THEY KNEW: Tenet's Book Reveals 9-11 Perjury

by leveymg

Mon May 07, 2007

George Tenet's new book, At the Center of the Storm, reveals something extremely important about events in the final weeks before 9/11. For the first time, the former CIA Director admits he flew to Crawford in late August, just weeks before the attack by al-Qaeda cells known to be in the U.S., and briefed President George W. Bush personally about the threat.

This briefing followed a CIA PDB read to the President on August 6 in a meeting with Harriet Miers, then the President's lawyer, and an emergency meeting between Tenet and Condi Rice on July 10 on the same subject.

It also reveals that in order to cover up the last meeting, Tenet committed perjury before the 9/11 Commission when he denied meeting with Bush in the month before the attack. According to the White House website, Bush met in Crawford with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Condi Rice, and the present and former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Generals Meyers and Pace, on August 24, 2001.

Actually, this is not the first time Tenet has referenced that meeting. During April 2003 testimony before the Commission, Tenet "misspoke" and let it slip that he had met with the President in the weeks leading up to 9/11.

At the time, three years ago, the corporate media virtually ignored a pair of wire service reports about Tenet's revelation, and practically no one followed-up on it, except two bloggers, one of whom was me.

****

Here's the relevant extract from Tenet's book: http://www.consortiumnews.com/...

"A few weeks after the Aug. 6 PDB was delivered, I followed it to Crawford to make sure the President stayed current on events," Tenet wrote in his memoir, At the Center of the Storm. "This was my first visit to the ranch. I remember the President graciously driving me around the spread in his pickup and my trying to make small talk about the flora and the fauna, none of which were native to Queens,"

And, here's the article that I published nearly three years ago: http://www.scoop.co.nz/...

UQ Wire: Tenet Lied Under Oath To 9/11 Commission
Wednesday, 9 June 2004, 1:37 pm

TENET LIED UNDER OATH TO 9/11 COMMISSION ABOUT 8/24/2001 MEETING WITH PRESIDENT - AGENCY COMPOUNDS MISREPRESENTATION

• CIA Statement Omits Key Date From List of Bush-DCI Meetings in Weeks Before 9/11
• What Did Bush, Tenet, Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers Talk About in Crawford, TX Three Weeks Before the Attacks - One Day After the Flt. 77 Hijackers Were Watchlisted by the CIA?

From Mark G. Levey

Washington, DC, June 7, 2004 - Former CIA Director George Tenet committed perjury in his April 14 testimony before the 9/11 Commission when he claimed he had not met with President Bush in the month before the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. That misrepresentation in Tenet's testimony was noted within hours by Agence France-Presse, below.

The following day, AP reported the CIA issued what was described as a correction after the Director "misspoke." The Agency asserted that its records showed Tenet meeting with Bush on August 17 and 31, and then on at least six occasions in September prior to Tuesday, the 11th, below.

However, that CIA announcement omits mention of the visit that then DCI Tenet apparently made to the President's Crawford, Texas ranch on August 24. The White House website on August 25 quotes a remark made by George W. Bush that he met with Tenet the previous day.

In a verbatim transcript, the President is quoted during an impromptu walking tour of Bush's Crawford, TX ranch that he had met the day before with CIA Director and newly appointed members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and National Security Advisor Rice were also present at a Presidential press conference in Crawford on the 24th, according to the White House press notice issued that day. In the August 25 transcript, the President Bush states to reporters and visitors:

THE PRESIDENT: " . . . Yesterday, we spent -- well, they arrived at 10:00 a.m. It took a while to get the press conference. We got back here at about 11:30 a.m. and met until 5:15 p.m. I think they left. That's the longest meeting I've had in a long time, on a very important subject . . .

Q When you have those business meetings, like the Joint Chiefs briefing, do you like to keep it separate from the living quarters on the ranch?

THE PRESIDENT: Actually, you know, what we call the governor's house, the place where you all came out during the -- that's where we went. Condi and Karen Hughes stayed there. And right across the street from that is a -- it's a nice looking government doublewide. (Laughter.) And that's where the mil aide, the nurse, the WHCA head, the doc, they stay.

The CIA briefings, I have on our porch, the end of our porch looking out over the lake. When Tenet came up, that's where we visited, out there.

You know, everybody wants to see the ranch, which I'm proud to show it off. So George Tenet and I -- yesterday, we piled in the new nominees for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Vice Chairman and their wives and went right up the canyon. " Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/...

The "very important subject" discussed for almost six hours by Bush with his core national security team would likely have been the CIA's action the day before placing four wanted Al-Qaeda terrorists on the "watchlist" of persons to be detained if located in the US. On August 23 the Agency sent "cables to the State Department, the FBI, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, requesting that 'four bin Laden related individuals' including Almidhar and Alhazmi, be placed on the watchlist." (Washington Post, A8, September 21, 2002) Two of those - Khalid Almidhar and Nawaf Alhazmi - subsequently led the hijacking of American Airlines Flight 77 that slammed into the Pentagon.

The pair had been the subject of CIA-directed surveillance since at least late 1999, when they were followed by the CIA to an Al-Qaeda planning session in Kuala Lumpur, at which they were observed meeting with a ranking terrorist operations director and Mohamed Atta's roommate, Ramzi Binalshibh, who subsequently wired money to them from Germany. Binalshibh also sent funds to Zacarias Moussaoui, who in October 2000 stayed at the same Al-Qaeda safehouse in Malaysia while on his way to the United States. On August 15, Moussaoui was arrested by the FBI at a Minnesota flight school.

If Tenet did not take the opportunity to discuss these events with the President, he committed one of the worst acts of derelection of duty in CIA history. Former DCI George Tenet is generally held to be a thorough and responsible intelligence executive. It is simply implausible that Tenet and Bush did not discuss the 9/11 hijackers when they met in Crawford on August 24.

A special prosecutor needs to be appointed to investigate CIA Director Tenet's apparent perjury on April 14 and the Agency's material misrepresentation of fact in its statement the next day. The former CIA Director and the President need to reveal publicly, and under oath, what was discussed at their numerous meetings in the weeks before 9/11, and why this has been concealed.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Agence France-Presse report reprint (April 15, 2004)

CIA says Tenet did meet with Bush in August 2001

WASHINGTON, April 15 (AFP) The CIA today said that its director, George Tenet, personally briefed President George W. Bush in August 2001, countering a statement Tenet made to the commission investigating the September 11 attacks. "We looked at his schedule," a CIA spokeswoman told AFP. "Mr. Tenet did fly down to Texas and briefed the president on August 17." He also briefed Bush on August 31 in Washington, she added. Tenet briefed Bush at least six times in the first eight days of September 2001, as well, the spokeswoman said. And "the whole time that President Bush was in Texas," vacationing on his ranch, he had a senior CIA analyst with him and received a daily report from the CIA, she said. Tenet yesterday told the commission he did not meet with Bush in August 2001. "I didn't see the president. I was not in briefings with him during this time. He was on vacation; I was here" in Washington, he said. "In this time period, I'm not talking to him," Tenet added, noting that they had not even spoken by phone at the time. The month before the attacks has come under particular scrutiny after the inquiry discovered that Bush received a briefing on August 6, 2001 about al-Qaeda activities in the United States.

2. AP Wire Reprint (April 15, 2004)

KHOU.com Houston, TX

Tenet misspoke about not meeting Bush in August 2001

Associated Press

WASHINGTON, D.C. - CIA Director George Tenet misspoke Wednesday when he told a federal panel reviewing the Sept. 11 attacks that he did not meet with President Bush in August 2001. Under questioning by commissioner Tim Roemer, Tenet said he never spoke with Bush during the month before the attacks, a period marked by concern over possible terrorist strike. "He was on vacation and I was here," Tenet said, although he added that he could have picked up the phone and called the president at any time if he had felt the need to communicate with him. In fact, Tenet flew to Texas to brief Bush on Aug. 17, 2001, and briefed the president again on Aug. 31 when Bush returned to Washington, a spokesman for Tenet said later in the day. During the first eight days of September, Tenet briefed Bush at least six times, the spokesman said.

Further Sources:

For more information, go to: http://www.scoop.co.nz/...
Part 4 of a four-part series, "The Crimes of 9/11"

For a more general introduction: http://www.democraticunderground.com... (Two-part series, "How US Counterterrorism Failed on 9/11, and Why the Bush Administration Cannot Fix It"

Oh, yes, one last thing. Everyone else who has omitted under oath to mention the 8/24/2001 Crawford meeting with Bush, also committed perjury. And, you can take that one to the bank.

___________________________

2007. Mark G. Levey

‘Why the fuck didn’t George Bush call us and tell us this [9/11] was going to happen?’

“When he turned and said to Bernie Kerik, ‘Thank God George Bush is President,’” what he should have said was, ‘Why the fuck didn’t George Bush call us and tell us this was going to happen?’ That was a more appropriate response.”

Related
KERREY, J. Robert - Biographical Information
---
Kerrey, Unbound, Rates Dems and Blasts Giuliani

by Jason Horowitz Published: May 1, 2007

Photo: Getty Images

Bob Kerrey.

As a former Presidential candidate now long out of politics, Bob Kerrey has become the unleashed id of the current Democratic candidates for President.

In response to Rudy Giuliani’s recent remarks doubting the ability of Democrats to keep America safe from terrorism, the Vietnam veteran and former Navy SEAL questioned whether the former Mayor is himself qualified for the job.

“It’s an outrageous statement,” Mr. Kerrey said about Mr. Giuliani’s assertion that a Democratic President would make the country more vulnerable to a similar terrorist attack. “His record of preparing New York between World Trade Center attack No. 1 and attack No. 2—it wasn’t exemplary.”

Far from it, argued Mr. Kerrey in an interview. The former Nebraska governor and then Senator said that he thinks Mr. Giuliani showed solid leadership in the hours and days after the attack, but he just won’t stand for the idea that Republicans—and especially President Bush—did a better job than Democrats at keeping danger at bay.

“When he turned and said to Bernie Kerik, ‘Thank God George Bush is President,’” said Mr. Kerrey, echoing one of Mr. Giuliani’s favorite (but now retired) 9/11 anecdotes. “What he should have said was, ‘Why the fuck didn’t George Bush call us and tell us this was going to happen?’ That was a more appropriate response.”

Not exactly the stuff you heard from the Democratic presidential candidates at the debate in South Carolina. But not far, one supposes, from what the candidates are actually thinking, either.

Mr. Giuliani’s campaign declined to respond to Mr. Kerrey’s remarks.

Mr. Kerrey, who lost part of his leg in Vietnam and was one of the most vocal Democratic boosters of the war in Iraq, has never been accused of shyness. He arrived in New York in 2001 to take over the New School, bringing with him a Senatorial mane of greying hair, a reputation for dating movie stars and a whiff of Mayoral ambition.

Mr. Kerrey’s most public duties these days usually tend towards the ceremonial: introducing Bill Clinton at the annual Parsons Fashion Benefit and Fashion Show, as he did on Monday night, or debating angry liberal teenagers upset about his invitations to John McCain and Newt Gingrich to speak at New School forums.

But he is by no means disengaged from politics.

Asked to rate the foreign-policy platforms of the various Democratic candidates, he was unflinching.

Joe Biden, he says, is the most serious thinker on Iraq, even though his plan smacks too much of micromanaging. Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd and Governor Bill Richardson are likewise in the top tier of foreign policy.

Barack Obama lacks experience, but is uniquely equipped, given his Muslim heritage, Christian faith and peripatetic childhood, to face the foreign-policy challenges of the 21st century.

John Edwards has made strides in foreign policy since he last ran for President, though he is still stronger on domestic issues.

Mr. Kerrey, who sat as the highest-ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, also has some specific criticisms of their plans for dealing with Iraq.

He thinks, for example, that Mrs. Clinton’s plan, which maintains funding for American troops but threatens to slash money for the American-trained Iraqi security forces, is misguided.

“I think we have under-funded the Iraqi military,” said Mr. Kerrey. “They don’t have enough helicopters; they don’t have enough of the basic necessities to confront an enemy, either domestic or foreign. So the idea that we are going to provide them an incentive by cutting back on their military—I don’t understand that.”

Worse, said Mr. Kerrey, is that such a move would help America’s enemy in the region.

“Iran will step into the breach,” he said. “If we don’t want to be Iraq’s ally, there are a lot of people in the region who we don’t like who will be willing to fill the gap.”

Mr. Kerrey, who once joined former Secretary of State George P. Shultz and Mr. McCain on the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, a group that advocated regime change, also said that he respected Mrs. Clinton’s refusal to apologize for her 2002 vote authorizing the President to go to war.

“She is saying: ‘Look, I’m not going to throw myself at the mercy of the court and have an abject apology—it looks weak, because it is weak—just to appease an audience,’” Mr. Kerrey said.

Mr. Kerrey thinks that Mr. Edwards—who, by contrast with Mrs. Clinton, has apologized profusely, even theatrically, for his vote—has “traveled a long distance from 2004, when people would say he seems awfully thin. Now what I hear people say is that there is too much attention to domestic policy and not enough to international, other than ‘I’m against the Iraq War and I made a mistake to vote for it.’”

Mr. Obama, he says, is “inexperienced,” but “on the foreign policy side, his big strength is that his name is Barack Hussein Obama.” He argued that Mr. Obama’s foreign-language skills, connection to Muslim countries and personal background uniquely qualify him to send the message that “we are not your worst enemy, unless you make us so. And then we’re your worst enemy.”

Of course, Mr. Kerrey no longer bears the responsibility of taking public positions on the issues of the day, and his own Iraq policy isn’t wholly defined. He argues that the United States achieved its goal of regime change in Iraq by deposing Saddam Hussein, and that it is not America’s role to police the nation, train its soldiers, or even stand in the way of widespread sectarian bloodshed. At the same time, he advocates robust military operations in the majority-Sunni Anbar province with the goal of wiping out Al Qaeda cells, and behaving like a “good ally” to an Iraqi government under siege by an insurgency.

Unlike Mr. Biden, who he says has “a very, very serious proposal of what to do” in Iraq, Mr. Kerrey is convinced the country should not be split up into ethnically homogonous regions and believes that it wants, at its core, to be unified. To that end, Mr. Kerrey wished that Washington would stop “meddling” in Iraq’s affairs.

At the same time, Mr. Kerrey is still very obviously suspicious of the ascendant out-of-Iraq portion of the Democratic electorate.

“Had we not invaded Iraq and overthrown Saddam Hussein—and if Iraq was experiencing the kind of sectarian violence that they are experiencing today—liberals would be advocating, as they are in Darfur, that we use military force to go in,” said Mr. Kerrey. “For any Democratic candidate, they are facing a very anti-war audience. And that’s reality.”

http://www.observer.com/2007/kerrey-unbound-rates-dems-and-blasts-giuliani

Copyright © 2007 The New York Observer. All rights reserved.

Just hours after 9/11, Rumsfeld said, "My interest is to hit Saddam Hussein"

NBC's Pentagon reporter weighs in on Tenet book

12:36 AM EDT on Wednesday, May 2, 2007

By Tom Mooney
Journal Staff Writer

PROVIDENCE - Just hours after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Bush administration officials began talking of including Iraq in any retaliatory attack, even though all indications pointed at al-Qaida as the guilty party.

So says Jim Miklaszewski, NBC's chief Pentagon correspondent, who yesterday in a speech before the annual Business Expo at the Rhode Island Convention Center advanced a theme garnering attention since former CIA director George J. Tenet made his public revelations last week.

In his new book, At the Center of the Storm, Tenet says White House and Pentagon officials were determined to attack Iraq long before 9/11, and afterward spun intelligence information to build a case for war with Saddam Hussein.

Miklaszewski said that while the opening anecdote in Tenet's book is wrong - Tenet writes of having an exchange with military consultant Richard Perle at the White House a day after the attacks when, actually, Perle was in France then - the veteran television newsman says Tenet is right about the president's intentions.

"Some things are right on the mark, when he says the Bush administration appeared predisposed to attack Iraq.''

How does Miklaszewski - whom the Greater Providence Chamber of Commerce paid $30,000 for his talk - know for sure?

His information, Miklaszewski told an audience of about 200 people, comes from some "off the record'' notes taken in the White House situation room in the hours after the attacks. Miklaszewski said someone gave him the notes two years ago. He did not say who nor explain why, if they were "off the record'' he was now sharing them with an audience.

However, the notes describe, Miklaszewski said, then-Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld vowing to avenge the terrorist attacks and voicing frustration that attacks against the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in 1983 and the attack on the Cole, in 2000, had gone unavenged.

Reading from his notes, Miklaszewski quoted Rumsfeld as saying five hours after the terrorist attacks: "My interest is to hit Saddam Hussein at the same time we go after al-Qaida.''

"We ought not to look only'' at Osama bin Laden, Rumsfeld allegedly said before holding a conference call with President Bush. During the conversation, "Rumsfeld says not to focus solely on al-Qaida, consider all those range of options. And the president's response was yes.''

Said Miklaszewski: "So there is no question that Tenet got the time wrong [with meeting Perle in the White House] but there is no question in my mind, and with subsequent conversations I had with officials in the Pentagon, that the Bush administration had their sights set on attacking Saddam Hussein and Iraq long before there was even an effort to gather any evidence … that Saddam Hussein was involved in the attack. And all the evidence says quite the opposite.''

Miklaszewski, just the latest celebrity journalist to espouse a personal opinion before the annual business gathering, also shared some inside political analysis that even the most casual follower of the news would have considered stale. Among them: that former First Lady and Sen. Hillary Clinton is "one tough cookie'' who White House staffers feared and that North Carolina Sen. John Edwards is a "loser'' for trying to defend a $400 haircut.

Miklaszewski seemed more comfortable talking about what he knows best: the military and terrorism.

Quoting from a recent public-opinion poll, Miklaszewski said while 50 percent of people still think the Iraq war is a priority, only 18 percent mentioned terrorism as a concern.

"The American people have begun to forget about 9/11,'' he said. "This is a very patient enemy. They can certainly wait out America's attention span and that troubles me.''

tmooney@projo.com / (401) 277-7359

Did Murdoch Bribe Tenet?

April 29, 2007

by RJMac

The heavily promoted George Tenet interview on 60 Minutes was good television. He was combative and defensive, so hyper flailing about in his chair that the cameraman had to work to keep him in the shot.

Beyond the frenetic body language, Tenet made two points which seem to make sense on the surface. He claims he was giving dire warning to Condoleezza Rice about Al Qaeda threats in the summer of 2001 and the warnings apparently went over her head. And he claims launching the war in Iraq never made sense to him.

Both those things are probably true. But Tenet didn't do much to change things at the time, and he waited years to tell the American public.

In the meantime he accepted the Medal of Freedom from the president, and also accepted a book advance said to be $4 million from Harper Collins, a publishing house owned by Rupert Murdoch.

More than ten years ago, Harper Collins drew fire when it announced it was paying $4.5 million to Newt Gingrich, who was then Speaker of the House. It looked like a bribe from Murdoch, and Gingrich wound up having to forfeit the massive advance. Tenet doesn’t work for the government now and doesn’t have to give back the millions he’s getting from Murdoch.

A number of former CIA people have started a campaign demanding that Tenet give back the Medal of Freedom that Bush gave him. They’re excoriating him for not speaking up back when it might have done some good.

And people have started to find factual problems with Tenet’s memories. In the 60 Minutes interview Tenet talks about Richard Perle talking to him on the day after 9/11 and already starting the push to go to war against Iraq. Perle’s defenders are already saying tonight that he wasn’t even in the US on 9/12/01; they claim Perle was in France, where he was stranded for several days during the ban on air travel.

And Michael Scheuer, the former CIA analyst who has several axes to grind, wrote a piece for the Washington Post headlined "Tenet Tries to Shift the Blame. Don't Buy It." Scheuer notes that some of what Tenet is saying today about Rice's negligence in the summer of 2001 is substantially different than what he told the 9/11 Commission.

As the book gets out to the public this week, you can bet on a fact checking feeding frenzy.

Tenet’s game seems obvious enough: salvage some of his reputation, settle a few scores, and make some money.

The more interesting question is whether Murdoch and his people are just making some money publishing a book or whether they are playing a deeper game.

It’s hard to imagine that anything George Tenet says at this point will really change any opinions about the Bush administration.

But whenever Murdoch made the deal for Tenet’s book, it might have looked like a smart move to lock up the memoirs by the CIA chief during 9/11 and the launching of the Iraq war.

Some fast research indicates that Tenet actually signed with a division of Random House to write a book back in late 2004, but that deal was canceled just a few months later. The deal with Murdoch's Harper Collins then came along in 2005, and the publication date was postponed several times, according to articles in Publishers Weekly.

However the book deal happened, Tenet is suddenly highly visible after being out of public view for a few years. Murdoch’s company is promoting the book heavily, buying full page ads in papers and booking Tenet all over television this week.

And while Tenet is critical of members of the Bush administration, Bush himself seems to be immune from any criticism. On 60 Minutes, Scott Pelley asked if receiving the Medal of Freedom is why Bush gets a “free pass.” Tenet appears uncomfortable and evasive, suddenly looking off to the side, and says, “That’s the most outrageous thing I’ve ever heard.”

Tenet today claims he wasn’t convinced there was a need to go to war with Iraq. Yet there he is in the videotapes, sitting right behind Colin Powell at the UN as Powell lied his ass off before the world.

Tenet comes off as a sycophant who was telling Bush what he thought Bush wanted to hear. And who is now making up stories to justify his own incompetence and spinelessness at a time when he could have prevented disasters from taking place.

And that’s actually helpful to Bush’s defenders. Murdoch has put Tenet right where he wants him. People can point to Tenet, catch him in lies, note (of course) that he was Clinton’s CIA chief first, and argue the point that it's no wonder the president was misled on the intelligence. Look at the guy who was head of the CIA.

Tenet is left holding the bag. But at least he finds $4 million bucks in it.

Posted by RJMac at 7:54 PM | Permalink

Peeling the Onion

Saturday, April 28, 2007

What Heart of Darkness festers in the center of the Bush/Republican Onion?

We know and read about the small stuff. Of course, it really isn't small stuff; it's just small stuff "relative to" the big stuff -- you know, the treasonous stuff, the planet killing stuff, the 3rd millennia crusade against Islam stuff.

For openers, it's now common knowledge now that 9/11 could have been prevented. Dear God, they had a blizzard of warnings -- all ignored. But how many layers into the onion is the answer to WHY

these warnings were systematically ignored? What "payoff" did Bush & Cheney, etc. get by ignoring these warnings?

Most of us suspect that the answer is that 9/11 was ignored for treasonous political reasons. They knew that a terrorist attack would help Bush's political capital. Simple as that. Plus, there's also the possibility that 9/11 was (how shall we put it?) more than allowed . . .

Now that, my friends, is big BIG stuff!

The question is will the committees (especially the post 2008 committees) be able to shine legal/constitutional light on these all too realistic possibilities? Will they be able to prove once and for all that the fanatical neocons criminally betrayed America just to drag president pinhead out the political toilet he was in before 9/11?

And speaking of neocons, how far down into the onion are the deep roots of the neocon cabal? To what lunatic fringe of what country is the neocon lobby answering to? They certainly don't represent the well being and national security of the United States of America, as their track of record of failure, genocide, and bankruptcy of the American economy abundantly demonstrates. So are we ever going to find out who has "really" been pulling the strings of American foreign policy? And still is.

Of course, much of the core stuff we already know, even though we've spent most of our country's history being in denial about it. The last seven years have rubbed our patriotic faces in the infinitely ugly truth that our country is now (and always has been) a Dictatorship of the Rich. Said differently, this still is the Middle Ages and the one or two percent are still treating all the rest of us like cattle. We pay the taxes, we fight the wars (see any Bush's in Iraq?), and we clean their commodes. Here's just one of thousands of examples: in the last few years, Texas energy company profits of gone up SEVERAL HUNDRED percent. How are you doing at the pumps these days?

So, deep in the onion is a Class War, and boy are the middle and lower Classes getting slaughtered!

Lastly, where in the onion is hard evidence that things like global warming, expanding ozone holes, stifled medical research, etc., etc., are directly related to policies engineered by nutcase religious fanatics who actually WANT the Earth to die? Let's face it, George's Armageddon death wish is right there in that army of brain less religious fanatics who anticipate being "lifted up" any day now. Yeah, right. The point is, the rapturettes have made their choice, and it's ain't the Earth. The Earth is precisely what they can't wait to be "saved" from. Mother Nature for these people is not a mythological goddess, she's a whore to be used and abused.

And speaking of which, isn't it interesting that this whole complex of pug fundamentalists have so much contempt for anything feminine, e.g., "Mother" Nature. No, they like that 'ol time (male) religion that has always subjugated and exploited women.

Here's a final thought. What do you bet that somewhere in this filthy onion is organized crime? We shouldn't forget that the more constitutional governments disintegrate (like now!), the more organized crime has a feeding frenzy. Plus, the pugs are sure plugged into Florida . . .

**********************************************************************

W. Christopher Epler (Bill)

Posted by W. Christopher Epler at 2:57 PM

Tenet says Cheney had eye on Iraq long before 9/11

April 28, 2007, 1:51AM

In his book, former CIA director says aides to Cheney and Rumsfeld inserted 'crap' into public justifications for war

By KAREN DEYOUNG
Washington Post

WASHINGTON — White House and Pentagon officials, and particularly Vice President Dick Cheney, were determined to attack Iraq from the first days of the Bush administration, long before the Sept. 11 attacks, and repeatedly stretched available intelligence to build support for the war, according to a new book by former CIA director George Tenet.

Although Tenet does not question the threat Saddam Hussein posed or the sincerity of administration beliefs, he recounts numerous efforts by aides to Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to insert "crap" into public justifications for the war. Tenet also describes an ongoing fear within the intelligence community of the administration's willingness to "mischaracterize complex intelligence information."

"There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraq threat," Tenet writes in At the Center of the Storm, to be published Monday. The debate "was not about imminence but about acting before Saddam did."

White House counselor Dan Bartlett Friday called Tenet a "true patriot" but disputed his conclusions, saying "the president did wrestle with those very serious questions." Responding to reports from the book in Friday's New York Times, Bartlett suggested that the former CIA director might have been unaware of all the discussions. President Bush, Bartlett said on NBC's Today Show, "weighed all the various consequences before he did make a decision."

In their threat briefings for the incoming Bush administration in late 2000, Tenet writes, CIA officials did not even mention Iraq. But Cheney, he says, asked for an Iraq briefing and requested that the outgoing Clinton administration's defense secretary, William Cohen, provide information on Iraq for Bush.

A speech by Cheney in August 2002 "went well beyond what our analysis could support," Tenet writes. The speech charged, among other things, that Saddam had restarted his nuclear program and would "acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon ... perhaps within a year." Caught off-guard by the remarks, which had not been cleared by the CIA, Tenet says he considered confronting the vice president on the subject but did not.

"Would that have changed his future approach?" he asks. "I doubt it but I should not have let silence imply an agreement." Policy-makers, he writes, "have a right to their own opinions, but not their own set of facts."

For the future, Tenet describes his deepest fear as "the nuclear one." He is convinced, he writes, that this is where Osama bin Laden "and his operatives desperately want to go. They understand that bombings by cars, trucks, trains and planes will get them some headlines, to be sure. But if they manage to set off a mushroom cloud, they will make history."

The book breaks Tenet's long public silence since he resigned in June 2004 over what he considered White House attempts to turn him into a scapegoat, as U.S. efforts in Iraq were bogging down, for the faulty intelligence used to justify the invasion in the first place.

Tenet writes that Bush talked him out of resigning in May 2003. But he decided it was time to go nine months later when a book by The Washington Post's Bob Woodward quoted him as telling Bush in December 2002 that the intelligence case against Iraq was a "slam dunk," a statement he says was taken out of context but subsequently used by the administration to blame him for faulty Iraq intelligence. "I couldn't quit immediately over something that appeared in a book," Tenet writes, "but I didn't see any way I could or should stay on much longer." Bush made no attempt to keep him when he finally resigned in June 2004.

Tenet blames himself, among other things, for the hastily compiled October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, which concluded that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons, issued on the eve of a congressional vote authorizing the war. The NIE, he said, "should have been initiated earlier. I didn't think one was necessary. I was wrong." The document, he acknowledged, was "not cautious in key judgments" and at times used single sources who turned out to be wrong.

A perennial problem, he writes, was a tendency by intelligence analysts to assume other people thought like they did. When judging whether Saddam was lying when he said Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, "we did not account for ... the mind set never to show weakness in a very dangerous neighborhood."

One of the "lowest moments of my seven-year tenure," Tenet recalls, was when a congressman told him in a public hearing in the spring of 2004 that "we depended on you, and you let us down."

He titles one chapter of the 549-page book "Missed Opportunities," but Tenet misses few opportunities himself to settle scores with Cheney and Rumsfeld and their top aides, and with Bush's first-term national security adviser and current secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice. He characterizes Rice as a "remote" figure who "knew the president's mind well but tended to stay out of policy fights." Under Rice, he says, the National Security Council failed to explore options and reach consensus. Rumsfeld, he says, refused to recognize worsening reality in Iraq and on several occasions undercut CIA efforts with cavalier treatment of secret information.

By contrast, Tenet's treatment of Bush, who presented Tenet with a Medal of Freedom six months after his departure, is relatively gentle. He says he and others sometimes failed to give Bush the information he needed. "The president was not well served," he says by way of example, "because the NSC became too deferential to a postwar strategy that was not working."

Tenet writes defensively about the controversial program to intercept domestic telephone calls involving terrorism suspects. The program was Cheney's idea, and the vice president briefed "the leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence committees 12 times prior to its public disclosure" in late 2005.

He reiterates a claim last year by Bush that the CIA's harsh interrogations of captured al-Qaida figures "helped disrupt plots aimed at locations in the United States, the United Kingdom, the Middle East, South Asia, and Central Asia." He says the agency used "the most aggressive" techniques — which he does not detail — on "a handful of the worst terrorists on the planet" and that the questioning was "carefully monitored at all times to ensure the safety of the prisoner."

Ex-C.I.A. Chief Says Cheney Cooked the Iraq War and Bush Ignored 9/11 Warnings

April 27, 2007

Ex-C.I.A. Chief, in Book, Assails Cheney on Iraq

WASHINGTON, April 26 — George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, has lashed out against Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials in a new book, saying they pushed the country to war in Iraq without ever conducting a “serious debate” about whether Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States.

The 549-page book, “At the Center of the Storm,” is to be published by HarperCollins on Monday. By turns accusatory, defensive, and modestly self-critical, it is the first detailed account by a member of the president’s inner circle of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the decision to invade Iraq and the failure to find the unconventional weapons that were a major justification for the war.

“There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat,” Mr. Tenet writes in a devastating judgment that is likely to be debated for many years. Nor, he adds, “was there ever a significant discussion” about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion.

Mr. Tenet admits that he made his famous “slam dunk” remark about the evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But he argues that the quote was taken out of context and that it had little impact on President Bush’s decision to go to war. He also makes clear his bitter view that the administration made him a scapegoat for the Iraq war.

A copy of the book was purchased at retail price in advance of publication by a reporter for The New York Times. Mr. Tenet described with sarcasm watching an episode of “Meet the Press” last September in which Mr. Cheney twice referred to Mr. Tenet’s “slam dunk” remark as the basis for the decision to go to war.

“I remember watching and thinking, ‘As if you needed me to say ‘slam dunk’ to convince you to go to war with Iraq,’ ” Mr. Tenet writes.

By SCOTT SHANE and MARK MAZZETTI

--MORE--

Rosie's new foe: Rupert Murdoch?

Funny how Rosie 'threatens' to bring on experts to counter the government's 9/11 conspiracy theory then gets the boot, hunh?

Related
The internet video sensation;
Senator John Kerry - WTC 7 Was a Controlled Demolition: UPDATED
---
Rosie takes aim at Murdoch at luncheon

Mon Apr 23, 11:29 PM ET

Rosie O'Donnell has tossed off countless one-liners and quips in her career. On Monday, she had one line she said she never imagined she'd utter: "Please welcome Rupert Murdoch."

O'Donnell was hosting the New York Women in Communication annual awards luncheon at The Waldorf-Astoria hotel in Manhattan. Murdoch, the media mogul whose holdings include the New York Post and Fox News, was presenting an award to columnist Cindy Adams.

O'Donnell's shots at Murdoch started from her opening.

"This is a celebration of women who changed the world, and no one understands why Rupert Murdoch is on the dais," she said, adding, "I mean that in the kind, loving Post-like way, sir; it's delightful to see you in person."

She turned to the audience and finished, "I was looking for numbers on his head. There aren't any."

O'Donnell didn't say what Murdoch might have done to provoke her ire.

When Murdoch's turn to speak came, he just said, "Thank you, everyone, including Rosie."

Among the other presenters at the luncheon was Barbara Walters, who appears with O'Donnell on "The View."

"I would like to point out that Rosie's view is not always mine," she said. "I would like to say for the record that I am very fond of Rupert Murdoch."

The Matrix Awards honor women in communication fields. Among this year's winners were Joan Didion, Arianna Huffington and Meredith Vieira. Presenters included Martha Stewart, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Anna Deavere Smith.

New York Women in Communication: http://www.nywici.org

Giuliani Caught In Bizarre Building 7 Lie

Related
Giuliani Promises 'New 9/11' if Dems Win; Giuliani Caught In Bizarre Building 7 Lie
---
Giuliani Caught In Bizarre Building 7 Lie

Claims WTC 7 collapsed in stages, Kerry Building 7 admission explodes on You Tube popularity charts

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Rudy Giuliani has been caught in a bizarre lie about WTC 7, in which he claims the building collapsed in stages over a sustained period of time, when in reality the structure fell in under seven seconds. Giuliani also reveals that he expected the twin towers to collapse but "not in the way they did."

Giuliani was a speaker along with former Oklahoma City Mayor Ron Norick at an April 19th event held at the Oklahoma City Museum and National Memorial in Ahoma City, Oklahoma. The entire video can be viewed here courtesy of C-Span, but the pertinent clip is embedded below.

Giuliani is asked if he had expected the twin towers to collapse on 9/11. Here is his response.

"Yeah, but not in the way they did."

"It occurred to us all that they might ultimately collapse over....the way buildings usually collapse, which is in stages."

"It looked like at some point the top of the building would come off, and then maybe the middle of the building and then maybe there'd be a shell left....the way number 7 came down 4 or 5 o'clock in the afternoon - over a period of time - but the idea that it would implode, the implosion that took place, I actually didn't realize that until much later."

Building 7 collapsed in just 6.5 seconds - videos of the structure before its collapse show the building fully intact and suffering sporadic fires across a limited number of floors.

It has since also been proven to a reasonable degree that the smoke seen emanating from the area of Building 7 was mostly coming from Buildings 5 and 6, which had taken the direct brunt of the collapse of the twin towers and were completely ablaze.

WTC 7 imploded at near free fall speed and fell in its own footprint, barely even blocking the adjacent road. Giuliani's emergency command bunker was located in the building but he and his crew evacuated just before the collapse of the twin towers. Building 7 had been structurally reinforced to compensate for numerous floors to be taken out without compromising the integrity of the building.

For Giuliani to claim that Building 7 collapsed in stages is completely bizarre and totally inaccurate. One has to wonder if he is intentionally attempting to mislead with such a wildly false statement.

Is Giuliani attempting to re-write history in an attempt to deflect clearly documented accusations that Building 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition?

In addition, his claims that the collapse of the twin towers, though not in the fashion they eventually fell (controlled demolition), was expected, completely contradicts the words of the very people who designed the World Trade Center, who are on the record on multiple occasions stating that the towers were designed to absorb airliner impacts without collapsing.

No steel framed building had collapsed from fire damage in history until September 11 2001 when three fell within the space of seven hours, so for Giuliani to have both expected the collapse and have received a warning immediately beforehand is highly suspicious.

In a related story, John Kerry's comments that Building 7 was deliberately demolished during an Austin Texas speaking event have gone viral since the You Tube video was posted and featured in our story on Monday. Despite receiving massive traffic, Google does not list the Prison Planet.com article in its search results nearly two days after the piece was first posted.

Just one version of the video has already received over 42,000 views and rising and features in multiple different You Tube most popular categories. The clip is currently the 5th most discussed video on You Tube today.

Calls to Kerry's office for a further clarification on his comments were not returned.

It's True -- Rosie Will Leave "View!!"

It's True -- Rosie Will Leave "View!!"

Posted Apr 25th 2007 9:18AM by TMZ Staff
Filed under: TV, The View, Rosie O'Donnell

TMZ has now confirmed the buzz that we exclusively reported last night: Rosie O'Donnell will announce on today's show that she is leaving "The View." And TMZ has confirmed that "View" honchos are already searching for her replacement.

Stay tuned!

UPDATE: LOG ON TO TMZ AT 11:15 AM EASTERN TIME AND WE'LL HAVE A CLIP OF ROSIE'S ANNOUNCEMENT.

Comments [240]

Giuliani Promises 'New 9/11' if Dems Win; Giuliani Caught In Bizarre Building 7 Lie

Related
Giuliani Caught In Bizarre Building 7 Lie
---
Pathetic piece of crap. Let's see. Giuliani won the mayor's seat of New York City and that city experienced 9/11. Hmmmm...

Giuliani warns of 'new 9/11' if Dems win

BBC Conspiracy Files 9/11

21 min 35 sec - 23-Apr-2007

BBC investigation into the events of September 11th 2001 points to the conclusion that there was complicity in the attacks reaching to the very highest levels of the US administration.

Senator John Kerry - WTC 7 Was a Controlled Demolition: UPDATED

COPY THIS VIDEO BEFORE IT GETS DISAPPEARED
John Kerry at Book People in Austin, TX April 22, 2007

UPDATE

And I think that they made a decision based on the danger, that it had of destroying other things – that they did it in a controlled fashion." - John Kerry
CBS Video: Collapse of WTC-7

Senator John Kerry - WTC 7 Was a Controlled Demolition
John Kerry at Book People in Austin, TX April 22, 2007
A question is raised in regards to professor Steven Jones and his controlled demolition findings for the 911 attacks. He says that he is open to looking at evidence supporting this view.
The video then breaks to another set of environmental questions.

Another question focuses on the owner, Larry Silverstein, (with his statement that the WTC-7 had been “pulled” - a demolition term for controlled demolition) and asks whether there has been an investigation into his involvement.

Kerry responds:
“I don’t believe there’s been a formal investigation. I haven’t heard that. I don’t know that. I do know that – that wall, I remember, was in danger. And I think that they made a decision based on the danger, that it had of destroying other things – that they did it in a controlled fashion. ....”
------------------------

PrisonPlanet - Professional Demolition of World Trade Center Building 7
Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.
Photos taken moments before the collapse of WTC 7 show small office fires on just two floors.
Firefighters were told to move away from the building moments before it collapsed.
Video of WTC-7 collapsing is half-way down the page titled: Video footage of the collapse of Building 7
Also:CBS Video: Collapse of WTC-7

WhatReallyHappened - The Controlled Collapse of WTC 7
WhatReallyHappened - Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the 9/11 Demolition

See comment to this article below.

9-11, PNAC, and Iraq - LISTEN LIVE

THE 'WHAT REALLY HAPPENED' SHOW
on GCN Every Saturday, 11AM Central Time! LISTEN LIVE AT www.gcnlive.com/listenlive.htm April 21th show: 9-11, PNAC, and Iraq, with guest Ryan Dawson. Second Hour: The Ernst Zundel Case, with guest Mark Weber.
CALL IN PHONE NUMBER IS 1-800-259-9231. For callers outside the US & Canada 651-289-4333, punch in ext 125 at the prompt.

Program directors email affiliaterelations@gcnlive.com
Ad inquiries ads@whatreallyhappened.com

France told US about hijacking plans pre-9/11

France knew of 2001 al-Qaida hijack plot

By ANGELA DOLAND, Associated Press Writer 2 minutes ago

France's foreign intelligence service learned as early as January 2001 that al-Qaida was preparing a hijacking plot likely to involve a U.S. airplane, former intelligence officials said Monday, confirming a report that also said the CIA received the warning.

Le Monde newspaper said it had obtained 328 pages of classified documents on Osama bin Laden's terror network that were drawn up by the French spy service, the DGSE, between July 2000 and October 2001. The documents included a Jan. 5, 2001, intelligence report warning that al-Qaida was at work on a hijacking plot.

Pierre-Antoine Lorenzi, the former chief of staff for the agency's director at the time, said he remembered the note and that it mentioned only the vague outlines of a hijacking plot — nothing that foreshadowed the scale of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

"It wasn't about a specific airline or a specific day, it was not a precise plot," Lorenzi told The Associated Press. "It was a note that said, 'They are preparing a plot to hijack an airplane, and they have cited several companies.'"

The Sept. 11 commission's report on the four hijacked flights has detailed repeated warnings about al-Qaida and its desire to attack airlines in the months before Sept. 11, 2001.

In a version declassified last September, the report shows that the Federal Aviation Administration's intelligence unit received "nearly 200 pieces of threat-related information daily from U.S. intelligence agencies, particularly the FBI, CIA, and State Department."

The French warning, part of which was published in Le Monde, detailed initial rumblings about the plot.

In early 2000 in Kabul, Afghanistan, bin Laden met with Taliban leaders and members of armed groups from Chechnya and discussed the possibility of hijacking a plane that would take off from Frankfurt, Germany, the note said, citing Uzbek intelligence.

The note listed potential targets: American Airlines, Delta Airlines, Continental Airlines, United Airlines, Air France and Lufthansa. The list also included a mention of "US Aero," but it was unclear exactly what that referred to.

Two of the airlines, United and American, were targeted months later on Sept. 11.

Lorenzi said details of the threat would certainly have been passed along to the CIA, though he was unable to specifically confirm that they had been.

"That's the kind of information concerning a friendly country that we communicate," he said. "If you don't do it, it's an error."

He also stressed that officials could not say whether the plot they outlined in January 2001 was an early warning about the attacks to come in September.

At the time, Lorenzi said, officials had heard echoes only about a standard hijacking — they had no idea al-Qaida planned to slam planes into buildings, let alone the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Uzbek officials apparently tipped off the French about the plot. Alain Chouet, a former top anti-terrorism official within the DGSE, said that an Afghan warlord from the Uzbek community who was fighting the Taliban at the time had sent men to infiltrate al-Qaida camps — and their information was passed down the chain to Western intelligence officials.

Confirming information in Le Monde, Chouet said such intelligence was likely checked out before it was put into a note. He also said that to the best of his knowledge, "all identified threats, even indirect and minimal ones, were passed in both directions" between the CIA and the CGSE.

Tell us another one, Mr. Vice President: Sen. Carl Levin

Dick Cheney is still trying to link Iraq with Al Qaeda and 9/11.

By Carl Levin

CARL LEVIN, a Democratic senator from Michigan, is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

April 12, 2007

TO PARAPHRASE President Reagan, there he goes again.

On Rush Limbaugh's radio program last week, Vice President Dick Cheney spoke about Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi and stated: "He went to Baghdad. He took up residence there before we ever launched into Iraq, organized the Al Qaeda operations inside Iraq…. This is Al Qaeda operating in Iraq and, as I say, they were present before we invaded Iraq."

It is incredible that more than four years after the invasion, the vice president is still trying to convince the public that Saddam Hussein's regime was connected to Al Qaeda and that Zarqawi's presence in Iraq was evidence of a connection.

While the vice president doesn't say directly that there was a tie between the two, his clear purpose is to blur the line between Al Qaeda — the perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks — and the Iraqi dictator in order to justify the war in Iraq.

The problem is, that's simply not supported by the facts or by our intelligence community — and everyone except the vice president acknowledges it. In September, for example, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in a bipartisan report that Hussein was "distrustful of Al Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from Al Qaeda to provide material or operational support." And the CIA reported a year earlier, in October 2005, that the Iraqi regime "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates." As the Intelligence Committee report noted, the Iraqi intelligence service was actually trying to capture Zarqawi, who was in Baghdad under an alias. Is the vice president willfully ignoring what the rest of the government has concluded? Or does he have access to information he hasn't shared with us? If so, he should produce it.

The vice president has a clear, documented pattern of overstating and misstating information with regard to Iraq. He also, for instance, continued to claim that 9/11 terrorist Mohamed Atta may have met with an Iraqi agent in Prague — long after the intelligence community believed otherwise. Again, his obvious purpose is to link Hussein's regime with Sept. 11, even though the rest of the world has concluded that no such link exists.

The vice president has made so many outlandish statements that the country barely raised an eyebrow at his false statement last week. The public has stopped believing the words of a man who promised, before we invaded Iraq, that we would be "greeted as liberators" and reassured us nearly two years ago that the insurgency was in its "last throes."

But his comments continue to erode our credibility with the international community, which has already been severely damaged by our rush to war with Iraq with little international support. If, in the months ahead, we face a crisis over Iran's weapons programs and need to rally the international community, we may find that the world has little interest in trusting an administration that misstates facts.

By all accounts, Dick Cheney is one of the most powerful vice presidents in our history, if you define power as influence over policy. We need to ask ourselves: What does it mean for our country when the vice president's words lack credibility, but he still wields great power?

Iranians behind Sept. 11 attacks: Rudy Giliani

You can't make this stuff up.
---
April 7, 2007

Giuliani Says Nation at War Requires Him

By MARC SANTORA

CHARLESTON, S.C., April 6 — As Rudolph W. Giuliani introduced himself to primary voters this week, he rarely talked about the details of New York’s darkest day.

But Sept. 11 was a constant backdrop, and as Mr. Giuliani promoted his vision of a forceful foreign policy that calls for the United States to continue slugging it out in Iraq, he let his audiences know that his was an outlook forged by fire.

“What they say in Washington is not going to affect the fact that there are terrorists around the world that are planning to come here and kill us,” he said in Iowa, in the most spirited part of his newly honed stump speech.

Pointing his finger and bouncing up and down on his toes, he declared, “It is something I understand better than anyone else running for president.”

***

At a house party in New Hampshire, Mr. Giuliani suggested that it was unclear which was farther along, Iran or North Korea, in the development of a nuclear weapons program.

Asked about his policy toward the North Koreans, he said he backed the administration’s approach, mentioning in particular a Chinese role in efforts to pressure them. “I think the strategy has produced enough results so far that you have to stick with it,” he said.

As for Iran, Mr. Giuliani said that “in the long term,” it might be “more dangerous than Iraq.”

He then casually lumped Iran with Al Qaeda. “Their movement has already displayed more aggressive tendencies by coming here and killing us,” he said.

Mr. Giuliani was asked in an interview to clarify that, inasmuch as Iran had no connection to the Sept. 11 attacks. Further, most of its people are Shiites, whereas Al Qaeda is an organization of Sunnis.

“They have a similar objective,” he replied, “in their anger at the modern world.”

9/11 Truth Movement: Only Growing Stronger – And the Media are Frightened to Death!

The corporate media have launched a desperate attempt to eliminate all discussions about the official body of evidence related to the events of 9/11. Just watch how they are trying frantically to get Rosie O’Donnell fired from ABC’s The View. Also think back to when the media launched a broad based attack against the character of Charlie Sheen for daring to publicly question the official story of 9/11. Rosie, however, is a much greater problem for the criminals in the media. She is on a daily network TV program with a large audience that doesn’t even know that questions and disturbing facts about 9/11 exist.

Let’s understand one thing: the 9/11 truth movement is doing nothing but growing. People who have been exposed to the actual evidence and understand the ramifications of what it reveals are not waking up one morning and suddenly deciding that they believe the official story. The dynamic works like this: those who are not aware of the evidence believe the official story. Once they start poking around they realize that the official story about the attacks could not possibly be true, and they discover the plethora of evidence that was hidden and misrepresented by the Bush administration, the 9/11 Commission and the corporate media. 9/11 truthers are not suddenly coming across new information that causes them to suddenly believe the official story. It’s a one way flow. The evidence speaks for itself.

Could that last statement possibly explain why the media are trying so desperately to quash any discussion about 9/11 or destroy the credibility of anyone who dares to try to raise the topic? You can bet that it is! But there is another angle here as well. The media are no longer trying to protect the insiders of the Bush administration whose involvement in the events and cover up of the evidence is implicated by so much that has been uncovered. This time around they are protecting themselves. Let’s be real here. With every day a liar continues to lie it becomes more difficult to undo, explain, correct or justify that lie. This is the position in which the corporate media find themselves right now.

The events of 9/11 pose a unique problem for the criminal corporate media. For generations, the media have kept Americans in the dark about topics like war, taxation, the monetary system, America’s involvement in atrocities in the world, domestic assassinations, science, health, and our environment. Yet, 9/11 is a topic that hits home like no other. Understand that this is not theory, this is provable.

We have to understand that the media have “protected the people” from the truth about many events over the years. I demonstrate this very clearly in a presentation that I give to live audiences. You can get some insight into media deception by perusing TvNewsLIES.org, but my lecture leaves no doubt in people’s minds that the media lie to them via distortions, distractions delusions and omissions. But even more important, they discover that the media are controlled by a single source. I don’t just tell people this, I show them the proof so they see it if for themselves. It’s right there, all the time and once you know what to look for you see it.

If anyone cares to call me out on this, all they have to do is invite me to give my presentation and provide an unrestricted question and answer session. Those who hear me will see the world in a different light; I promise you. That aside, my point here is that exposing the deceptions surrounding an issue such as the Federal Reserve to the American public would probably not provoke a huge amount of anger and outrage. I say that despite the fact that this topic involves perhaps the biggest conspiracy in the history of this country, and one that affects us all.

On the contrary, I can just imagine the horror and rage if the general public were to learn that the events of 9/11 had been actually carried out by rogue elements operating within our government, with outside cooperation (can you say Larry Silverstein?).The tragedy of 9/11 was personal. It was a vivid, calculated, murderous assault on Americans. It is easy to understand that. We all felt the pain and horror of that day, and many of us have lived ever since with 9/11 hanging over our heads and in our hearts, and we have seen those events eclipse our Constitution and democracy. Because of this, we have been easily emotionally manipulated and motivated ever since the attacks by the criminal corporate media. That is probably one of the most difficult realities to confront in all of this. Just think about the reactions of the newly awakened 9/11 truthers when they start to absorb the voluminous evidence that the criminal corporate media has hidden from them for all these years!

Have you ever seen the movie Cape Fear? In the film, Max Cady is a criminal who is released after a long prison term. While Cady was in prison he teaches himself law, using the prison library. While in prison Max discovers that his lawyer had been in possession of evidence that might have affected the outcome of the trial. However, the lawyer had not disclosed any of it to either Cady or the jury. He did not allow the jury to see evidence that might have led them to conclude that Cady did not commit the crime of which he was accused. For those of you who saw the movie, you know how angry Cady was when he got out of jail. And you also know that Cady’s vengeance is taken out on his lawyer, not on the jury that actually put him in jail.

Let me suggest that in the theoretical Case of 9/11, you, the American people, are very much like the members of the jury, just as and the criminal corporate media parallel the lawyer in the film. In a sense, as you will see a bit later, you also become one of the condemned defendants in the case of 9/11. In attempting to influence the jury as they try to determine what happened on 9/11, the criminal corporate media, like Cady’s lawyer, withheld evidence from you, the jury. Based on the cherry-picked evidence selected and presented to you, you were intentionally misled to draw prescribed conclusions related to the case. As a result, you easily found the defendant guilty. As a matter of fact the media in this case made sure that you pre-convicted the prescribed accused before they even presented any evidence to you.

But what you did not know when you reached your verdict was that you had not been allowed to see a massive amount of available evidence. The intent of the lawyer was to ensure a conviction, not to expose the truth. For example, in this predetermined trial, among so much more, you were never told about:

* A large organized group of highly placed people with known motives to commit the crime in question had far better opportunity to do so.

* Aspects of the crime that the accused could not possibly have carried out, such ordering NORAD not to follow procedures, preventing the US Secret Service from doing its job by immediately moving the president to a safe location once they knew the nation was under attack.

* Eyewitness testimony directly relating to the events of that day.

* Evidence of foreknowledge by people other than the accused.

* Scientific evidence that contradicts the official story by stating that pools of molten metal (much hotter than burning jet fuel ) burned below the collapsed building for weeks, by questioning how the buildings could have collapsed at faster than free fall speed, and by challenging the scientific accuracy of evaporating planes and impossible maneuvers by jet airliners.

And here is the more tragic irony. At the same time that you convicted a defendant on largely unsupported and highly unbelievable evidence, you actually sentenced YOURSELF as well. In this farce of a trial, you condemned yourself to an eternal post 9/11 nightmare world you could never have otherwise imagined!

You sentenced yourself to accepting the elimination of your own Constitutional rights. You sentenced yourself to supporting the use of your tax dollars for egregious and illegal assaults on other nations. You sentenced yourself to allowing the reduction of funding for vital domestic programs. In a nutshell, you sentenced yourself to supporting a foreign and domestic policy that has weakened almost every imaginable aspect of our nation.

All this has happened because evidence was withheld from you, making it impossible for you to seek the truth with any credible tools at your disposal. But, fortunately, that does not have to be the end of the story.

I submit to you that the Internet has served the American people in the same way that prison library served Max Cady. As we read and access legitimate public records on the Internet, we see more and more of the evidence that the lawyer (the criminal corporate media) withheld from us. And with each piece of evidence we find, we understandably become more and more angry with the lawyer – in fact, the corrupt corporate media - who was supposed to work on our behalf!

As a result, the criminal corporate media have a lot to fear. They have to fear the response of the American people who may one day discover that they not only withheld evidence from the public, but duped the people of this country into supporting the actual criminals who committed atrocities against them on 9/11.

I learned this lesson before 9/11. I started TvNewsLIES.org while I still believed the official explanation of 9.11 but still had the US corporate media tagged as America’s #1 Enemy! I use 9/11 often in my writing because it is an issue that hits home with the American people. It is something they can understand. It is something that they experienced. The media have acted against the interest of the American people for generations, allowing a small group of powerful people to pretty much have their way with us and the planet in general..

Maybe 9/11 can serve as an eye opener and jolt the people into recognizing the US corporate media as the enemy. We don’t need media reform in this nation, we need media replacement. We need a real news industry, one that understands why its vocation is the only one protected by thy US Constitution. We don’t need a media with incestuous connections to the CIA or nefarious secret organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg Group). We don’t need journalists who report American Idol scandals; we need journalists to keep an eye on our government and show us every last piece of evidence they uncover about their misdeeds.

I often wonder what would happen if enough establishment institutions were to become really informed about 9/11. I have to believe that many Americans would probably accept the idea that 9/11 was an inside job and somehow justify it in their mind and heart. But I also wonder what would happen if a great many other people were like me and would not be OK with it. I often wonder how these people would react and who would be the target of their rage. But wondering aside, I know how I am reacting right now, and whom I want to punish. I am sure I am not alone when it comes to being angry with those who lie to protect the real criminals…and that’s why the media are becoming more and more terrified of any discussion about 9/11. Exposing the evidence can serve to wake up the millions of falsely imprisoned victims of their deception. And that can be fatal for the criminal corporate media.

The 9/11 truth movement can only grow. It’s not about theories. It’s not about accusations. It’s not about speculation. It’s about the official public body of evidence and how much of it has been kept from us, misrepresented and in some cases totally fabricated. You don’t have to convince people of a theory; all you have to do is show them the evidence. And the longer the criminal corporate media continue to withhold evidence, the harder it will be to explain to the growing body of very angry Max Cadys out there, why they have done so. Think about it.

April 6th, 2007
Categories: Jesse's Thoughts, Politics, 9/11, George W. Bush, PNAC, Democracy, Shadow Government . Author: Jesse

Ex-Partner Of Giuliani May Face Charges

Kerik Counts Said To Include Deception During Cabinet Bid

By John Solomon and Matthew Mosk
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 31, 2007; A01

Federal prosecutors have told Bernard B. Kerik, whose nomination as homeland security secretary in 2004 ended in scandal, that he is likely to be charged with several felonies, including tax evasion and conspiracy to commit wiretapping.

Kerik's indictment could set the stage for a courtroom battle that would draw attention to Kerik's extensive business and political dealings with former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who personally recommended him to President Bush for the Cabinet. Giuliani, the front-runner for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination according to most polls, later called the recommendation a mistake.

Kerik rose from being a warden and police detective to become Giuliani's campaign security adviser, corrections chief, police commissioner and eventual partner in Giuliani-Kerik, a security arm of Giuliani Partners, which Giuliani established after leaving office in 2001. Kerik resigned his positions in Giuliani's firm after he was nominated to the homeland security job.

The former mayor is not in any legal jeopardy, according to legal sources directly familiar with the investigation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the inquiry is ongoing. He and his consulting firm have cooperated in the FBI's long-running investigation of Kerik.

During a recent meeting, federal prosecutors told Kerik's attorneys that they are preparing to charge Kerik with filing false information to the government when Bush nominated him to the Cabinet, according to the legal sources.

Prosecutors are also prepared to charge Kerik with violating federal tax laws, alleging that he did not declare on his tax returns gifts he received while serving as New York's corrections commissioner, including costly renovations to an apartment he had bought, the sources said. The FBI is investigating loans Kerik received while he was in private business with Giuliani, the sources said, as well as information Kerik had omitted from a mortgage application.

Kerik turned down last month an offer to plead guilty to federal charges that would have required him to serve prison time. His attorney, Kenneth Breen, said in an interview that his client had done nothing wrong.

"He's not going to plead to something that he didn't do," Breen said.

The case against Kerik that federal prosecutors are preparing could generate uncomfortable political attention for Giuliani because it focuses on Kerik's activities while the two men were in government together and were jointly running Giuliani-Kerik, which was paid millions of dollars for advising upstart companies, doing federal work and consulting with clients overseas.

Even as Giuliani prepared to announce his presidential bid, his political team had identified as a political liability the man who had stood stoically by the mayor's side after the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center, according to a strategy memo that surfaced in January.

Kerik's legal troubles could damage the law-and-order image that is the bedrock of Giuliani's campaign, said Republican political consultant Nelson Warfield, who is not aligned with any 2008 candidate. "Kerik has potential to undermine his image as a competent leader and someone best fit to fight terrorism," Warfield said. "Either he had fundamentally bad information about Kerik, or he was reckless in not knowing enough about a man who was that close to him."

Last night, Giuliani's office declined to comment on Kerik, instead referring a reporter to remarks the former mayor made earlier this week in Teaneck, N.J. "I hope, when people evaluate me, they evaluate the things that I think I did that were wrong and that were mistakes and the things that I did that were right, and I think the public record has been one largely of great success," Giuliani said then.

In addition to charges involving false information and tax law, the U.S. attorney's office in New York City is also threatening to charge Kerik with conspiracy to commit illegal wiretapping in his dealings with the 2006 GOP candidate for New York attorney general, Jeanine F. Pirro, the sources said.

After Kerik left the Giuliani firm, Kerik arranged for two off-duty Giuliani firm employees to conduct surveillance on Pirro's husband. Pirro and Kerik also discussed bugging a boat where Pirro suspected her husband was having an extramarital affair. Kerik was heard on a wiretap telling Pirro that he did not want to do the bugging because it was illegal.

About a year earlier, Pirro, then the Westchester County district attorney, ordered the A&P supermarket chain to hire the Giuliani-Kerik security firm as part of a settlement agreement in a case involving underage alcohol sales. The security firm was ultimately paid $43,000, according to a knowledgeable source who spoke about the terms of the contract on the condition of anonymity.

Kerik's legal team has signaled its plan to fight any federal indictment, initiating an internal appeal to Justice Department officials about the possible tax charges -- a move that could delay any indictment for at least several weeks, the legal sources said.

Giuliani and Kerik first met in 1990 at a dinner for a fallen police officer, while Kerik was a narcotics detective. Three years later, Giuliani asked Kerik to be his driver and his mayoral campaign's advance man. After Giuliani was elected, he tapped Kerik to advise his corrections commissioner. Within a year, Kerik had become the commissioner, and his performance helped him become the city's top police official.

Kerik met Bush in the rubble of the World Trade Center. In 2003, he was dispatched by the Bush administration to Iraq to work with the Coalition Provisional Authority, which was helping train and organize a new Iraqi police force. His work in Iraq won personal accolades from the president.

After Bush was reelected, he nominated Kerik to be the nation's second secretary of homeland security.

But a week after his nomination, Kerik was forced to withdraw his name from consideration. The stated reason was his failure to pay Social Security taxes for a nanny. But other issues had also surfaced, including favors he did for romantic partners -- he once dispatched a homicide detective to find his girlfriend's lost cellphone -- and more serious legal concerns.

Within months, Kerik faced New York state charges -- to which he later pleaded guilty -- that he accepted nearly $200,000 in gifts while a public official -- including more than $165,000 spent on renovations to his apartment. The money came from companies affiliated with a New Jersey outfit that federal authorities and state gambling regulators had linked to organized crime.

In the fall of 2005, Kerik asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in refusing to answer questions before a New Jersey gaming regulatory body about his relationship to the people involved in the apartment renovations.

The contract with A&P was one of many deals -- some much more lucrative -- that the Giuliani-Kerik firm arranged using the partners' extensive political connections. The work included a Justice Department contract and multimillion-dollar consulting arrangements with business clients in the technology and security sectors worldwide.

In some cases, Giuliani and Kerik simultaneously advised a private company and the federal agency whose actions could affect it. Giuliani's firm, for instance, was hired by Purdue Pharma to help figure out how to keep sales of its popular painkiller OxyContin from being restricted by the government; street dealers were crushing and converting it into a powerful narcotic offering an instant high. Kerik was personally named to oversee security improvements at a New Jersey manufacturing plant.

At the same time, the Justice Department paid Giuliani-Kerik $1.1 million to conduct a management review of the organized-crime drug task force, whose responsibilities included stemming illegal use of OxyContin.

Likewise, Giuliani, Kerik and other firm partners were hired by cellphone carrier Nextel to win Federal Communications Commission approval for a new, emergency-only wireless spectrum for first responders.

The idea was to solve one problem for Nextel -- it had long been subject to complaints that its wireless signal sometimes interfered with the communications channels used by police, fire and rescue officials -- while creating an even stronger business opportunity for the cellular carrier.

At the same time, Giuliani's firm was brought in by the FCC to participate in a panel that was advising the agency in its efforts to address the future needs of a police, fire and rescue communications system in the aftermath of Sept. 11.