Media Research Institute), are closely linked. MEMRI has been responsible for mis-translating several speeches made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. SITE’s director is Rita Katz, an Iraq-born Jew who moved to Israel after her father was executed by Saddam Hussein’s government for spying for the Mossad. She emigrated to the United States from Israel in 1997. Katz worked for the U.S. Treasury Department in its pursuit of Muslim charity funds in the United States in Operation Green Quest and as a consultant for the FBI. The main coordinator for Green Quest was the then-head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, Michael Chertoff.

Not surprisingly, the Zawahiri tape ridiculing Obama was made available by the SITE Intelligence Group in Washington.

Our September 9, 2007 report continued: “The delivery of the latest ‘Bin Laden’ video was reported by the Associated Press as follows: ‘the 30-minute video was obtained by the SITE Institute, a Washington-based group that monitors terrorist messages, and provided to the Associated Press.’ In the past, Bin Laden videos were sent to Al Jazeera and other Arab media sources directly. The first news of the video’s release came on the al-Sahab web site, where ‘Al Qaeda’ has previously posted messages. Last year, a leaked French intelligence report stated that Bin Laden died of typhoid fever in Pakistan. There are other reports that after the US attack on Afghanistan, Bin Laden was spirited out of Afghanistan to his native Hadhramaut region of Yemen, where he later died of kidney failure surrounded by his close and extended family members. Bin Laden’s post-9/11 presence in Hadhramaut was hinted to by reputable Israeli intelligence sources in discussions with this editor in 2002. The speed at which the corporate media accepted the obviously bogus ‘Bin Laden makeover’ tape is amazing. However, considering the links between the neocon disinformation machinery in Washington, DC and the corporate media, it may not be so surprising when put into context.”

After years of lies from the U.S. government about Saddam Hussein’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction, including “intelligence” about mobile biological weapons trailers from a known fraudster code named “Curveball”; bogus Niger documents on Iraq’s possession of yellow cake uranium; bogus Iraq Oil Ministry documents on Iraqi payoffs to Western political leaders under the UN’s Oil-for-Food program; and, more recently, false charges from Obama’s ambassador to the UN that Muammar Qaddafi’s troops in Libya were ingesting Viagra tablets before raping women, the public should be wary of a president who shows every tendency to lie as much as his three immediate predecessors: Bush II, Clinton, and Bush I. The White House is, perhaps, the greatest source of lies and disinformation in the world today, topping anything similar that may emanate from Pyongyang or Tripoli. There is no reason for any sane person to believe that anything Mr. Obama says is true. But Obama’s supporters wasted no time in proclaiming that Bin Laden’s killing ensures Obama’s re-election next year.

 Seymour Hersh UK Guardian

Seymour Hersh on Obama, NSA and the ‘pathetic’ American media

Pulitzer Prize winner explains how to fix journalism, saying press should ‘fire 90% of editors and promote ones you can’t control’

Seymour Hersh exposed the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam war, for which he won the Pulitzer Prize. Photograph: Wally McNamee/Corbis

Seymour Hersh has got some extreme ideas on how to fix journalism – close down the news bureaus of NBC and ABC, sack 90% of editors in publishing and get back to the fundamental job of journalists which, he says, is to be an outsider.

It doesn’t take much to fire up Hersh, the investigative journalist who has been the nemesis of US presidents since the 1960s and who was once described by the Republican party as “the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist”.

He is angry about the timidity of journalists in America, their failure to challenge the White House and be an unpopular messenger of truth.

Don’t even get him started on the New York Times which, he says, spends “so much more time carrying water for Obama than I ever thought they would” – or the death of Osama bin Laden. “Nothing’s been done about that story, it’s one big lie, not one word of it is true,” he says of the dramatic US Navy Seals raid in 2011.

Hersh is writing a book about national security and has devoted a chapter to the bin Laden killing. He says a recent report put out by an “independent” Pakistani commission about life in the Abottabad compound in which Bin Laden was holed up would not stand up to scrutiny. “The Pakistanis put out a report, don’t get me going on it. Let’s put it this way, it was done with considerable American input. It’s a bullshit report,” he says hinting of revelations to come in his book.

The Obama administration lies systematically, he claims, yet none of the leviathans of American media, the TV networks or big print titles, challenge him.

“It’s pathetic, they are more than obsequious, they are afraid to pick on this guy [Obama],” he declares in an interview with the Guardian.

“It used to be when you were in a situation when something very dramatic happened, the president and the minions around the president had control of the narrative, you would pretty much know they would do the best they could to tell the story straight. Now that doesn’t happen any more. Now they take advantage of something like that and they work out how to re-elect the president.

He isn’t even sure if the recent revelations about the depth and breadth of surveillance by the National Security Agency will have a lasting effect.

Snowden changed the debate on surveillance

He is certain that NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden “changed the whole nature of the debate” about surveillance. Hersh says he and other journalists had written about surveillance, but Snowden was significant because he provided documentary evidence – although he is sceptical about whether the revelations will change the US government’s policy.

“Duncan Campbell [the British investigative journalist who broke the Zircon cover-up story], James Bamford [US journalist] and Julian Assange and me and the New Yorker, we’ve all written the notion there’s constant surveillance, but he [Snowden] produced a document and that changed the whole nature of the debate, it’s real now,” Hersh says.

“Editors love documents. Chicken-shit editors who wouldn’t touch stories like that, they love documents, so he changed the whole ball game,” he adds, before qualifying his remarks.

“But I don’t know if it’s going to mean anything in the long [run] because the polls I see in America – the president can still say to voters ‘al-Qaida, al-Qaida’ and the public will vote two to one for this kind of surveillance, which is so idiotic,” he says.

Holding court to a packed audience at City University in London’s summer school on investigative journalism, 76-year-old Hersh is on full throttle, a whirlwind of amazing stories of how journalism used to be; how he exposed the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, how he got the Abu Ghraib pictures of American soldiers brutalising Iraqi prisoners, and what he thinks of Edward Snowden.

Hope of redemption

Despite his concern about the timidity of journalism he believes the trade still offers hope of redemption.

“I have this sort of heuristic view that journalism, we possibly offer hope because the world is clearly run by total nincompoops more than ever … Not that journalism is always wonderful, it’s not, but at least we offer some way out, some integrity.”

His story of how he uncovered the My Lai atrocity is one of old-fashioned shoe-leather journalism and doggedness. Back in 1969, he got a tip about a 26-year-old platoon leader, William Calley, who had been charged by the army with alleged mass murder.

Instead of picking up the phone to a press officer, he got into his car and started looking for him in the army camp of Fort Benning in Georgia, where he heard he had been detained. From door to door he searched the vast compound, sometimes blagging his way, marching up to the reception, slamming his fist on the table and shouting: “Sergeant, I want Calley out now.”

Eventually his efforts paid off with his first story appearing in the St Louis Post-Despatch, which was then syndicated across America and eventually earned him the Pulitzer Prize. “I did five stories. I charged $100 for the first, by the end the [New York] Times were paying $5,000.”

He was hired by the New York Times to follow up the Watergate scandal and ended up hounding Nixon over Cambodia. Almost 30 years later, Hersh made global headlines all over again with his exposure of the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

Put in the hours

For students of journalism his message is put the miles and the hours in. He knew about Abu Ghraib five months before he could write about it, having been tipped off by a senior Iraqi army officer who risked his own life by coming out of Baghdad to Damascus to tell him how prisoners had been writing to their families asking them to come and kill them because they had been “despoiled”.

“I went five months looking for a document, because without a document, there’s nothing there, it doesn’t go anywhere.”

Hersh returns to US president Barack Obama. He has said before that the confidence of the US press to challenge the US government collapsed post 9/11, but he is adamant that Obama is worse than Bush.

“Do you think Obama’s been judged by any rational standards? Has Guantanamo closed? Is a war over? Is anyone paying any attention to Iraq? Is he seriously talking about going into Syria? We are not doing so well in the 80 wars we are in right now, what the hell does he want to go into another one for. What’s going on [with journalists]?” he asks.

He says investigative journalism in the US is being killed by the crisis of confidence, lack of resources and a misguided notion of what the job entails.

“Too much of it seems to me is looking for prizes. It’s journalism looking for the Pulitzer Prize,” he adds. “It’s a packaged journalism, so you pick a target like – I don’t mean to diminish because anyone who does it works hard – but are railway crossings safe and stuff like that, that’s a serious issue but there are other issues too.

“Like killing people, how does [Obama] get away with the drone programme, why aren’t we doing more? How does he justify it? What’s the intelligence? Why don’t we find out how good or bad this policy is? Why do newspapers constantly cite the two or three groups that monitor drone killings. Why don’t we do our own work?

“Our job is to find out ourselves, our job is not just to say – here’s a debate’ our job is to go beyond the debate and find out who’s right and who’s wrong about issues. That doesn’t happen enough. It costs money, it costs time, it jeopardises, it raises risks. There are some people – the New York Times still has investigative journalists but they do much more of carrying water for the president than I ever thought they would … it’s like you don’t dare be an outsider any more.”

He says in some ways President George Bush‘s administration was easier to write about. “The Bush era, I felt it was much easier to be critical than it is [of] Obama. Much more difficult in the Obama era,” he said.

Asked what the solution is Hersh warms to his theme that most editors are pusillanimous and should be fired.

“I’ll tell you the solution, get rid of 90% of the editors that now exist and start promoting editors that you can’t control,” he says. I saw it in the New York Times, I see people who get promoted are the ones on the desk who are more amenable to the publisher and what the senior editors want and the trouble makers don’t get promoted. Start promoting better people who look you in the eye and say ‘I don’t care what you say’.

Nor does he understand why the Washington Post held back on the Snowden files until it learned the Guardian was about to publish.

If Hersh was in charge of US Media Inc, his scorched earth policy wouldn’t stop with newspapers.”I would close down the news bureaus of the networks and let’s start all over, tabula rasa. The majors, NBCs, ABCs, they won’t like this – just do something different, do something that gets people mad at you, that’s what we’re supposed to be doing,” he says.

Hersh is currently on a break from reporting, working on a book which undoubtedly will make for uncomfortable reading for both Bush and Obama.

“The republic’s in trouble, we lie about everything, lying has become the staple.” And he implores journalists to do something about it.

 

 

Sep
28

Hawaii and Secret Weapons

images

September 27-29, 2013 — Additional far-out covert warfare discovered at University of Hawaii

According to files recently discovered in the CIA archives, the University of Hawaii not only served as one of the CIA’s and director Richard Helms’ top five research campuses for “behavioral sciences” and as the host of the CIA’s Asian influence-peddling East-West Center, but was also one of five universities engaged in research on earthquake warfare for the Pentagon.

Although President Obama never attended the University of Hawaii, the school was his mother’s alma mater and it is where his half-sister, Maya Soetoro Ng, currently holds a professor position. The university and its East-West Center were also central in the education of Obama’s Kenyan father and his Indonesian step-father.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) work conducted at the Manoa campus was under contract number “nonr. 3748-01 and involved the use of sensing equipment to monitor T-Phases in the Pacific Ocean. T-Phases are acoustic waves generated by earthquakes and which travel long distances through the ocean without a great deal of attenuation. Therefore, the T-Phases can be detected by sensors far from a quake’s epicenter.

The overall program for Hawaii’s quake research was known as Project VELA. Research on the project was later expanded in 1969 by the initiation by ARPA, as it was then known, of Project PRIME ARGUS, which involved the detonation of underground and undersea nuclear weapons along fault lines to trigger earthquakes. U.S. Navy divers, using U.S. Navy ships painted white and assigned to the Commander, Middle Eastern Force, which almost solely made diplomatic port calls in the Middle East and East Africa, surveyed the ocean floor from the Persian Gulf to the coast of Kenya to determine the best location to place nuclear bombs on the ocean floor. When detonated, these nuclear bombs would result in earthquakes. Other parts of the research work involved using earthquakes to trigger devastating tsunamis. Some of the DARPA research was also used to trigger small quakes along California’s San Andreas fault to relieve the stress that could trigger a stronger magnitude quake.

There is no evidence whether the system ever went operational and its existence became known to the public as the result of the actions of a U.S. Army whistleblower and Korean War decorated veteran, Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Herbert, who retired from the Army in 1972 after revealing U.S. war crimes in Vietnam. In 1973, CBS’s 60 Minutes aired a segment calling Herbert’s war crimes allegations false and Herbert sued the network. U.S. Judge Irving Kaufman ruled in CBS’s favor. It was later discovered that CBS President Frank Stanton arranged a deal with White house counsel Charles Colson to have 60 Minutes and its reporter Mike Wallace attack Herbert’s credibility. CBS also had Kaufman in its hip pocket.

In 1977, U.S. Defense Secretary William Cohen stated: “Others [terrorists] are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves . . .

So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations…It’s real, and that’s the reason why we have to intensify our efforts.”

Participating in VELA and PRIME ARGUS with the University of Hawaii’s Hawaii Institute for Geophysics were the Lamont Geological Observatory at Columbia University, the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska, Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California in La Jolla, and Stanford Research Institute. Other DARPA projects involved the use of lightning — Project SKYFIRE — and hurricanes — Project STORMFURY — as weapons of war.

It was the Lamont Observatory that began investigating in detail the appearance of a “mud volcano” island off the Pakistani port city of Gwadar after a recent 7.7 magnitude quake in Baluchistan. Gwadar is also the location of an expanding Chinese port facility which the Obama administration, intent on pivoting its influence in Asia to inhibit Chinese influence, is known to oppose.

In 2010, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said the United States used a tectonic weapon that caused the deadly and destructive Haiti earthquake that flattened the capital of Port-au-Prince. Chavez cited information he received from the Russian Navy. Venezuelan media also reported that U.S. tectonic weapons caused  a January 9, 2010, tremor in Eureka, California and a 7.8-magnitude quake in 2008 in China that killed some 90,000 people.

On August 28, 2009, WMR reported the following concerning the University of Hawaii, quake weapons research, and Israel:

“On August 27, Israel’s Seismologic Division of its Geophysical Institute of the Ministry of National Infrastructure conducted, along with the U.S. Defense Department and the University of Hawaii, a joint earthquake research experiment in Israel’s Negev Desert. The experiment simulated an earthquake in the southern Negev designed to improve not seismological warning and acoustic reading systems in either Hawaii or earthquake-prone California or Alaska, but in Israel.

The cover story is that the simulated earthquake was designed to improve Israel’s earthquake advance warning system. The simulated earthquake, created with 80 tons of explosives, created a 3.0 earthquake on the Richter scale.

The involvement of the Pentagon with Israeli ‘earthquake’ research may involve a much more classified purpose. In 1995, this editor was told by an individual close to Mossad that Israel’s intelligence agency was concerned about the Japanese Aum Shrinkyo movement arriving in Belgrade as Yugoslavia was collapsing. Agents of the cult movement were, according to the Mossad, trying to obtain Tesla earthquake-producing technology from notes and papers produced by the scientist on high-energy wave amplification maintained at the Nikola Tesla Institute in Belgrade. Nikola Tesla, a contemporary and one-time employee of Thomas Edison, died in 1943 and is considered the pioneer of alternating current machinery.

The Japanese cult members, who represented to institute officials that they were scientists, photocopied 100,000 Tesla documents. Tesla discovered that by altering the earth’s magnetic field with electrical currents, earthquakes could result.

Israel’s defense research community has also been interested in Tesla’s earthquake- producing technology, which may have been at the heart of the recent Israeli-U.S. earthquake ‘sensor test in the Negev. In 1998, Los Alamos National Laboratory produced a super-magnet code-named GODZILLA that was the world’s most powerful repeatable pulsed field magnet. Los Alamos had plans to create a more powerful magnet, twenty times more powerful than GODZILLA, code-named ATLAS. ATLAS was designed with a magnetic field strength of 1000 tesla, 20 million times more powerful than the Earth’s natural magnetic field and a potential weapon that could be used to alter the earth’s magnetic field creating earthquakes.

There are suspicions that such technology was what was being tested in Israel’s Negev Desert on August 27.

One indication is that the Israel and U.S. explanation for the test in the Negev was an intelligence cover story is that the U.S. Geological Survey, which records earthquakes all around the world, has no record of a 3.0 earthquake in the Negev on August 27.”

The UN’s Environmental Modification Convention (ENMOD), also known as the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, entered into force in 1978. The treaty bans the use of tectonic weapons, weather modification, or any other manipulative processes that can affect the earth’s biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, or outer space.

ENMOD was signed and ratified by the United States, Soviet Union (honored by Russia), Britain, China, Egypt, Germany, Japan, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and South Korea. It was signed but not ratified by Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey.

Israel is the only country known to possess weapons of mass destruction that did not  sign or ratify ENMOD.