NEWS2U Articles & Comments
Critical Reporting

Saturday, March 31, 2007

The Law of the Sea:
Climate Change in the Arctic
and Washington


By Bart Mongoven
Stratfor: Public Policy Intelligence Report
March 29, 2007



Leon Panetta, the chairman of the U.S. government's Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, told a Washington audience March 29 that Senate ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is a national imperative. Panetta, a former congressman and chief of staff to former President Bill Clinton, pointed to a number of concerns raised by the United States' nonparticipation in the treaty.

By speaking out, Panetta adds his voice to a growing chorus of politicians and interest groups that have decided that UNCLOS ratification should be a national priority. Ratification of the treaty has enjoyed general support among policymakers since the treaty was re-crafted in 1994 to meet U.S. concerns about sovereignty, but staunch opposition from conservative and libertarian senators has stifled ratification. The metaphorical tide is turning, however, as more and more conservative interest groups come to see UNCLOS as, at worst, a necessary evil.

Climate change and its impact on the Arctic is the most significant factor pushing UNCLOS ratification toward a tipping point. As the polar ice melts, a number of heretofore unimaginable situations have developed. These include the possible emergence of the Northwest Passage as a major shipping route and the fear that the newly accessible resources of the Arctic will spur significant battles over seafloor boundaries.
Outside is Better Than Inside?

The debate over U.S. UNCLOS ratification is a familiar one. It focuses on whether it is better for the United States to be inside a flawed, sometimes troublesome international system where Washington can exert power to minimize the damage the organization can do, or to remain outside such an organization, unfettered by the agreements others are making. Since the Reagan administration, the United States has generally followed the latter approach, one favored by politically conservative factions.

The emerging Arctic-related issues challenge this prevailing approach, however. Being outside UNCLOS has reduced U.S. ability to influence debates that are increasingly relevant to the country's primary interests. In response, a powerful coalition of industries, environmentalists and hawkish foreign policy groups and the Bush administration have aligned in support of the treaty -- though not yet in a coordinated manner. Traditionally conservative political groups are coming to view the price of nonparticipation as growing in relation to the sacrifices of signing on. As a result, entrenched interests aligned against the treaty are shrinking, and the question increasingly appears to be one of when UNCLOS will be ratified, not whether.

Treaty participation always has been a double-edged sword. By definition, treaties demand the abdication of some sovereignty. In return, countries get a seat at the table where the treaty's language is interpreted and refined. Because the reward is one of having power within an organization, smaller and less-powerful countries that otherwise have no voice in international affairs are strong boosters of international treaties.

Powerful counties, conversely, lose power by joining treaty organizations. The reward for the larger players is the ability to tailor discussions and limit the range of options considered by the treaty parties. The use of power within a treaty is now most visible in Europe's new strategy on climate change, where the Continent is using its hegemony over the climate regime to adjust the treaty to suit its own long-term geopolitical needs .

The Shrinking Cap's Irony

Despite all the talk about climate change, the discussion has largely been about a theoretical problem: the effects of climate change. The actual warming of the planet until recently largely has been ignored. This is changing, however, particularly in light of the unexpectedly swift retreat of the ice cap near the North Pole.

The visible changes in the Arctic brought by global warming will have numerous implications. Most important, the Arctic will come to stand as a symbol of climate change, as visible evidence that the Earth is warming. Scientists and interest groups will battle strenuously over the question of how much of the warming is caused by human activities and about whether the warming is necessarily a bad thing. In all likelihood, most will come to see the Arctic as a symbol of the effect of human activities.

Those who view the melting polar ice as a symbol will doubtless see irony in the fact that the shrinking cap could make it cheaper to get to hydrocarbon deposits that were previously uneconomical to produce. A much-quoted study released in 2000 by the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that the unexplored Arctic contains as much as one-quarter of the world's remaining hydrocarbon reserves. In November 2006, however, the consulting firms Wood Mackenzie and Fugro released a report that argues the recoverable reserves are closer to 3 percent. Either way, the Arctic has lots of oil to exploit.

The Wood Mackenzie study asserts that three fields in the Arctic contain more than 10 billion barrels of oil -- Russia's South Kara Yamal Basin, East Barents Sea and the Kronprins Christian Basin off Greenland's northeastern coast. Alaska's North Slope has an estimated 6 billion barrels of oil equivalent in undiscovered reserves.

The rules defining which country has economic control over access to mineral reserves fall under UNCLOS. The treaty gives countries exclusive rights to resources within 200 nautical miles (nm) of their shorelines. In addition, if the continental shelf extends beyond the 200 nm limit, countries have exclusive rights to minerals either as far as the shelf extends or until the furthest of two absolute limits it met: 350 nm or 100 nm from the 2,500-meter depth line. The Arctic Ocean is very shallow, and the region's continental shelves extend far beyond 350 nm before an average sounding of 2,500 meters is met.

Though not a party to the treaty, the United States respects these definitions of mineral rights. By not being a party, however, Washington lacks significant influence on an important aspect of drawing the boundaries. Under the treaty, countries must submit claims of the extent of their continental shelves to the New York-based Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), a group that approves the science behind countries' continental shelf claims. Countries that ratified UNCLOS in 1994 or before have until 2009 to submit their claims. Unsurprisingly, countries' claims overlap throughout the Arctic.

>From the U.S. perspective, the crucial issue is not merely the minerals that it can claim, but the potential for a major shift in the relative mineral wealth of Russia vis-a-vis its neighbors. A growing dispute between Russia and Norway is perhaps the most important of these. In 2001, Russia submitted its definition of its continental-shelf borders. Russia's claim is widely considered a significant overreach, since it claimed a shelf extending almost to the North Pole and it made territorial claims that impinged on oil-and natural gas-rich Norwegian claims (claims that have long been widely, if informally, acknowledged as belonging to Norway) in the Barents Sea. Though Norway's claim, released in late 2006, is in some ways more realistic, it appears to have been drafted to meet Russia's aggressive claim in kind.

With Russia increasingly aggressive in its use of oil and natural gas as a lever against Europe, it will fall in part to UNCLOS (and possibly the CLCS) to make decisions that will affect the reserves and production potential of Norway and Russia.

As it stands now, the CLCS is highly unlikely to support one side over the other, and it will throw the decision over the extent of continental shelf ownership to the two countries to negotiate, a resolution that bodes ill for Norway. Treaty advocates say this would not necessarily be the case if the United States were involved in the organization.

National security-focused advocates in the United States say the country's nonparticipation in UNCLOS shuts out Washington from being able to meaningfully influence how UNCLOS resolves the disputed claims. Industry, from oil and natural gas producers to their major customers in the chemical and transportation industries, also wants the United States to have a seat at the table.

A Transport El Dorado

A second area of contention is an emerging debate over the Northwest Passage. For centuries, a sea-lane from the Atlantic to Pacific across Canada's far north was the sea trade's veritable El Dorado, a mythical path to riches. The rapid melting of the ice north of Canada is awakening both Canada and the United States to the possibility that the Northwest Passage could soon come to be a feasible transit route, and with it a dramatic reduction in transport time from the North Pacific to the North Atlantic.

Estimates are that easy passage along this route would save 5,000 miles for most transoceanic passages from Europe to the U.S. West Coast. And depending on its depth, it could allow for the passage of post-Panamax cargo ships that cannot transit the Panama Canal and currently must use the Suez Canal instead.

In addition, there is a burgeoning resource-related debate between Canada and the United States over mineral rights in the Beaufort Sea. This debate will fall to negotiations over the extension of the Yukon-Alaska border into the Beaufort, as UNCLOS allows for two types of definitions of territorial waters and each side in this case uses a different measure. A number of companies are strongly interested in developing hydrocarbons in the Beaufort Sea and plan to tap into the infrastructure being constructed in the Mackenzie River Delta. Expansion in Beaufort likely will move outward from the existing Mackenzie infrastructure.

Canada, which recently ratified the treaty, is in a position as a party to steer how the UNCLOS dispute-resolution system views the debates over transit both in the Northwest Passage -- where the idea of an "inland waterway" must be determined -- and over the resources of the Beaufort, where the two parties use different systems to define their mineral rights.

The Push for Ratification

U.S. backers of UNCLOS ratification have many other reasons for supporting the treaty.

Panetta pointed out that it would provide a frame for U.S.-led international action on presently haphazard, fractured ocean protection and conservation efforts. By not signing the treaty, the United States has little or no influence on the rules relating to dwindling fish stocks. Mining outside the continental shelf is becoming more economical with technological advances and increasing mineral prices, but the United States is not a part of the International Seabed Authority, the organization that under UNCLOS awards blocks of the ocean for mineral exploration and collects royalties for deep-sea mining.

Though many arguments for ratification have long been in place, the emerging Arctic-related issues provide more than just additional arguments for joining UNCLOS -- they take support in the United States to a tipping point.

Opposition in the United States to ratification of UNCLOS has largely been based on arguments relating to U.S. sovereignty and the power of international organizations. Libertarian and conservative groups have said the treaty would reduce U.S. ability to move its Navy in waters heretofore understood to be open, international waters. Others have pointed to the International Seabed Authority, alleging it is too powerful since under UNCLOS it has made the power to explore deep-sea minerals no longer simply a matter of determining who was there first with a capability to exploit the resources.

Voices against ratifying UNCLOS generally have been politically conservative. With the Arctic issues rising to the surface, core conservative constituencies -- business and foreign policy hawks -- see significant threats emanating from nonparticipation and clear benefits to participation.

As the Arctic issues proliferate, however, conservatives and the foreign policy establishment are beginning to view sitting on the sidelines as increasingly disadvantageous -- as is the military.

Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has called U.S. ratification of the treaty "a top national security priority." With the military, conservative foreign policy establishment and business joining together in support of ratification, the remaining conservative voices cautioning against sacrificing sovereignty have become increasingly isolated.

_______________

Stratfor Premium members can access regular updates, in-depth analysis and expanded coverage on this issue by logging in at http://www.stratfor.com/ .

If you are not a Premium member and are interested in gaining full access to Stratfor, please click here [ http://www.stratfor.com/current.php?ref=alert ] to take advantage of our special introductory rates.

Contact Us
Analysis Comments - mailto:analysis@stratfor.com
Customer Service, Access, Account Issues -
mailto:service@stratfor.com

Sign up to start receiving your own copy – it’s always thought-provoking, insightful and free.
https://www.stratfor.com/subscriptions/free-weekly-intelligence-reports.php

Distribution and Reprints
This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com. For media requests, partnership opportunities, or commercial distribution or republication, please contact pr@stratfor.com.
__________________________

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Hagel: There are ways to deal with a president who says 'I Don't Care'


Ron Brynaert
March 25, 2007


Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who is considering running for president in 2008, stopped just short of threatening impeachment against President George Bush on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday morning.

Hagel has been a vocal critic of the war in Iraq and recently referenced impeachment in an interview published in April's edition of Esquire Magazine, telling Charles P. Pierce, "The president says, 'I don't care.' He's not accountable anymore. He's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him, and before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment. I don't know. It depends how this goes."

Hagel disagrees that "right now we're actually seeing the increase in forces actually start to deliver some results in Baghdad," as the White House has argued.

"No, I don't see that," Hagel told Stephanopoulos. "In fact, there are more incidents, not less. Sure, in parts of Baghdad, in overall Baghdad, over the last two or three weeks, we have seen some fewer, but not around the country. Look at what happened two days ago, one of the two vice presidents of Iraq was attacked there at his own compound and is lying mortally wounded in a hospital."

Hagel added, "No, it isn't getting any less dangerous, and the fact is that was predictable, the more American troops you flood into a zone, sure, you're going to see some immediate effect of that but that has nothing to do with the long-term or lasting effect. This solution in Iraq is not going to come by continuing to put more and more Americans in there because we're bogging ourselves down. We are further eroding our credibility and stature in the Middle East. It's going to make it more and more difficult for us to get out because we are going to have to get out."

Hagel mentioned that the Inspector General testified before Congress this week, and "reminded all of us that we have now spent almost a half a trillion dollars in Iraq," and "have put at least 40 billion in economic development there, [w]hich we don't know what we got out of it."

"There's still no oil law," Hagel added. "Billions of dollars have been ripped off, unaccounted for, and one more point on this -- over $12 billion of Iraqi money still sits in the accounts of the Iraqi government that they haven't spent. So something has to give here, George."

Hagel then expanded upon his "impeachment" comments in the Esquire interview.

"Well, any president who says 'I don't care' or 'I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else' or 'I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed,' if a president really believes that, then there are, what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that," Hagel said.

Hagel added, "This is not a monarchy."

"And you think that would be appropriate in this case?" Stephanopoulos asked.

Hagel hedged a little bit, "I didn't say that. I didn't call for it. I didn't predict it. What I was saying, I was laying out options here. No president can dictate to this country, nor should he. This is a constitutional form of government. We have three equal branches of government. No president is bigger than the other two. There are three co-equal branches of government. Article 1 of the Constitution is not the presidency. It's the Congress."

But the Republican senator again referred to impeachment when he said that "there are ways to deal with this."

"So what I was pointing out, George, is that there are ways to deal with this and I would hope the president understands that," Hagel said. "I mean, his comments this weekend, yesterday in his radio address were astounding to me. Saying to the Congress in effect, you don't belong in this. I'm in charge of Iraq."

Transcript of interview:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Good morning, everyone. The White House and congressional Democrats squared off again this week with showdowns looming on Iraq war funding and the firing of those eight U.S. attorneys. And our headliner this morning is a man who often finds himself at odds with both sides, Senator Chuck Hagel. Welcome back, senator.

SEN. HAGEL: George.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:
I want to get to your presidential plans later in the interview but let's begin with Attorney General Gonzales and these documents that came out late Friday night which showed that he did attend at least one meeting where this U.S. attorney situation was discussed, but when the controversy bubbled up earlier this month he denied attending any meetings. Take a look at this.

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALBERTO GONZALES:
(From videotape.) Like every CEO, I am ultimately accountable and responsible for what happens within the Department. But that is, in essence, what I knew about the process, was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on. I never saw documents. We never had a discussion about where things stood.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Does the Attorney General have a credibility problem?

SEN. HAGEL: He does have a credibility problem. George, as you know because you've been in administrations, as well as your service over on Capitol Hill, we govern with one currency and that's trust. And that trust is all important and when you lose or debase that currency, then you can't govern. And I think he's going to have some difficulties. They've changed their stories. They've moved back and forth, and I have always believed and I've been in and out of this town a little bit, the only way to govern is be straightforward. Be honest. The stories will always come out. There are no secrets and it's not just because there's a bob Woodward in this town. Just be straight out, transparent and if you've got a problem, fix it but get out of it.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: How do you explain his problems here? What do you think happened here?

SEN. HAGEL: I don't know if he got bad advice or if he was not involved in the day-to-day management. I don't know what the problem is but he's got a problem. You cannot have the nation's chief law enforcement officer with a cloud hanging over his credibility, and then you couple that with other recent events over there with the national security letter debacle with the FBI, the abuses of the Patriot Act, all within the purview of the Attorney General's scope of management, it's week after week there's another problem.

This needs to be addressed and I think the president makes a big mistake if he tries to make this a constitutional issue and make it a separation of powers issue. Fix the problem. Ronald Reagan did it. Bill Clinton did it. Other presidents have done it. Invoke executive privilege then say it's in the interest of the country to get to the bottom of this and fix it.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Those are two separate issues. I want to get to both. On the first, on the Attorney General himself, you said he has a deep credibility problem. You've pointed out all the other problems that have come up in the Justice Department over the last couple of years. Do you think he can still serve effectively as Attorney General?

SEN. HAGEL: Well, I do not, and I think the president is going to have to make a tough choice here. The president has a number of other big issues that he is going to be dealing with and dealing with right now. We've got the Iraq war issue that is continuing to deepen and worsen. We will be focused in the Senate this week on that issue. The House just passed a tough bill yesterday or Friday on the supplemental spending. We've got another dozen big issues out there that the president must govern on. He must focus on, and he must lead the country and the world on. And he surely cannot be burdened by his chief law enforcement officer under a cloud of credibility.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: You also mentioned the showdown over executive privilege. The White House said this week that they're willing to send up White House officials like Karl Rove to discuss this, but it has to be in private. It can't be under oath. One conversation only and no transcript. What do you think of those conditions?

SEN. HAGEL: Well, I don't think those are conditions. My goodness, isn't the objective here -- is to get to the bottom of the issue? Isn't the objective to find out the truth? Isn't the objective to be transparent and let the American people know what happened? What went wrong. If there is something that needs to be fixed, then let's find out what it is and let's fix it. The president has talked about those kind of things over the years, but to say you can't have a transcript, the American people should not understand or know what's going on, it not be done under oath, I just don't understand.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS:
So you just think he should invoke the privilege but then voluntarily send the officials up to testify?

SEN. HAGEL: That's the way I would do it and I think we have a very clear past record of other presidents taking that same course of action. President Reagan did that on Iran-Contra. "The Washington Post" has a story today which highlights your picture --


MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Thanks for reminding me, Senator! (Laughs)

SEN. HAGEL: And we are very appreciative of your selfless public service to our country, George.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Thank you.

SEN. HAGEL: But there are many examples of how presidents in the past have handled this and handled things like this very responsibly.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's talk about Iraq. You mentioned the House Democrats passed their bill. Their version of the Iraq war funding bill this week which imposed benchmarks on the Iraqi government but also set a deadline for the removal of all U.S. combat forces. Can you sign on to that?

SEN. HAGEL: Well, I believe this, and I've said this from the beginning. There will not be a military solution to Iraq. The solution to Iraq will come as a result of a political accommodation by the people in Iraq, the Iraqi people, which will result in a political resolution. I have said also that I'm absolutely opposed to a further American military escalation in Iraq. That's what's going on here. And it's one of these, oh, by the way -- It's one of these gradual incremental-type oh, by the ways. We first heard the president's announcement on this a few weeks ago, 21,500 troops.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: The question is how do you stop it?

SEN. HAGEL: Well, I think the Congress is going to play a role now like we have not played before. You've already seen the House play that role. We will debate it this week in the Senate. Senator Jim Webb and I are going to introduce some legislation that will, in fact, have the force of law in the future involvement of our military, in our country and what conditions that future will be.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: So combining legislation, what kind of conditions are you going to try to impose?

SEN. HAGEL: It will be binding legislation, and it will be focused on deployment, redeployment, training, equipment. What we're doing to our force structure in this country is disastrous. We essentially are ruining our National Guard. We are destroying our Army. We're destroying our Marine Corps. We can't sustain this kind of not only deployment, but training tempo, and the consequences of that, you're seeing at Walter Reed Hospital, for example and the consequences of that, for example, dumbing down your United States Army. We are now in a situation, we're waiving criminal records, drug abuse records to entice people to join the Army. You are ruining a 30-year effort to produce, which we have, the best Army in the world.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: I'm unclear on what exactly you're trying to do. Are you going to be setting an end date for U.S. involvement? I don't want to get too far ahead of Senator Webb on this. We have not announced what exactly those amendments will say. We will do that early next week, either tomorrow or Tuesday, but I would say that it does affect the outcome, the conditions of America's military involvement in Iraq.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, then, just to be clear, though, you cannot accept what the House passed, would you vote to strip those conditions from the legislation?

SEN. HAGEL: I would want to see what, in the end, I have to vote on. Let me put it this way, I will not accept the status quo. I will not continue to support with my vote the status quo. I am opposed to the president's current policy. I am opposed to the president's further escalation of America's military involvement. We are undermining our interest in the Middle East. We are undermining our military. We're undermining the confidence of people around the world in what we're doing. We have, clearly, a situation where the president has lost the confidence of the American people in his war effort. It is now time, going into the fifth year of that effort, for the Congress to step forward and be part of setting some boundaries and some conditions as far as -

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: But the White House has argued, Stephen Hadley was here last week, that right now we're actually seeing the increase in forces actually start to deliver some results in Baghdad. Don't you see that at all?

SEN. HAGEL: No, I don't see that. In fact, there are more incidents, not less. Sure, in parts of Baghdad, in overall Baghdad, over the last two or three weeks, we have seen some fewer, but not around the country. Look at what happened two days ago, one of the two vice presidents of Iraq was attacked there at his own compound and is lying mortally wounded in a hospital.

No, it isn't getting any less dangerous, and the fact is that was predictable, the more American troops you flood into a zone, sure, you're going to see some immediate effect of that but that has nothing to do with the long-term or lasting effect. This solution in Iraq is not going to come by continuing to put more and more Americans in there because we're bogging ourselves down. We are further eroding our credibility and stature in the Middle East. It's going to make it more and more difficult for us to get out because we are going to have to get out.

You know, we had the Inspector General testifying, our Inspector General, Mr. Bowen, he was testifying before the Congress this week. I met with him alone for an hour and a half. He reminded all of us that we have now spent almost a half a trillion dollars in Iraq. We have put at least 40 billion in economic development there. Which we don't know what we got out of it. There's still no oil law. Billions of dollars have been ripped off, unaccounted for, and one more point on this -- over $12 billion of Iraqi money still sits in the accounts of the Iraqi government that they haven't spent. So something has to give here, George.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: It is clear to me that you are angry about this and you also gave an interview to "Esquire" magazine this month, the April edition of "Esquire" magazine where you were quoted as saying, "the president says 'I don't care', he's not accountable anymore, he's not accountable anymore, which isn't totally true. You can impeach him. And before this is over, you might see calls for his impeachment."

SEN. HAGEL: Well, any president who says "I don't care" or "I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else" or "I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed," if a president really believes that, then there are, what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that. This is not a monarchy.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: And you think that would be appropriate in this case?

SEN. HAGEL: I didn't say that. I didn't call for it. I didn't predict it. What I was saying, I was laying out options here. No president can dictate to this country, nor should he. This is a constitutional form of government. We have three equal branches of government. No president is bigger than the other two. There are three co-equal branches of government. Article 1 of the Constitution is not the presidency. It's the Congress.

So what I was pointing out, George, is that there are ways to deal with this and I would hope the president understands that. I mean, his comments this weekend, yesterday in his radio address were astounding to me. Saying to the Congress in effect, you don't belong in this. I'm in charge of Iraq.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: You're talking about the U.S. attorney controversy?

SEN. HAGEL: No, I'm talking about what he was referring to specifically in his radio address about what the House of Representatives did on Iraq.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Friday on Iraq, okay.

SEN. HAGEL: And essentially dismissing them. Now, he can disagree, of course. I understand that. That's his responsibility. But to dismiss them, the Congress by saying, "you don't have a role in this, you're irrelevant to this," he's getting some bad advice and I would suggest they all go back and reread the Constitution.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me talk to you about your own plans for the White House. You gave this press conference in Nebraska a couple weeks ago that you had the whole press corps come in, national press corps, and then essentially had nothing to announce and a lot of people were scratching his heads. I was, at the end of it, including the late night comics. Look what Jay Leno said.

TONIGHT SHOW HOST JAY LENO: (From videotape.) Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel, he's a Republican, called a press conference to announce he'll be making a decision about running for president sometime later in the year. So he called a press conference to say maybe later in the year he's going to say something important. This is the kind of bold, decisive leadership this country needs. (Laughter.)

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: What was that about?

SEN. HAGEL: Well, first of all, I didn't ask all the media to come. In fact, I don't think there was one network correspondent there except one from a cable news show. I told the people of Nebraska that I would make an announcement on a decision sometime early this year. I owed that to them. I thought about just putting out a press release, George, and saying this is what I'm going to do. Then I thought I don't think that's right. People deserve to understand why and I think the way to do that is just come before them. I went to Nebraska. We didn't make a big deal about it. We didn't ask people to come. We put out a one-paragraph statement. I didn't ask the party to come. My family wasn't there. It was the press who built this up. I didn't build it up.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: So what factors are in play now in your decision?

SEN. HAGEL: Same factors that have always been. Number one, I said I wasn't ready to make a decision about my political future. I don't work off of someone else's time line, George. I've never done that. I don't work off someone else's expectations.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: So you don't think it's too late to get in now? A lot of people looked at it and said, "He's not running."

SEN. HAGEL: Well, I'll make that decision. I can't worry about things I can't control. I do have a job now and that's an important job. I think if this town, all of us in elective office, paid a little more attention to focusing on the responsibilities we have now to govern and try to focus on, as I have and I'm going to continue to do, Social Security reform, entitlement reform, immigration reform, being just three bills that I've been leaders on, I'm going to come back and introduce new legislation on that -- those are jobs that need to be attended to and issues right now.

Now, I will make a decision when I think I'm ready and my family is ready. I can't control what the Nebraska people or the people of this country will do or will not do. I learned a long time ago to put my energies into things, George, that I can control. So I'm sorry if I didn't fulfill expectations of some people, but I never misled anybody on this.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, come back when you're ready to announce. Senator Hagel, thanks very much.

SEN. HAGEL:
Thanks, George.

Source:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Hagel_There_are_ways_to_deal_0325.html
______________________

Bush Hit-Woman Behind Prosecutor Firings Has Long History of Purges to Protect Bush

Harriet Miers fired investigator in 1997 to cover Bush draft-dodge


By Greg Palast
March 19th, 2007


From the original reports for BBC Television and the Guardian (UK)

The Mister Big behind the scandal of George Bush’s firing of US Attorneys is not a ‘mister’ at all.

The House Judiciary Committee has released White House emails indicating that the political operative who ordered the hit on prosecutors too honest for their own good was Harriet Miers, one-time legal counsel to the President.

But this is not the first time that Miers has fired investigators to protect Mr. Bush.

In 1999, while investigating Governor George Bush of Texas for the Guardian papers of Britain, I obtained an extraordinary, and extraordinarily confidential, memo to the US Attorney’s office in Austin. It disclosed that, in 1997, Governor Bush secretly suggested to the chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission that she grant a contract to the client of a Bush ally.

The Governor’s back-door demand to the Lottery chairwoman was not so easy. Bush wanted the Lottery to grant a multi-billion dollar contract to GTech Corporation. But GTech hadn’t even bid on the contract - and a winner was already announced.

There was only way for the Chairwoman to carry out the fix: fire the director of the Lottery who had discouraged GTech from bidding because of its history of corruption.

The Chairwoman, Harriet Miers, did the deed: fired the Lottery director; Miers then ignored the winning bid — and gave Bush’s favored company the contract, no bidding, in perpetuity.

Miers and the Draft

Neither Miers nor President Bush have ever denied the contents of the memo [I’ve posted it here] despite repeated requests from the Guardian and BBC Television.

Bush’s attempt to appoint Hit-woman Harriet to the US Supreme Court in 2005 surprised many. Not me. Miers, personal and governmental lawyer for George Bush, had quite a file on her boss, and he must have been grateful for her discretion.

Most crucially, she knew why Bush so desperately needed to give GTech the lottery contract. The heart of the matter was the then-successful cover-up of the Bush family’s using its influence to get young George Bush into the Texas Air National Guard and out of the Vietnam war draft.

The memo to the US Attorney reads:

Governor Bush thru [name withheld] made a deal with Ben Barnes not to rebid because Barnes could confirm that Bush had lied during the ‘94 campaign [for governor of Texas]. Bush was asked if his father … had helped him get in the National Guard. Bush said no he had not, but the fact is his dad call then-Lt. Gov. [Ben] Barnes ….”

Lt. Governor Barnes, through a cut-out, called the Texas Air Guard commander and got Bush into the ‘top gun’ seat and out of the war.

You may recall that in 2004, years after we reported this story in Britain, Barnes confessed to the draft-dodge fix on 60 Minutes. [That was the report that brought down Dan Rather; but the Barnes confession was never challenged.]

What 60 Minutes missed is the creepy Miers involvement.

Barnes, after he left the post of Lt. Governor, became a lobbyist — for GTech, the lottery company. By using his influence to get and keep the lottery contract for GTech, Barnes picked up quite a nice fee: over $23 million. With those millions in his pocket, Barnes kept a happy and lucrative silence about his saving little George Bush from the draft.

According to the memo from the US Attorney’s office, Barnes met with Bush about GTech and the lottery.

Then,

The Governor talked to the chair of the lottery [Miers] two days later and she then agreed to support letting GTech keep the contract without a bid.”

Note something else here: this information was sitting in the hands of the US Attorney. Yet, no action was taken in 1997 though we now know that, from Barnes’ confession in 2004, the accusation about his putting in the fix for young George Bush is true.

An insider told BBC TV that the US Attorney’s office and Justice Department, though under Democratic control, never acted because they discovered that Barnes, a Democrat, had not only manipulated the system to get George Bush into the Texas Air Guard, Barnes did the same for the sons of Democratic big wigs including Congressman (later Senator) Lloyd Bentsen and Governor John Connolly.

In other words, control over a US Attorney and what is called their “prosecutorial discretion” is worth its weight in gold to politicians. They can provide protection for cronies and exact punishment on enemies. And no one knows that better than “Justice” Harriet Miers and her boss, fighter pilot George W. Bush.

This report is adapted from Greg Palast’s New York Times bestselling book, ARMED MADHOUSE: From Baghdad to New Orleans — Sordid Secrets and Strange Tales of a White House Gone Wild. New edition to be released April 24.

Source:
http://www.gregpalast.com/bush-hit-woman-behind-prosecutor-firings-has-long-history-of-purges-to-protect-bush/
__________________

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

OHIO Secretary of State DEMANDS IMMEDIATE RESIGNATION OF ALL CUYAHOGA COUNTY ELECTION BOARD MEMBERS


In Ohio: Brunner to GOP's Bennett: Beat it or Be Banished


by OhioRebel
Mon Mar 19, 2007


The shots heard around Ohio today came from the double-barreled shotgun Ohio's new Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner's used to blast the four members of the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections (BOE) out of their seats. In her statement issued early Monday morning, Brunner, a well respected former common court pleas judge offered the BOE board - made up of two Republicans and Democrats a simple choice: beat it by Wednesday or I'll banish you.

Pledging to restore trust to elections in Ohio amidst the myriad of challenges facing the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, Brunner asked in her media release Monday for the resignation of the four-member board effective the close of business March 21, 2007. The new sheriff in town told Bennett, in much the same way Bush gave Saddam and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq or suffer the consequences, to get out of Dodge or face the Shock and Awe she would rain down on them as only a former judge-now-turned secretary of state could do.

Those who do not resign by Wednesday will face a complaint and public hearing to be conducted in Cleveland by the Secretary of State's office at a time and date to be determined. Under state law the Secretary of State may "summarily remove" board members for cause.

GOP BENNETT IN THE BULL'S EYE

The leader of the BOE in Cuyahoga County, Ohio's largest county, is none other than state GOP leader Bob Bennett, an attorney and deal maker who, while he has generally been given star status for helping Republicanoids maintain control of the state from stem to stern for sixteen years, was unable to stop Democrats from retaking four of the five statewide seats up for grabs in last year's election. Bennett couldn't stop blood letting between party favorites Ken Blackwell (secretary of state) and Jim Petro over (attorney general) over who would be the standard bearer against Democratic newcomer Ted Strickland, who wound up shellacking Blackwell at the polls, winning by more than 20 points.

Early Monday morning, Brunner, whose main campaign promise was to make Ohio elections "free, fair, open and honest" again, showed everyone why she won 53% of the vote last year and why, even as the first woman to hold the post of election chief, she isn't afraid as the new election sheriff in the state to draw her guns and shoot the bad guys between the eyes, if that's what it takes to bring order to the unseemly fashion Ohio has conducted its elections in recent years.

BENNETT PLAYS BLAME GAME, BUT IT WON'T WORK THIS TIME

But Bennett, a lawyer himself, does what Republicans usually do when they've been caught screwing up - blame someone else, especially if that person is a Democrat.

Republicanoids don't like to play the "blame game" unless they can blame someone else. But that gambit isn't going to work in Ohio any more, especially now that statewide office holders like Jennifer Brunner are in charge and won't shrink from a fight.

In typical blame game fashion, Mr. Bennett tried to turn the tables on his own misfeasance over the years by preaching to Brunner about what she can and cannot do. Truly misguided, Bennett said this:

Moreover, in the statement he released at the press conference he held in Columbus later in the afternoon, Bennett, who is ready to retire from his GOP leadership post, is trying to lay the blame for his BOE's screw ups at the foot of the Cuyahoga County prosecutor, Williams Mason, a Democrat.

Finally, I would like to remind the Secretary of State and you that the Board did a god job in this past gubernatorial election...We lead the state - and possibly the nation - in poll worker training, put more election devices in the field to eliminate long lines and generally improved the voter experience...We are making progress on our major goal which is to restore voter confidence in Cuyahoga County elections and we ask Secretary Brunner to join us in that effort.

BENNETT THREATENS LAWSUIT AS DISTRACTION FOR HIS FAILURES

Defiant and refusing to leave by Wednesday as demanded by Brunner, Bennett said, " I believe the Secretary of State has hit the wrong target in her attempt to make corrections in Cuyahoga County." Bennett went on to say that "the first and most pressing wrong is the unfair treatment of Jacqui Maiden and Kathy Dreamer, two excellent Board employees who were sentenced to prison terms for what amounts to a question over procedure."

I have been investigating how this wrong could have possibly happened and I believe that the fault lies at the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor William Mason's door step...Having ducked their duty on one hand, they prosecuted two employees for taking actions that could have been prevented with one word from them...Prosecutor mason and his agents cannot have it both ways...Therefore, I will be filing a formal complaint against Mr. Oradini at the Disciplinary Counsel (DC) of the Ohio Supreme Court...I will ask them DC to investigate this conduct and take action...I may, upon further investigation, also file a complaint against Mr. Mason...I will reveal further action that results from my investigation at the Board of Elections meeting Wednesday.

Brunner travels to Cleveland Wednesday to speak before the Cleveland City Club, followed by a visit to the Cuyahoga County CBOE. Should prove to be an interesting day, don't you think?

BRUNNER ACTING WITH FULL LEGAL AUTHORITY

Her pronouncement Monday, which sends a strong signal to Ohio's other 87 BOEs that she means what she says and says what she means, was no doubt triggered by triggered by the two 18-month prison sentences handed down to two Cuyahoga County election workers last week for their roles in the 2004 Presidential recount.

This incident, the culmination of misfeasance that cost millions of dollars, was the straw that broke Bennett's back, along with the three backs of his cohorts who comprised the board that gave Ohio a national black eye for the inept way it handled its electoral duties last year and in the presidential election of 2004.

If the past is prologue, Brunner doesn't want this book to end the same way in 2008, our next presidential election year. And in anticipation of the selection of a new director and deputy director to replace the old ones who were fired and quit, she thought it was time to clean house, despite the fact that Spring has yet to arrive in Ohio.

...the tremendous problems that surfaced in the May 2006 primary that delayed even the unofficial vote count for 5 days, and the uncertain future of this board as another Presidential election looms on the near horizon, it is incumbent on me as Secretary of State to provide the direction needed to get this troubled board on track. The voters of Cuyahoga County deserve it, the citizens of Ohio expect it, and the rest of the nation will be watching," said Brunner.

REPUBLICANS, ACLU IN ACCORD OVER CONCERNS IN CUYAHOGA

Even Ohio's foaming-at-the-mouth Republicanoids, who take no prisoners in their rabid condemnation of anything with even a faint whiff of Democrats tied to it, and who in typical knee-jerk fashion blistered Brunner's move as "incredibly partisan and drastic," found themselves more in bed with the views of the Ohio ACLU than they otherwise would have liked. One conservative right-wing blogger who wakes up looking for a Democratic throat to slit before sundown, even conceding that "she may have accidentally opened the door to some much needed reform in the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections

In their media release, the Ohio ACLU championed Brunner for making the right call.

Secretary of State Brunner has made the right call in the face of such total disregard for the integrity of elections," Ohio ACLU Director Christine Link said. "Despite public outcry from voters, the Cuyahoga Board of Elections has done little to change the direction of elections in the county. Their inaction and political partisanship has made it increasingly clear that the board needed a drastic change in leadership. Hopefully this action by the Secretary of State will do that.

BRUNNER'S FEARLESS EPILOGUE: BRING IT ON BOB!

Brunner said she doesn't hold the board directly responsible for actions of the two workers but believes they bear some responsibility.

"I'm not saying the board gave orders -- but when you have a problem that serious on top of everything else that has occurred, you have an accountability problem," she said. "It made it so serious that I don't think I had any alternative. It has to do with public confidence and perception."

Brunner said that Bennett suggested he would not go without a legal fight. "I was a judge. Litigation doesn't faze me," she said. "I really prefer to just move on to allow the board to proceed without that complication."

The county's embattled elections chief, Michael Vu, resigned last month. The resignation was effective March 1, and Vu has agreed to stay on through June as a consultant to help the board as it looks for and trains a new director. The county is without its top three leaders because the assistant director also is leaving and its third-highest ranking employee was one of the two workers convicted

Source:
http://scoop.epluribusmedia.org/story/2007/3/19/16344/1538
_____________________

Sunday, March 18, 2007

10 FALSE FLAGS THAT CHANGED THE WORLD

At it’s simplest, the term false flag means pretending to be the enemy.


Hard Boiled Dreams of the World
March 15, 2007


The name comes from ships and armies that, in previous centuries, deceived their foes by displaying another country’s flag.

These days, false flag activities are much more sophisticated…and debauched. These aren’t your granddaddy’s covert operations.

Fake Terror, Deception, and Disgrace

The most commonly known false flag operations consist of an intelligence agency staging a terror attack such that an uninvolved entity gets blamed for the carnage.

Another type of false flag operation might consist of directing purposefully belligerent and trigger-happy clandestine demonstrators to mingle with peace activists in order to disrupt and discredit a passive protest event.

Yet another type of false flag activity consists of infiltrating the opposition, then making easily disproved claims which will embarrass and undermine the credibility of the organization.

An Ignorant Public Enables False Flags

When the Constitutional Convention closed in 1787, a lady asked Benjamin Franklin, "Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy?"

Franklin replied: "A republic, if you can keep it."

Why did our forefathers think the Republic would be so hard to keep?

What foreign threat did they envisage as the United States’ most deadly enemy? Actually, the founding fathers believed one of our biggest enemies would rise from within: apathetic ignorance.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

One hundred and forty-five years later, President Eisenhower echoed Jefferson’s fear when he left office in 1961:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. "

Endless War

Unfortunately, security and liberty were nearing death in the greedy clutch of corporate fascism by the time Eisenhower spoke those words. The world’s largest industrial military machine already needed unending war to feed the nation’s economy, and line the pockets of the war profiteers.

False flag operations, with healthy doses of propaganda and ignorance, provided a great recipe for endless war.

Two-time Medal of Honor recipient Major General Smedley Butler explains the situation better than I can.

From his book, War is a Racket:
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. "

False Flag Greatest Hits

And that’s where we stand today…much of the population still apathetically ignorant, if not from lack of desire to educate themselves, then by state secrets privilege and a main stream media that buries truth beneath an avalanche of corporate-advertiser-approved garbage. But as the pendulum swings out of control, the population does seem to be waking up.

So, while the world impotently waits for the next false flag…one that will likely have the remaining uninformed masses proposing a nuclear attack on Iran, let’s reminisce and countdown 10 False Flags that Changed the World. Number 10 on the list is…


Nero, Christians, and the Great Fire of Rome
10 False Flags that Changed the World: #10


It was the night of July 19, 64 A.D., when the Great Fire burst through the rooftops of shops near the mass entertainment and chariot racing venue called Circus Maximus. The flames, whipped by a strong wind, rapidly engulfed densely populated areas of the city.

After burning uncontrolled for five days, 4 of the 14 Roman districts were burned to the ground, and seven more were severely damaged.

Nero: Fiddling While Rome Burned?

Nero might have been playing a kithara while Rome burned, but he wasn’t playing a fiddle.

That’s because violins weren’t invented until around 1550.

Nero, probably the most infamous Roman emperor, was a great-grandson of Caesar Augustus.
When his mother’s husband (also her uncle, and Nero’s adopted father…) was murdered with poisoned mushrooms, Nero succeded to the throne.

Like many kids in those days, he wanted to be a famous singer and a poet. His talent was poor, but as emperor, the empire doubled as captive audience.

His mother tried to control Nero, to the point of having intercourse with him. He tried to murder her by booking her on a ship that was designed to fall apart at sea.

Unfortunately, his mom was a good swimmer. After she survived, he had a soldier kill her. This shocked the public, a little bit, but they got over it.

Neropolis

It was no secret that Nero wanted to build a series of palaces which he planned to name Neropolis.

But, the planned location was in the city. In order to build Neropolis, a third of Rome would have to be torn down. The senate rejected the idea.

Then, coincidentally, the fire cleared the real estate Neropolis required.
Despite the obvious benefit, there’s still a good probability that Nero did NOT start the fire. Up to a hundred small fires regularly broke out in Rome each day. On top of that, the fire destroyed Nero’s own palace. It also appears that Nero did everything he could to stop the fire…

Nero’s Reaction to the Fire

Accounts of the day say that when Nero heard about the fire, he rushed back from Antium to organize a relief effort, using his own money. He opened his palaces to let in the homeless, and had food supplies delivered to the survivors.

Nero also devised a new urban development plan that would make Rome less vulnerable to fire. But, although he put in place rules to insure a safer reconstruction, he also gave himself a huge tract of city property with the intention of building his new palace there.

Fake Terror Gives Poll Numbers a Bump

People knew of Nero’s plans for Neropolis, and all his efforts to help the city could not counteract the rampant rumors that he’d help start the fire.

As his poll numbers dropped, Nero’s administration realized the need to employ False Flag 101: When something—anything—bad happens to you, even if it’s accidental, point the finger at your enemy.

Luckily, there was a strange new cult of religious nuts at hand. This cult was unpopular because they refused to worship the emperor, denounced possessions, held secret meetings, and they were always talking about the destruction of Rome and the end of the world.

Even more lucky for Nero, two of the cult’s biggest leaders—Peter and Paul—were currently in town.

So, Nero spread word that the Christians had started the Great Fire. The citizens of Rome bought his lie hook, line, and sinker. Peter was crucified (upside down, at his own request) and Paul was beheaded. Hundreds of others in the young cult were fed to the lions, or smeared with tar and set on fire to become human street lamps.

Such is the fate of those unwittingly caught in a false flag operation


Remember the Maine, to Hell with Spain
10 False Flags that Changed the World: #9

In 1898, elites within the United States government falsely accused Spain of blowing up the USS Maine in order to stoke the American people into a flag-waving frenzy which resulted in the Spanish-American War.

Death of the Spanish Empire

The Spanish Empire was the first truly global empire, reaching its territorial height in the late 1700s.

As evidence of Spain’s once vast footprint, the Spanish language is still the 3rd most spoken language in the world. (Even if you don’t think you speak Spanish, you probably know some Spanish words: Can you say tornado? Bonanza? Patio? Quesadilla? Enchilada? Taco grande supreme?)

But nothing lasts forever, and like every empire since the beginning of time (save the USA, which is still young…) Spain’s status as the world’s greatest power was not to last.

By 1898, Spain was regularly losing territories. Although Spain still ruled Cuba, it, too, was becoming increasingly hard to control, and a minor revolution had broken out. This wasn’t welcome news to people in the United States who owned Cuban sugar, tobacco, and iron industry properties valued at over $50 million (which was a chunk of change in the 1890s!)

The main stream media, then dominated by newspaper magnates Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, exagerated—and outright fabricated—stories of horrible conditions under Spanish rule.

Following the age-old maxim, "If it bleeds, it leads," the newspapers published stories about Spanish death camps, Spanish cannibalism, and inhumane torture. Americans ate it up and asked for more gravy.

So the newspapers sent more reporters to Cuba.

When they got there, however, the reporters found a different story. Artist and correspondent Frederick Remington even wrote back to Hearst, "There is no war. Request to be recalled." Hearst’s famous reply: "Please remain. You furnish the pictures, I’ll furnish the war."

And he did. His newspaper, continually screaming how Spanish Cuba was going to hell in a handbasket, convinced big business interests in the U.S. to put pressure on anti-war President William McKinley to protect their Cuban investments.

McKinley, in response, sent the USS Maine battleship to Havana Harbor as a calming show of force.

Instead, the battleship exploded…

USS Maine Explodes in Havana Harbor

Three weeks after arriving, on the night of February 15, 1898, the USS Maine exploded.
There are two theories for the explosion: Some believe the explosion was caused by an external mine that detonated the ship’s ammunition magazines. Others say it was caused by a spontaneous coal bunker fire that reached the ammunition magazines. Currently, the evidence seems to favor the external mine theory.

One thing, however, is almost certain: if the explosion was caused by a mine, it wasn’t planted by Spain.

Nevertheless, the explosion killed 266 men. Without waiting on an investigation, America’s main stream media blamed the tragedy on Spain and beat the drums for war. By April, McKinley yielded to public pressure and signed a congressional resolution declaring war on Spain.

Wars and Taxes

To help pay for the Spanish-American War, congress enacted a "temporary" tax of 3 percent on long-distance telephone bills. This was essentially a tax on the rich, as only about 1,300 Americans owned phones in 1898.

Although the Spanish-American War ended in 1898, the temporary tax was only abolished in…2005.

Over its lifetime, the 107-year-old tax generated almost $94 billion—more than 230 times the cost of the Spanish-American War.

The Birth of an American Empire

The Spanish-American War put a large nail in the coffin of Spain’s global empire. And by the end of 1898, the United States, which was founded in opposition to imperialism, found itself in control not only of Cuba, but of the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Hawaiian Islands as well.

Not a bad catch for one second-class battleship.


The Manchurian Incident
10 False Flags that Changed the World: #8

In 1931, Japan wanted to invade further into the Asian continent. So, in a brilliant display of false flag stategy, Japan blew up its own frickin’ railway and said, "Uh, well, hmmm…China did it! Yeah, that’s the ticket. It was China. Now, instead of going to the beach, we gotta go kick their butts out of Manchuria."

The best false flag operation is just juvenile schoolboy behavior inflated large enough to accommodate a nation-state’s ego, and the Manchurian Incident is no exception. In fact, in this incident, there’s even a tinge of adolescent let’s-make-a-pile-of-fireworks-and-light-it-with-a-match mischievousness involved. But the story starts earlier than 1931…let’s go back to 1929. Does anybody remember what happened in 1929?

1929

Grand Teton National Park was created…yeah, that’s right…

The first Academy Awards were presented in a 15-minute ceremony at a private dinner for 250 people at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel…yep, uh-huh…

The Amos and Andy radio program debuted…yeah, but think about money…money makes the world go round…what happened to everybody’s money in 1929?

That’s right! You got it. That was the year everybody’s money disappeared…

The Great Depression

The economic slump following 1929’s thorough and convincing near-obliteration of Wall Street was worldwide. It hit Japan especially hard: Exports fell, unemployment rose, Tokyo Disneyland shut down—well, it would have shut down, but it wasn’t around yet, Mickey Mouse only being a few months old and all.

Japan, not being rich in natural resources if you don’t include wasabi, needed oil and coal.

The country needed this oil and coal to make power to run machines to produce goods to sell to other countries to make money to buy food to have enough energy to get up early on Monday and do it again. And Manchuria, a province of China, had its fair share of oil and coal.

Dynamite and a Make-Believe Bridge

After Japan decided it needed to invade Manchuria, they needed a pretext to justify the invasion. They chose to create a false flag attack on a railway close to Liutiao Lake…a big flat area that had no military value to either the Japanese or the Chinese.

The main reason the spot was chosen was for it’s proximity (about 800 meters distant) to Chinese troops stationed at Beidaying. The Japanese press labeled the no-name site of the blast Liutiaogou, which was Japanese for "Liutiao Bridge." There was no bridge there, but the name helped convince some that the sabatoge was a strategic Chinese attack.

Colonel Itagaki Seishiro and Lieutenant Colonel Kanji Ishiwara ordered officers of the Shimamoto Regiment to place a bomb beneath the tracks. The original bomb failed to detonate, and a replacement had to be found. Then, at 10:20 PM, September 18, 1931, the tracks were blown.

Surprisingly, the explosion was minor. Only one side of the rail was damaged, and the damage was so light that a train headed for Shenyang passed by only a few minutes later. But it was a good enough excuse to invade…

Baby Steps Toward WWII

The Japanese immediately charged the Chinese soldiers with the destruction, then invaded Manchuria. A puppet government known as Manchukuo, was installed.

The League of Nations did investigate, and in a 1932 report, denied that the invasion was an act of defense, as Japan had advertised.

Rather than vacate Manchuria, Japan decided to vacate the League of Nations. And soon there was WWII…


Secrets of the Reichstag Fire
10 False Flags that Changed the World: #7


When people hear "King of Beers" they think of Budweiser. And when "King of Rock ‘n’ Roll" is mentioned, Elvis Presley comes to mind. But when somebody talks about the "King of False Flag Operations," ten to one they’re referring to the Reichstag Fire.

In 1933 — just a week before general elections that might place enough Nazis in office to make Hitler defacto dictator — the Reichstag, which housed the parliament of the German Empire, was set on fire. It wasn’t a wastebasket variety fire, either; by the time the firemen and police arrived, that thing was a smoking hugeonic conflagration.

Fear Mongering Nazis

Der Fuhrer of the Nazi party, Adolf Hitler, assured everyone that Communist terrorists started the fire. Hitler’s partner in villainy, Hermann Göring, said he had secret evidence that would soon be made public — evidence that proved Communists did it. These proclamations came on top of weeks of Nazi-organized street violence designed to whip the public into a pathological fear of communists.

The next day, the Nazis convinced a senile President von Hindenburg to sign the Reichstag Decree.

The decree, using defense against terrorism as an excuse, suspended just about every major civil liberty set forth in the Weimar Constitution: habeus corpus (the right to know why you’re being put in jail)? Gone. Freedom of opinion? Gone. Freedom of the press? Not any more. Freedom to organize and assemble? You gotta be outta your Commie-paranoid skull — without a doubt, gone.

The Reichstag decree even allowed the government to spy on it’s own citizens’ personal mail and telephone conversations without a warrant…something most Americans today could hardly begin to fathom (at least before President George W. Bush signed a secret order in 2002 ordering the National Security Agency to do just exactly the same thing.)


The Slippery Slope to Fascist Dictatorship


So, after scaring the bejeezus out of the masses with dramatic warnings of impending attacks from Communist terrorist bogeymen, the Nazis were elected by German citizens convinced that trading in their constitutional rights was necessary for the Nazis to protect them.

Once elected, the Nazis wasted no time beginning the slide to dictatorship. Less than a month later they passed the Patriot Act — oops, I’m sorry, the Nazis called their legislation the Enabling Act. Regardless the title, the law allowed Hitler and his cabinet to enact legislation without the consent of parliament.


Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels wrote: "Now it will be easy to carry on the fight, for we can call on all the resources of the State. Radio and press are at our disposal. We shall stage a masterpiece of propaganda."

And they did.

But What About the Fire?


The only thing historians seem to agree on is that Marinus van der Lubbe, a former Dutch Communist and mentally disturbed arsonist hungry for fame, was found inside the building. Despite the Nazi attempt to blame the fire on a group of Communists, the Communists were later acquitted by the Nazi government itself.


After years of extensive investigation, most historians believe the Hitlerites themselves set fire to the Reichstag using van der Lubbe as their patsy — they knew a nut was going to try to burn down the building, and not only did they let him do it, but they may have befriended him, encouraged him, and even helped the blaze spread by scattering gasoline and incendiaries.


Most Germans, feeling safe from terrorism again, didn’t mind that their freedom and liberty had been stolen, or that so much of their life and work had become so strictly controlled.



On the contrary, they felt very enthusiastic and patriotic about the new government because they ignorantly believed the new government cared about them. And as long as the average citizen worked hard, kept his mouth shut, and let his kids take part in the Hitler Youth organization, he stayed out of the detention camps.


But, from an outsider’s point of view, German citizens were clearly content frogs in a slow-heated cauldron of boiling water. By the time the detention camp populations grew from thousands to millions, the Nazi cancer was terminal.


And that’s how a false flag operation handed one nation to a really neat guy…a celibate vegetarian who neither smoked nor drank…who liked cars and planes, eating out, watching films…a charming man who was kind to animals, and sickened by the sight of blood…an insomniac who liked Schubert, Beethoven, and Wagner…a guy who pretended to listen to advice, then always made his own decisions.


That’s how it happened.



Fake Invasion at Gleiwitz


10 False Flags that Changed the World: #6



In the late evening of Thursday, August 31, 1939, German covert operatives pretending to be Polish terrorists seized the Gleiwitz radio station in the German/Poland border region of Silesia.


The station’s music program came to an abrupt halt, followed by frantic German voices announcing that Polish formations were marching toward town; Germany was being invaded by Poland!


Then, like a bad immitation of the previous year’s infamous War of the Worlds broadcast, the transmission went dead for a moment of dramatic silence.


Word of Gleiwitz Reaches Rest of World


Soon, the airwaves popped and crackled to life again, and this time Polish voices (clever little devils, those Germans…) called for all Poles in the broadcast area to take up arms and attack Germany.


In no time, radio stations across greater Europe picked up the story. The BBC broadcast this statement:


There have been reports of an attack on a radio station in Gleiwitz, which is just across the Polish border in Silesia. The German News Agency reports that the attack came at about 8.00pm this evening when the Poles forced their way into the studio and began broadcasting a statement in Polish. Within quarter of an hour, says reports, the Poles were overpowered by German police, who opened fire on them. Several of the Poles were reported killed, but the numbers are not yet known.


And thus, Hitler invented an excuse to invade Poland, which he did the next day: September 1, 1939. The day World War II began.

Alfred Naujocks: The Man Who Started World War II


Alfred Helmut Naujocks was an intellectual go-to tough man. It was Naujocks who received the orders from Heinrich Müller, chief of the Gestapo, to put the staged terrorist attack together at the Gleiwitz station.


At Naujock’s disposal were what the Germans had codenamed "canned goods," which were dissenters and criminals kept alive in detention camps until the Gestapo needed a warm dead body. To add cogency to the Gleiwitz attack, Naujocks brought along one such canned good: Franciszek Honiok.


Honiok, a German from the Silesian region, was a known Polish sympathizer. Before arriving at the station, the Gestapo gave him a lethal injection. Then, they dressed him up like a Polish terrorist, and brought him to the front of the radio station. Naujocks later testified that the man was unconscious, but not dead yet, when he was shot full of pistol rounds. When the police and press found Honiok’s body, they assumed he’d been one of the fictional Polish terrorists that attacked the station.


Operation Himmler


In all, there were 21 fake terror actions along the border that same night, many of them using "canned goods" from German prisons so there would be plenty of bodies in the morning — evidence of Polish attackers that had been shot in self defense. The actions were all part of a larger plan, called Operation Himmler.


The next day, after a long night filled with fake terror, Hitler gave a speech to the German Army, complete with synthetic anger:


The Polish State has refused the peaceful settlement of relations which I desired, and has appealed to arms. Germans in Poland are persecuted with bloody terror and driven from their houses. A series of violations of the frontier, intolerable to a great Power, prove that Poland is no longer willing to respect the frontier of the Reich.


In order to put an end to this lunacy, I have no other choice than to meet force with force from now on. The German Army will fight the battle for the honour and the vital rights of reborn Germany with hard determination. I expect that every soldier, mindful of the great traditions of eternal German soldiery, will ever remain conscious that he is a representative of the National-Socialist Greater Germany. Long live our people and our Reich!


See how it was all Poland’s fault? See how war was started under the premise of defending Germany? See how a psychopath seems like a savior to the dupes he claims to be protecting? Learn from history…

Where Are They Now?


Had it not been for the Nuremberg trials in 1945, the real story behind the Gleiwitz attack might have never been uncovered. It was there that the operation’s leader, Alfred Naujocks, spilled the beans in a written affidavit.

After that fateful night, Naujocks had several more years of adventures with the Nazis. Then he deserted Germany and turned himself over to Allied forces in 1944. He was held as a war criminal until the war was over. After testifying at the Nuremberg Trials, he became a businessman in Hamburg, and may have helped some Nazis escape to South America on the side. He died in 1966.


As for the Gleiwitz radio station, it still boasts a 38-story tower, nicknamed the Bavarian Eiffel Tower, that’s the tallest wooden tower in the world. In 2004, the station became home to the Museum on Radio History and Visual Arts.



The Myth of Pearl Harbor


10 False Flags that Changed the World: #5



On Sunday morning, December 7, 1941, the Japanese launched a sneak attack at Pearl Harbor that decimated the U.S. Pacific Fleet and forced the United States to enter WWII.

That’s what most of us were taught as school children…


But, except for the date, everything you just read is a myth. In reality, there was no sneak attack. The Pacific Fleet was far from destroyed. And, furthermore, the United States took great pains to bring about the assault.


Because the United States manipulated Japan into attacking, purposefully allowed their operation to proceed, and then played the victim for all it was worth, the Pearl Harbor Attack makes it into the top 5 of HDotW’s 10 False Flags that Changed the World.


The Sneak Attack Myth



On January 27, 1941, Joseph C. Grew, the U.S. ambassador to Japan, wired Washington that he’d learned of the surprise attack Japan was preparing for Pearl Harbor. U.S. intelligence, which had broken every major Japanese code, also deciphered many Japanese dispatches.


In May, Japanese Adm. Nomura warned his superiors that Americans were decoding his dispatches. However, nobody in Tokyo thought the Japanese codes could be broken, and the transmissions continued.


On September 24, a dispatch from Japanese naval intelligence to Japan’s consul general in Honolulu was deciphered. The transmission was a request for a grid of exact locations of ships in Pearl Harbor. Surprisingly, Washington chose not to share this information with the officers at Pearl Harbor.


Then, on November 26, the main body of the Japanese strike force—consisting of six aircraft carriers, two battleships, three cruisers, nine destroyers, eight tankers, 23 fleet submarines, and five midget submarines—departed Japan for Hawaii.


Despite the myth that the strike force maintained strict radio silence, U.S. Naval intelligence intercepted and translated many dispatches. And, there was no shortage of dispatches: Tokyo sent over 1000 transmissions to the attack fleet before it reached Hawaii. Some of these dispatches, in particular this message from Admiral Yamamoto, left no doubt that Pearl Harbor was the target of a Japanese attack:


The task force, keeping its movement strictly secret and maintaining close guard against submarines and aircraft, shall advance into Hawaiian waters, and upon the very opening of hostilities shall attack the main force of the United States fleet and deal it a mortal blow. The first air raid is planned for the dawn of x-day. Exact date to be given by later order.


Even on the night before the attack, U.S. intelligence decoded a message pointing to Sunday morning as a deadline for some kind of Japanese action. The message was delivered to the Washington high command more than 4 hours before the attack on Pearl Harbor. But, as many messages before, it was withheld from the Pearl Harbor commanders.


In addition to the US-decoded radio transmissions from the attack fleet, there were many specific warnings delivered to Roosevelt via non-American sources: a Yugoslav double agent named Dusko Popov, a dispatch decoded by the Dutch Army, a message from Kilsoo Haan of the Sino-Korean People’s League.


Despite repeated denials, it’s clear the Roosevelt administration knew full well of the "sneak" attack long before it arrived.

The Destroyed Pacific Fleet Myth


Although many ships were damaged at Pearl Harbor, they were all old and slow. The main targets of the Japanese attack fleet were the Pacific Fleet’s aircraft carriers. But, Roosevelt made sure these were safe from the attack: In November, at about the same time as the Japanese attack fleet left Japan, Roosevelt sent the Lexington and Enterprise out to sea. Meanwhile, the Saratoga was in San Diego.


The Myth of U.S. Reluctance for War



It’s true the American public, still nursing an anti-war sentiment leftover from the first World War, was reluctant to jump into a second World War. There were also many members of Congress backed by wealthy Americans who had significant financial ties to the fascist powers of Germany and Italy at the time.


But, Roosevelt wanted a piece of the war pie. Having failed to bait Hitler by giving $50.1 billion in war supplies to Britain, the Soviet Union, France, and China as part of the Lend Lease program, Roosevelt switched focus to Japan. Because Japan had signed a mutual defense pact with Germany and Italy, Roosevelt knew war with Japan was a legitimate back door to joining the war in Europe.


On October 7, 1940, one of Roosevelt’s military advisors, Lieutenant Commander Arthur McCollum, wrote a memo detailing an 8-step plan that would provoke Japan into attacking the United States. Over the next year, Roosevelt implemented all 8 of the recommended actions.


As with recent wars, it all boiled down to oil. In the summer of 1941, the US joined England in an oil embargo against Japan. Japan needed oil for its war with China, and had no remaining option but to invade the East Indies and Southeast Asia to get new resources. And that required getting rid of the US Pacific Fleet first.


Although Roosevelt may have got more than he bargained for, he clearly let the attack on Pearl Harbor happen, and even helped Japan by making sure their attack was a surprise.


He did this by withholding information from Pearl Harbor’s commanders, and even by ensuring the attack force wasn’t accidentally discovered by commercial shipping traffic.


As Rear Admiral Richmond K. Turner stated in 1941: "We were prepared to divert traffic when we believed war was imminent. We sent the traffic down via the Torres Strait, so that the track of the Japanese task force would be clear of any traffic."


It worked.


Speaking as someone who has personally stood on the USS Arizona Memorial and watched the oil still leaking from the wreckage, I can say that the Pearl Harbor Attack was one of the greatest false flag operations of all time.



Israeli Terrorist Cell Uncovered in Egypt
10 False Flags that Changed the World: #4



In July, 1954, an Israeli terrorist cell was activated inside Egypt. The ensuing attacks, cleverly designed to look like the work of Arabs, blasted and torched American and British targets.


First, the Israeli terrorists firebombed the Alexandria Post Office. Then, they firebombed the U.S. Information Agency libraries — one in Alexandria, and one in Cairo.


Then, they firebombed a British-owned Metro-Goldwyn Mayer theater, and a railway terminal, and the central post office, and a couple more theaters…


To smuggle their bombs inside the buildings, the terrorists used devices shaped like books, hiding them inside book covers. Once inside, bags filled with acid were placed on top of the nitroglycerin bombs. After several hours, the acid ate through the bags and ignited the nitroglycerin, causing explosions and blazing infernos.
What Made Israel Stoop to Terrorism?
In the early 1950s, the United States was making fast friends with Egypt, taking advantage of the new pan-Arab Egyptian government of Gamal Abdel Nasser. The warming relationship between the US and Egypt caused a very insecure Israel to feel a bit threatened.


Nassar also had plans to nationalize the Suez Canal, which had been controlled by the British for decades. Egypt had been known to blockade Israeli shipping through the canal, and Israel feared Nassar would make a blockade permanent.


After U.S. President Eisenhower began encouraging the British to leave the Suez Canal Zone, Israel started looking for a way to make the British stay, and a way to remain best buddies with America.




And what better way to treat your best friend than to stab them in the back and tell them one of your other friends did it?



David Ben Gurion, Israel’s founding prime minister, thought that Egyptian terrorist attacks against Americans would be a perfect way to cool the growing US/Egypt relationship. And, since there were no Egyptians planning attacks against Americans, Ben Gurion’s proteges did the next best thing: they recruited Israeli agents to PRETEND to be Egyptian terrorists.


Unit 131


The top-secret Israeli terrorist cell, Unit 131, had existed since 1948. In 1950, Israel’s Directorate of Military Intelligence, Aman, was created, and Israel sent an undercover agent, Colonel Avraham Dar (alias: John Darling, British citizen of the island of Gibraltar), to recruit more members to Unit 131. He also trained them how to build bombs and terrify Americans and British civilians working and living in Egypt.
Before the terrorist cell was activated, another Israeli agent named Avraham — Avraham Seidenberg — was sent to take control from Avraham Dar.


Seidenberg first went to Germany to establish an alias: he assumed the identy of Paul Frank, a former SS officer, complete with underground Nazi connections. By 1954 his new identity was in place and he went to Egypt to take command of Unit 131.


Unit 131 decided to call their terrorist plan Operation Suzannah. The name came from Susan Kauffman, the fiancee of Victor Levy, one of the Israeli terrorists. The name also referred to the unit’s call to action: the unit would activate when it heard an Israel radio broadcast of the American song, Oh! Susannah.


In the summer of 1954, Colonel Binyamin Gibli, the chief of Aman, arranged for the tune to be broadcast…


Israeli Terrorist Ring Busted


Everything was going well for the Israeli terrorists it seemed. But, there was one thing the members of Unit 131 didn’t know: their terrorist sleeper cell had itself been infiltrated by the Egyptian intelligence service. The new Unit 131 leader, Seidenberg, had betrayed them to the Egyptians.


So, when Unit 131 member Philip Nathanson made his way to bomb the British-owned Rio theater in Alexandria, not only was he being followed; the Egyptian intelligence service had a fire engine waiting to put out the flames. As Nathanson stood in the ticket line, his bad luck turned worse when one of the bombs in his pocket ignited, and then exploded.


Nathanson was burned but not killed. As nearby pedestrians shouted warnings and wondered if he was a suicide bomber, Egyptian policemen stepped in, calmed the crowd, and identified Nathanson as one of the terrorists who had been blowing up American and British buildings.


The Wicked Web Unravels


Nathanson was interrogated by Egypt’s military intelligence and confessed the whole plot, which led to more arrests. When the Israeli spies were given a public trail, all the details of their terrorist training in Israel came to light.


Former Israeli Prime Minister Ben Gurion and Israel’s Aman chief, Binyamin Gibli, tried to frame their own Defense Minister, Pinhas Lavon. They even offered forged documents as proof. The frameup worked for a while — so much so that the entire incident is still popularly known as the Lavon Affair. Lavon resigned, and Ben Gurion came out of political retirement to replace him as Israel’s Defense Minister.


However, the truth did finally emerge.


In 1960, a review of the inquiry discovered the fake documents, as well as perjury by Seidenberg. A committee of seven Cabinet members cleared Lavon. And, although Ben Gurion never admitted fault, he did resign his post as Defense Minister.


What Happened to the Terrorists?


Yosef Carmon and Max Binnet both committed suicide in an Egyptian prison.


Dr. Moshe Marzouk and Shmuel Azar were both sentenced to death in a very public trial.


Much of the world persuaded the Egyptian government not to hang the two terrorists, including intervention from US President Eisenhower, Indian President Nehru, and even the Pope. Egypt, referring to America’s hanging the Rosenbergs, responded: "Egypt (will) treat its spies in precisely the same manner adopted by the United States." Marzouk and Azar were hanged in a Cairo prison.


Meir Meyuhas and Meir Za’afran, after spending seven years in jail, were both released in 1962. Sworn to silence, they returned to Israel and reconstructed their lives far from the public spotlight.



Victorine Marcelle Ninio was tortured in an Egyptian prison. With her feet severely beaten, and threatened with rape, she threw herself out of a window and almost died.



After healing in a hospital and enduring the spy trial, she was sentenced to 15 years in a prison for women in Kanather — the longest sentence ever for a female political prisoner in Egypt. She was released as part of a prisoner exchange following 1967’s Six-Day War, and quietly returned to Israel, having become a source of political embarrassment. However, by 1974 much of Operation Suzannah had become public, and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir attended Ninio’s wedding.






Robert Dassa spent fourteen years in an Egyptian prison at Tura, where he ran the prison basketball team. He was also released as part of the Six-Day War prisoner exchange in February of 1968. In 1979 he returned to Egypt as a journalist to cover Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s visit to Alexandria. Thirteen years later he wrote a book about his experience.


Victor Levy and Philip Nathanson were sentenced to life in prison, where they made friends and even ran a successful duck farm with the approval of the prison administrator. The were also released in the Six-Day War prisoner exchange, and returned quietly to Israel.


Avraham Seidenberg, who had betrayed Unit 131 to Egyptian Intelligence, was the only spy who escaped. He returned to a hero’s welcome in Israel. When his perjury, and probable roll as an Egyptian double agent, was discovered, Seidenberg was sentenced to 10 years in an Israeli prison. After serving as an exemplary prisoner, he was released. He briefly sold television sets in Tel-Aviv. Then, in 1972, and still denying everything, he moved to California.



U.S.-Sponsored Terrorism: Operation Northwoods


10 False Flags that Changed the World: #3



Most Americans can’t conceive that officials at the highest levels of the U.S. Government would murder thousands of its own citizens to advance an empirical agenda. We should all, very carefully, think again…


In 1962, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously proposed state-sponsored acts of terrorism on American soil, AGAINST American citizens. The head of every branch of the U.S. armed forces gave written approval to sink U.S. ships, shoot down hijacked American planes, and gun down and bomb civilians on the streets of Washington, D.C., and Miami.
The idea was to blame the self-inflicted terrorism on Cuba’s leader, Fidel Castro, so the American public — and the international community — would beg and scream for the marines to storm Havana. Another benefit would be the wave of patriotism that would spur American teens to join the Army, do the fighting and dying, and return home with bloody stumps in place of their limbs. But, put simply, starting a war with communist Cuba was the motivation for the Pentagon’s Northwoods plan.


Admiral George W. Anderson Jr. (Chief of Navy Operations), General George H. Decker (Chief of the Land Forces section), General Leyyman L. Leymnintzer (Chief of the Joint Chief of Staff), General Curtis E. LeMay (Chief of the Air Force section), General David M. Shoup (Commander of the Marines)


Operation Northwoods


The public learned about Operation Northwoods 35 years later when the Top Secret document was declassified by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board. (The complete declassified Top Secret document can be read at George Washington University’s online archive: Northwoods Document.)


Among other things, Operation Northwoods proposed:

Faking the crash of an American passenger plane. The disaster was to be accomplished by faking a commercial flight from the U.S. to Jamaica, and having the plane boarded at a public airport by CIA agents disguised as college students going on vacation.


An empty remote-controlled plane would follow the commercial flight as it left Florida. The commercial flight’s pilots would radio for help, mention that they had been attacked by a Cuban fighter, then land in secret at Eglin AFB. The empty remote-controlled plane would then be blown out of the sky and the public would be told all the poor college students aboard were killed.


(Note: This was the favorite choice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.)


Using a possible NASA disaster — astronaut John Glenn’s death — as a pretext to launch the war. The plan called for "manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans" if something went wrong with NASA’s third manned space launch.


To turn neighboring countries against Cuba, false Cuban planes would be used to bomb the Dominican Republic. The U.S. plan called for using actual Soviet bombs, and intercepting fake Cuban weapons shipments, such that the frame-up of Cuba would be complete.


Blowing up buildings in Washington and Miami. Cuban agents (undercover CIA agents) would be arrested, and they would confess to the bombings. In addition, false documents proving Castro’s involvement in the attacks would be "found" and given to the press.



Blowing up a U.S. battleship in Cuban waters when Cuban planes and ships are in the area, so they can be blamed. A fake air/sea rescue operation was planned, as well as fake funerals and fake passenger lists published in the Main Stream Media to "cause a healthy wave of national indignation." The document actually mentions how a similar incident — the US Maine false flag operation — successfully started the Spanish American War in 1898.


Attacking an American military base in Guantanamo with CIA recruits posing as Cuban mercenaries. This involved blowing up the ammunition depot, and would obviously result in material damages and many dead American troops. As a last resort, the plan even mentioned bribing one of Castro’s commanders to initiate the Guantanamo attack.


That deserves repeating: the Pentagon considered using our tax dollars to bribe another country’s military to attack our own troops in order to instigate a full-scale war.


Operation Northwoods Rejected


Operation Northwoods was only one of several plans under the umbrella of Operation Mongoose.



Shortly after the Joint Chiefs signed and presented the plan in March, 1962, President Kennedy, still smarting from the Bay of Pigs fiasco, declared that he would never authorize a military invasion of Cuba.


In September, Kennedy denied the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Lyman Lemnitzer, a second term as the nation’s highest ranking military officer. And by the winter of 1963, Kennedy was dead…killed, ironically, by a Cuban sympathizer in the streets of an American city.


Even more ironically, in 1975 President Ford appointed retired General Lyman Lemnitzer to the Commission on CIA Activities to investigate whether the CIA had committed acts that violated American laws.



Phantoms in the Gulf of Tonkin


10 False Flags that Changed the World: #2



Until 1964, Vietnam was not a U.S. war.



Sure, the U.S. had sent 400 special forces to train South Vietnamese troops in 1961. And more troops were sent to police the country in 1963. And every now and again U.S.
newspapers printed photos of Buddhist monks setting themselves on fire in public.


But, even the threat of Communism toppling regimes like dominoes wasn’t good enough to sell a full-blown war. Until August 2…

The Rush to War


On August 2, 1964, three North Vietnamese torpedo boats attacked a U.S. destroyer, the USS Maddox. The boats reportedly fired torpedos at the U.S. ship in international waters in the Gulf of Tonkin, about thirty miles off the Vietnam coast.



On August 4, the U.S. Navy reported another unprovoked attack on the USS Maddox and the USS Turner Joy.


Within hours, President Lyndon B. Johnson ordered a retaliatory strike. As the bases for North Vietnamese torpedo boats were bombed, Johnson went on TV and told America:

"Repeated acts of violence against the armed forces of the United States must be met not only with alert defense, but with a positive reply. That reply is being given as I speak tonight."



The next day, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara testified. He assured Capital Hill that the Maddox had only been "carrying out a routine mission of the type we carry out all over the world at all times." McNamara said the two boats were in no way involved with recent South Vietnamese boat raids against North Vietnamese targets.



At Johnson’s request, Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. The resolution preapproved any military actions Johnson would take. It gave Johnson a free ticket to wage war in Vietnam as large as the President wanted. And, true to his large Texas roots, Johnson got a big war: by 1969, over half a million U.S. troops were fighting in Indochina.


The Phantom Attack


Despite McNamara’s testimony to the contrary, the USS Maddox had been providing intelligence support to South Vietnamese boats carrying out raids against North Vietnam. McNamara had also testified that there was "unequivocable proof" of an "unprovoked" second attack against the USS Maddox. In fact, the second attack never occurred at all.


At the time of the second incident, the two U.S. destroyers misinterpreted radar and radio signals as attacks by the North Vientamese navy. It’s now known that no North Vietnamese boats were in the area. So, for two hours, the two U.S. destroyers blasted away at nonexistent radar targets, and vigorously manuevered to avoid phantom North Vietnamese ships.


Even though the second "attack" only involved two U.S. ships defending themselves against a nonexistent enemy, the President and Secretary of Defense used it to coerce Congress and the American people to start a war they neither wanted or needed.


The War Powers Resolution



After the Vietnam War turned into a quagmire for the U.S., Congress decided to put limits on the President’s authority to unilaterally wage war. Thus, on November 7, 1973, Congress overturned President Nixon’s veto and passed the War Powers Resolution.


The resolution requires the President to consult with Congress before making any decisions that engage the U.S. military in hostilities. It’s still in effect to this day.


"If we quit Vietnam, tomorrow we’ll be fighting in Hawaii and next week we’ll have to fight in San Francisco." ~Lyndon B. Johnson.


"We are fighting these terrorists with our military in Afghanistan and Iraq and beyond so we do not have to face them in the streets of our own cities." ~President George W. Bush.


Same tune, different song…



The September 11, 2001 Attacks


10 False Flags that Changed the World: #1



What really happened on September 11, 2001? There are too many speculations to examine in this space, but one ludicrous conspiracy theory deserves mention. It goes like this:
A 44-year-old former CIA asset, operating out of a cave in Afghanistan, coordinated a plot whereby — without any inside help — four hijacked airliners, piloted by 19 flight school dropouts, flew around the most secure airspace in the world for almost two hours, unopposed by 35 in-range USAF bases. Then the incapable pilots brought down three (yes, 3…) Manhattan skyscrapers, and even rammed a jet into the headquarters of the world’s most technologically superior military without a single anti-aircraft missile being fired.


Many people who were witness and victim to the tragedy agree that, without help from both Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny, this theory fails to explain the catastrophic events of that day.


According to WTC maintenance employee, William Rodriguez:



"There’s reality, and there’s illusion. When illusion becomes reality, that’s a problem. Nine-eleven is a giant illusion. Besides, what can they do to me? I’m a national hero, Bush told me so himself."


On September 11, 2001, Rodriguez opened locked stairwell doors for firefighters and single-handedly rescued 15 people. He was the last person to exit the North Tower alive.
An Opportune Nightmare


In criminal investigations, detectives look for a motive. In the case of the 9/11 tragedy, there were so many motives that it might be shorter to list who DIDN’T stand to benefit. Nevertheless, here are some reasons some might have welcomed the attacks…



The Twin Towers Were an Asbestos Bombshell


Like many buildings built in the 1970s, the twin towers were constructed with vast quantities of cancer-causing asbestos. The cost of removing the Twin Tower asbestos? A year’s worth of revenues at a minimum; possibly as much as the value of the buildings themselves.


http://joecrubaugh.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/WTCAsbestos.jpg


The cost to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor would have run into the double-digit billions. In addition, the Port Authority was prohibited from demolishing the towers because the resulting asbestos dust would cover the entire city, which it did when they collapsed, resulting in many cancers with a confirmed link to the WTC dust.



Despite its questionable status, in January of 2001, Larry Silverstein made a $3.2 billion bid for the World Trade Center. On July 24 the Port Authority accepted the offer. Silverstein then took out an insurance policy that, understandably, covered terrorist attacks, which happened seven weeks later. To date, Silverstein has been awarded almost $5 billion from nine different insurance companies. What was an asbestos nightmare turned into a $1.8 billion profit.


War Profiteers Needed a New Pearl Harbor


Rebuilding America’s Defenses, a year 2000 report from the neo-conservative think tank, Project for the New American Century, says:


"To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively…the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."


The report maintains that a world dominated by America, both economically and militarily, is good for everybody on the planet — especially the greedy pockets of the U.S. Military Industrial Complex.


One may wonder what highly-intelligent brains are doing the thinking in the PNAC tank. Members have included:

Dick Cheney
Jeb Bush
Donald Rumsfeld
Paul Wolfowitz
Scooter Libby
John Bolton
Dov S. Zakheim
Robert B. Zoellick
Richard Perle
William Kristol
Dan Quayle

The fact is, war profiteers needed a new war to keep the gravy train rolling. Thanks to 9/11, they got two: one in Afghanistan, and one in Iraq.


While citizens pay the Pentagon more money to fight these wars, let’s not forget what Donald Rumsfeld said about the Pentagon on the morning of September 10, 2001: "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." That bombshell was pretty much forgotten by the next morning.


So, as a reward for losing $8,000 for every man, woman, and child in America, taxpayers patriotically forked over another $370 billion and counting to invade Iraq. True to form, the Pentagon promptly lost $9 billion of that money, too.


The Patriot Act



Besides enabling the neocons to fund the growth of an empire already glutted with over 700 overseas bases in 130 countries, the attacks handed a lackluster administration the political power to abolish fundamental American freedoms while increasing corporate domination.


Eight days after the attacks, the 342-page Patriot Act was given to Congress. That same week, letters armed with anthrax from a U.S. military lab entered the mail.


Subsequently, while Congressional offices were evacuated, examined, cleaned, and nasal cavities swabbed, the Patriot Act remained largely unread.


Then, with little debate, the Patriot Act became law, giving the Bush administration unprecedented power to access people’s medical records, tax records, information about the books they bought or borrowed, and the power to conduct secret residential searches without notifying owners that their homes had been searched.


Oil


In early 2001, executives from Shell, BP, and Exxon met with Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force while it was developing its new national energy policy. Later, the companies freely admitted interest in profiting from Iraq’s oil fields, even before the U.S. invaded Iraq.


And now? A new Iraq hydrocarbon law expected to pass in March will open the door for international investors, led by BP, Exxon and Shell, to siphon off 75 percent of Iraq oil wealth for the next 30 years.


Helping Let 9/11 Happen


Put two and two together, and the picture that most clearly takes shape is an inside job that exploited a genuine terrorist plot.


According to this theory, real terrorists were groomed and sent on a mission to hijack and crash planes into American targets. However, elements within the U.S. government knew of the coming attacks and decided to benefit from them.


These insiders obstructed investigations by the FBI, ensured a standdown of air defenses, rigged buildings to collapse, and influenced the terrorist organization at a high level — high enough to choose the targets and the date of the operation.
These insiders cleared the way, let it happen, and planted plenty of evidence to incriminate the patsies.


Blocked Investigations


According to statements by Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a Bronze Star recipient with 22 years of experience in intelligence operations, a classified intelligence program codenamed Able Danger had uncovered two of the three 9/11 terrorist cells a year before the attacks, and had identified four of the hijackers. Shaffer alerted the FBI in September of 2000, but the meetings he tried to set up with bureau officials were repeatedly blocked by military lawyers. Four credible witnesses have come forward to verify Shaffer’s claims.


In the fall of 2000, two of the Flight 77 hijackers moved in with an FBI informant while they took flight-school lessons in San Diego. The CIA already had the two under surveillance because they had just returned from an al Qaeda summit in Malaysia.


Somehow, both the CIA and the FBI allowed the two suspected terrorists to travel in and out of the country and buy airline tickets without raising a flag.



In July of 2001, Phoenix FBI special agent Kenneth Williams sent FBI headquarters a memo, subtitled "Osama bin Laden and Al-Muhjiroun supporters attending civil aviation universities/colleges in Arizona." His recommendation to investigate terrorists training at aviation schools was ignored by FBI headquarters.


In August, a Pan Am International Flight Academy instructor warned the FBI that a student (Zacarias Moussaoui) might use a commercial plane loaded with fuel as a weapon.


The instructor asked, "Do you realize that a 747 loaded with fuel can be used as a bomb?" Moussaoui was then arrested on immigration charges, but despite the repeated urging of the school and local agents, FBI headquarters refused a deeper investigation.


The U.S. also received dozens of detailed warnings — names, locations, dates — from the intelligence agencies of Indonesia, Great Britain, Germany, Italy, Egypt, Jordan, India, Argentina, Morocco, Russia, Israel, France, and even the Taliban. It would seem that the entire world was onto the bungling Saudi hijackers, and somewhat perplexed that the U.S. wasn’t taking preventative actions. But in each case the U.S., as if by design, chose not to investigate.


War Games and the USAF Standdown


"I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." ~Condoleezza Rice, May 16, 2002.


Because of the Pentagon’s MASCAL exercise in October, 2000, and the disruption of al Qaeda’s Operation Bojinka in 1995, we know the above quote from Condoleezza Rice is categorically bull excrement.


We also know that on the morning of 9/11, multiple Air Force war games and drills were in progress, all under the umbrella command of Dick Cheney. The hijackers would have never made it to their targets without these multiple, simultaneous war games:


Operation Northern Vigilance ensured that many jet fighters that would have normally been patrolling the east coast were flying over Alaska and northern Canada in a drill that simulated a Russian air attack, complete with false radar blips.


Operation Vigilant Guardian simulated hijacked planes in the north eastern sector. While real hijackers were in the same airspace, this drill had NORAD and the Air Force reacting to false blips on FAA radar screens. Some of these blips corresponded to real military aircraft in the air posing as hijacked aircraft. That’s why when NORAD’s airborne control officer, Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, heard Boston claim it had a hijacked airliner, her first words were, "It must be part of the exercise."


Biowarfare Exercise Tripod II was a terror drill that called for FEMA’s National Urban Search and Rescue Team to arrive in town the night before the attacks. Because the drill involved setting up a command post at Pier 29, it was all good and ready for Rudolph Giuliani to use when his regular disaster command post in WTC Building 7 collapsed.
"If our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the twin towers would still be standing, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. That is treason!" ~Retired Air Force Colonel Robert M. Bowman, former director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense.


The WTC Demolitions


Except for the three WTC collapses on 9/11, no fire — and there have been some very severe ones — has ever caused a steel-framed high-rise building to collapse.



Not the Windsor Building fire, which engulfed a 32-story building in downtown Madrid in February, 2005. The building burned like a torch for twenty hours, reaching temperatures above 1,400 degrees Fahrenheit. But once the fire cooled, cranes had to be assembled and it took 6 months to disassemble the skeleton piece by piece, at a cost of over $28 million.


And not the One Meridian Plaza fire, which started in a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia in 1991. Philadelphia’s worst fire ever raged for 18 hours, gutted eight floors, and was hot enough to crack granite. But no part of the building collapsed.



And not even the First Interstate Bank fire that destroyed floors 12-16 of a 62-story building in Los Angeles in 1988. Despite being regarded as the worst, most devastating high-rise fire in the history of Los Angeles, and blazing for over three hours, there was no damage to the main steel structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam.


Yet, three steel-framed skyscrapers collapsed on September 11, 2001. And World Trade Center 7 wasn’t even hit by a plane. The 47-story building’s 58 steel perimeter columns and 25 steel core columns all broke, simultaneously, at 5:20 pm.


The offices of the Secret Service, Department of Defense, SEC, IRS, and CIA offices, along with all their files, disappeared into the footprint of WTC 7, along with the rest of the building. To this date, nobody has explained how or why the building collapsed.


The closest official explanation has been from FEMA’s report:


"Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."


In other words, they don’t know either. Some witnesses reported demolition bombs and charges inside the buildings. Some physics professors point to evidence that thermite was used. Some employees note that there were powerdowns and construction crews "upgrading cable" during the previous weekend. But, really, what made the buildings collapse?


Only one thing’s for sure: It wasn’t jet fuel from hijacked planes.


Protecting the Official Lie


The masterminds behind a false flag operation on the scale of the 9/11 attacks could hardly paint a flawless picture. For people who look, there are quite a few visible brush strokes that betray the fake official story.


The Missing Black Boxes


Each plane that hit the WTC had two black boxes: a flight data recorder, and a cockpit voice recorder. These nearly indestructible black boxes are built to withstand 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for an hour and an impact of 3,400 G’s.



Honorary firefighter Mike Bellone and retired New York firefighter Nicholas DeMasi claimed to have found three of the four black boxes in the WTC rubble before 2002. They said they turned the boxes over to FBI agents, who then told them to stay quiet.


But, according to the FBI and the 9/11 Commission Report, even though the WTC rubble was combed for fingernails and bone fragments, not a single one of the four indestructible black boxes was found. However, National Transportation Safety Board spokesperson Ted Lopatkiewicz said that he couldn’t recall a domestic case before 9/11/01 in which the recorders were not recovered.


Planted Evidence



While the FBI would have us believe that the four indestructible black boxes were vaporized when the airplanes hit the twin towers, hijacker Al-Suqami’s passport was found by a passerby in the vicinity of Vesey Street minutes after the first plane hit the north tower. Even though the plane and its passengers were almost entirely vaporized, the pristine passport must have flown out of his pocket and avoided the steel-melting fireball.


Besides the magic passport, other suspicious evidence has conveniently surfaced to make sure the hijackers are linked to 9/11. For instance, two of ringleader Mohamed Atta’s bags didn’t get checked onto the plane. His luggage was the only passenger’s luggage that didn’t make the flight. Besides procedure manuals for Boeing aircraft, the bags contained Atta’s passport, a Koran, and lots of letters.


FBI agent Warren Flagg says, "How do you think the government was able to identify all 19 hijackers almost immediately after the attacks. They were identified through those papers in the luggage. And that’s how it was known so soon that al-Qaida was behind the hijackings."


Resisting an Investigation



From day one, President Bush fought against the creation of a Sept. 11 commission. Only after enormous pressure due to the 9/11 Widows did he finally cave in. But even then, he refused to testify under oath, or on the record. And then, he asked the commission to let mastermind Dick Cheney do all his talking, in the White House. And he asked the commission not to take notes, either. So, who looks guilty?


Conclusion


If you follow the money…and we’re talking trillions of dollars here…you can see that the people with the most to gain occupied the key military and civilian positions to help 9/11 happen, as well as to cover up the crime. Such is the hallmark of false flag operations throughout history. But the incredible scale of the 9/11 sham, and the sheer number of people who still refuse to see the mountain of truth in front of their eyes…that’s what makes the September 11, 2001 attacks the greatest false flag operation of all time.


* * *




"The bottom line is that all wars are contrived. Rich bankers and financiers pull the strings to put these horrific events like 9/11 and Pearl Harbor into motion. It’s simply bizarre." ~Ross Wittenberg, former Vietnam pilot with over 100 combat missions and a commercial pilot for Pan Am and United for some 35 years.


* * *
"Naturally the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. …Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." ~Hermann Göring, Nazi war criminal.


* * *
"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty." ~George W. Bush, speaking before the UN General Assembly.


* * *
"In the size of the lie there is always contained a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people…will more easily fall victim to a great lie than to a small one." ~Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf


* * *
"No one could have conceivably imagined suicide bombers burrowing into our society and then emerging all in the same day to fly their aircraft - fly U.S. aircraft into buildings full of innocent people - and show no remorse. This is a new kind of — a new kind of evil. And we understand. And the American people are beginning to understand. This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while." ~George W. Bush.


* * *
Go to the previous article in this series:Phantoms in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Go to the original article in this series:10 False Flags that Changed the World.
Read More: false flag, 9/11, September 11, terrorism, war, World Trade Center, WTC, WTC7, Pentagon, hijackers, flight school, asbestos, anthrax, PNAC, New Pearl Harbor, Patriot Act, Energy Task Force, al Qaeda, FBI, CIA, black boxes, magic passport, 9-11 Commission, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, William Rodriguez, Anthony Shaffer, Larry Silverstein, Kenneth Williams, Osama bin Laden, Zacarias Moussaoui, Mohamed Atta, Rudolph Giuliani, Afghanistan, Iraq, New York, Washington

Sources:
http://americainjeopardy.blogspot.com/2007/03/excelent-series-compiled-at-hard-boiled.html
__________________________