Did Chertoff lie to Congress about Guantánamo? by Mark Benjamin

Dandelion Salad

by Mark Benjamin

Global Research, August 29, 2007

Salon.com

He told the Senate that Pentagon interrogation methods were “plain vanilla,” but e-mails reveal his top staff met weekly with FBI officials who said they were torture.

Aug. 28, 2007 | Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will leave office Sept. 17 with a reputation for being untruthful. During his repeated appearances before Congress earlier this year to explain the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, Gonzales answered “I don’t recall” or some variation as many as 70 times at a sitting. When his replacement comes to Capitol Hill for confirmation, lawmakers hope they will hear nothing but the truth.

But one of the men most often mentioned as his replacement may have some of the same trouble with the truth. Since rumors of Gonzales’ departure surfaced last week, speculation about his successor has centered on Michael Chertoff, the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Just as Gonzales, under oath before Congress, failed to recall whether there was dissension within the Bush administration over a controversial war-on-terror-related policy, so Michael Chertoff seems to have suffered a similar lapse of memory while under oath before Congress when pressed on a different terror-related policy. Gonzales pleaded ignorance of a rift within the administration over warrantless wiretapping; Chertoff has denied knowledge of interrogation techniques that are tantamount to torture, despite regular attendance by his top aides at meetings on the subject.

“If Mr. Chertoff is nominated, the Senate needs to ask him some very tough questions about what he knew about the abuses at Guantánamo,” said Hina Shamsi from Human Rights First.

When Chertoff appeared before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on Feb. 2, 2005, the subject was not interrogations. The panel was weighing Chertoff’s nomination to his current post as secretary of homeland security. He was promptly confronted on the topic, however, by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. Levin’s staff had dug up copies of curious FBI e-mail traffic about interrogations at the Guantánamo prison in 2002 and 2003, when Chertoff was head of the criminal division at the Department of Justice.

That was a pivotal year at the military prison. The Pentagon was institutionalizing a brutal interrogation program approved by then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Interrogation teams at the prison employed forced nudity, sleep deprivation, isolation and sexual humiliation, among other tactics. During that time, for example, a detainee named Mohammed al-Kahtani was forced to stand naked in front of a female interrogator, to wear women’s underwear, and to perform “dog tricks” on a leash. He was interrogated for 18 to 20 hours on 48 out of 54 consecutive days.

FBI interrogators assigned to Guantánamo had balked at the methods employed by the DOD. Given its long institutional knowledge about legal and effective interrogations, the FBI thought the military interrogations were extremely problematic. E-mail strings documenting the FBI’s objections have been well publicized.

At the February 2005 hearing, Levin questioned Chertoff about an e-mail obtained by Levin’s staff: a May 10, 2004, communication from one FBI official, with the name redacted, to another FBI official, T.J. Harrington. The e-mail rehashes the FBI objections to the military interrogations at Guantánamo back in 2002.

That FBI e-mail discusses the bureau’s concerns at some length. It also divulges weekly meetings with officials from the Justice Department’s criminal division, in which “we often discussed DOD techniques and how they were not effective or producing intel that was reliable.” Chertoff was the head of the DOJ’s criminal division from 2001 until the spring of 2003. The e-mail says that four people from the department’s criminal division attended those meetings and that those attendees “all agreed DOD tactics were going to be an issue” if the government tried to prosecute Guantánamo prisoners. In the copy of the e-mail obtained by Levin, the names of those four criminal division officials had been redacted.

Under questioning from Levin that day in 2005, Chertoff disavowed any knowledge of abusive interrogation techniques being employed at Guantánamo and said he was unaware of those meetings. “I was not aware during my tenure at the Department of Justice that there were practices at Guantánamo, if there were practices at Guantánamo, that would be torture or anything even approaching torture,” Chertoff told Levin. He told the committee he was unaware of “any use of techniques in Guantánamo that were anything other than what I would describe as kind of plain vanilla … I do not know what the meetings being referred to are, what the techniques are being referred to, and who the people are.”

Chertoff was sworn in to the Homeland Security post on Feb. 15, 2005, two weeks after the back-and-forth with Levin.

A month later, after pressuring the Justice Department, Levin obtained another version of the same FBI e-mail describing meetings about torture. It still contained redactions, but it does list the names of the DOJ criminal division officials who attended the meetings with the FBI. One of them was Alice Fisher, Chertoff’s top deputy. Chertoff’s counsel, David Nahmias, also attended, as did two other senior criminal division officials, Bruce Swartz and Laura Parsky. Swartz, the e-mail showed, had relayed the FBI’s concerns to the Defense Department’s Office of the General Counsel. (The e-mail is reproduced on page 2 of this article.)

If some of Chertoff’s top staff were involved in weekly meetings in which “the DOD techniques” were discussed, it remains unclear how he could be totally unaware of any of those discussions. “The secretary always testifies truthfully,” said Laura Keehner, a DHS spokeswoman.

Other close observers of these developments are not so sure. “Either he lied to Congress or he is a very out-of-the-loop manager of the division,” said Caroline Fredrickson, legislative director of the ACLU. “It smacks of Alberto Gonzales saying he did not know anything about these U.S. attorney firings.”

And if Chertoff is nominated, it is also unclear how much this questionable history will matter when he faces another Senate hearing. “This is unresolved,” Fredrickson said, “which means Congress needs to resolve it.”

images

Global Research Articles by Mark Benjamin


Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Mark Benjamin, Salon.com, 2007
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6654

The War on Working Americans – Part II by Stephen Lendman

Dandelion Salad

by Stephen Lendman
Aug. 29, 2007

This article was written to assess the state of working America in the run-up to Labor Day, 2007. Organized labor today is severely weakened following decades of government and business duplicity to crush it. Part I reviewed the labor movement’s rise in the 19th century and subsequent decline post-WW II and especially in the last three decades. Hope arose for some change in the Democrat-led 100th Congress. A weak effort emerged, but Senate Republicans killed it.

Organized labor is struggling to remain relevant and claw its way back. The enormous obstacles it faces are reviewed below as well as the condition of working Americans today in a globalized world affecting their lives and welfare heading “south” in the “land of opportunity” offering pathetically little.

Continued…

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.

see:

The War On Working Americans – Part I by Stephen Lendman

“The Myth of the Innocent Civilian” (Audio Booklet)

Dandelion Salad

ICH
Aug. 29, 2007

“The Myth of the Innocent Civilian”, questions the relationship that people have with artificial entities such as governments and corporations. An artificial entity does not spring into existence on its own, has no will or intelligence of its own and cannot be held accountable for “behavior”. Only people can reason, act and take responsibility.

In exchange for a variety of benefits, citizens submit to “government” demands which include all manner of taxation, licensing, and even compelled servitude. Great numbers of citizens are even directly employed by government. Yet when confronted with evidence of gross misdeeds commited in the name of government, citizens typically do not see themselves as accountable or responsible in any way.

“Corporations” provide goods and services to patrons, return on investment to stockholders and a livelihood to employees. Yet when confronted with evidence of gross misdeeds commited in the name of “their” corporation, most patrons, stockholders and employees will not see themselves as accountable or responsible in any way.

This little booklet may be a useful tool for anyone wishing to convince neighbors, friends or family that We the People cannot hide forever from responsibility and accountability for wrongs committed in the name of governments and corporations that we support. Whether those affected are our fellow Americans or people in foreign lands, failure to take responsibility will sooner or later come home to roost!

Click here to listen to the audio files.

If you have only limited time available please listen to chapter 16 here. MP3 file.

Click Here To Download Free E-Book Version

 

FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.

More Shame, More Sorrow By Paul Craig Roberts

Dandelion Salad

By Paul Craig Roberts

08/29/07 “ICH

In the administration of George W. Bush, the Republican Party has achieved the greatest combination of idiocy and evil in human history.

The Republicans have bogged America down in a gratuitous and illegal war. The war has destroyed Iraq, killed between 650,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians, displaced 4,000,000 Iraqis, and littered the country with depleted uranium. Bush’s war remains unwon despite its five year duration and $1 trillion in out-of-pocket and incurred future costs.

Bush’s invasion of Iraq is a war crime under the Nuremberg standard, a direct counterpart to Hitler’s invasion of Poland. Both were based on lies and deception, and the declared reasons for both were masks for secret agendas.

Bush’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, his planned attack on Iran [See Considering a war with Iran: A discussion paper on WMD in the Middle East, PDF], and his support for Israel’s attack on Lebanon and genocidal policies toward the Palestinians have radicalized the Middle East and Muslims worldwide. American and Israeli aggression have vindicated Osama bin Laden’s propaganda, produced massive recruits for Al Qaeda, and unleashed destabilizing forces throughout the Middle East

Bush’s wars are strengthening Islam. Abdullah Gul has just been elected president of Turkey. Gul is described by the American media as “former Islamist.” Gul is supported by the ruling political party of prime minister Erdogan, another “former Islamist.”

Gul’s election to the presidency by 76% of the Turkish parliament has upset Turkey’s secularized military, long in the pay of the US government. On August 27 Turkey’s military chief, General Yasar Buyukanit, declared that “centers of evil” “systematically try to corrode the secular nature of the Turkish Republic.” [Turkish army warns of ‘centres of evil’ over Gul, By Donald Macintyre, Independent, (UK) August 28, 2007] The Turkish military, many believe at the request and pay of the US, has overthrown four Turkish governments since 1960, the last only 10 years ago.

With President Bush’s rant about bringing democracy to the Middle East,” the Turkish military is less able to impose Western values on an Islamic people. Similarly, the American puppet in Egypt cannot as easily suppress the Islamic values and aspirations of Egyptians.

US puppet rulers in Jordan and Pakistan, and even the Saudis and oil emirates, report the ground shaking under their feet. America’s puppet in Pakistan is in trouble, and his difficulties are compounded by US military incursions into Pakistan. The Bush administration is considering contingency plans to seize Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in the event the American puppet is overthrown, delusional contingency plans considering the over-stretched US military.

In the postwar years, the US managed with its money and influence to secularize an elite class in Middle Eastern countries, an elite that identifies with the West and not with their own cultures. This artificial elite has produced a wide political gap between the masses of the people and the rulers. Increasingly, Muslim masses perceive their rulers as allied with foreign powers against them.

In Iraq the American puppet government of Nuri al-Maliki seems to be on its last legs. The Sunnis have pulled their support, as has the most important Shi’ite leader, Muqtada al-Sadr, who realizes that the Maliki government is too complicit in US crimes to be a legitimate government of Iraq. With both the Bush administration and Congress blaming Maliki for America’s failure in Iraq, Maliki’s fate looks increasingly to be that of Ngo Dinh Diem, America’s Vietnam puppet who was blamed for the failure of US intervention in Vietnam.

Just as Hitler long denied German defeats on the Russian front and even in his last days was ordering non-existent German divisions to relieve Berlin, the Bush regime finds a new straw to grasp in Iraq each time the previous straw proves to be a delusion. The latest straw is “the surge.” While Americans surge, the British have been defeated in southern Iraq and have withdrawn to two bases in eerie similarity to the French at Dien Bien Phu. The British bases are subjected to between 30 and 60 mortar and rocket attacks each day. British generals want their troops out of Iraq. The longer UK Prime Minister Brown keeps them in Iraq in order to appease the Bush administration, the harder it will be to rescue the survivors.

With American retreat south to Kuwait now potentially cut off, how will the US extract its troops and equipment when American defeat can no longer be denied?

The Bush administration and its politicized military are already blaming the failure of “the surge” on Iran. Iran is alleged to be training and arming Iraqis who resist the US occupation. Bush has said he will hold Iran responsible. There is abundant evidence that the Bush administration is preparing yet another illegal attack on a Muslim country without assessing the consequences.

The Bush administration seems destined to produce such disasters that it will be driven to the use of nuclear weapons in order to avoid defeat. The Bush administration possesses the combination of evil and stupidity required to escalate a failed “cakewalk war” into a nuclear one.

Many of the administration’s most evil members—Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Rumsfeld, Rove, and Gonzales—have been discarded as the tragedy deepens, but Cheney remains ensconced as does the moron in the White House. Before they fall, Bush and Cheney will bring more sorrow to the world and more shame to Americans.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.

Terminology? by Guadamour (Kucinich)

GUADAMOUR

Dandelion Salad
featured writer
Guadamour’s Blog
Aug. 29, 2007

I’m having a major problem with terminology lately. And I am sure I’m not the only one having this problem, and more than likely not the only one who has written about it.

According to the dictionary I have available, Insurgency or insurrection is an armed uprising against an established civil or political authority, and persons engaging in an insurgency are Insurgents.

Iraq had an established political authority. The US and allied forces invaded Iraq and imposed a government on it. It was not an established political authority. It was forced down the throat of the people of Iraq.

How can the people opposing this imposition be termed Insurgents?

Why are they not called “Freedom Fighters” as Ronald Reagan called the Insurgents that fought against the newly and freely established political authority of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua?

It almost slipped my mind. The Sandinistas were “communists.”

Communism has never worked anywhere, except in China, Vietnam, Russia, North Korea and elsewhere.

But that’s unimportant. Communism is inherently evil. They are plotting to take out the rest of the world with nuclear weapons.

Irregardless of the fact that the only country to have ever used an atomic weapon is the united States of The Military-Industrial Complex

The “Insurgent” action in Iraq is akin to the founders of the United States of America opposing the foreign power of the British and King George.

I forgot. King George is still around.

Except for the fact that the British King George had more of a right to be in the United States than the United States has to be in Iraq. After all, the United States was at one time a colony of Britain.

Iraq is nothing to the United States except a case of, “What is our oil doing under your sand?”

It would seem that the oil companies want to keep us in Iraq to keep “our oil” under their sand.

It is more valuable that way. The oil companies make more money now than they ever have.

If the oil reserves in Iraq (the second largest known oil reserve in the world) are extracted, the price of oil will plummet.

Heaven forbid!

Profits would fall!

We must maintain an eternal presence in Iraq, less they sort things out among themselves and start extracting this extremely disruptive oil reserve.

The only candidate currently running for the nomination for president among the Republicrats that understands this is Kucinich.
He actually has a grasp of the facts, and is not paying lip service to every constituency imaginable.

He needs everyone’s support.

Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Paul are strictly a continuation of the present regime — Republicrats everyone.

Kucinich is the only “Real” Democrat.

see:

Dennis Kucinich: I Cannot Be Bought! (video)

Plans, Enthusiasm, & Peace by Guinea: The 1930’s Smut Peddler (Kucinich vids, & more)

Why Kucinich Is The Best Candidate (video; health care)

Olbermann: Bush’s Scary Tactics! + Bush Warns of “Nuclear Holocaust” + US Troops Detain 7 Iranian Delegates in Iraq + Americans to eat Humble Pie (videos)

Dandelion Salad

CSPANJUNKIEdotORG

AUGUST 28, 2007 KEITH OLBERMANN

AUGUST 28, 2007 CNN WOLF BLITZER

Can you say *escalating provocation*, boys and girls? I knew you could!
AUGUST 28, 2007 BBC WORLD

AUGUST 29, 2007 BBC WORLD

 

 

Iraq, Iran and the Moral Rot Infecting the Soul of America by Walter C. Uhler

Dandelion Salad

by Walter C. Uhler
Posted 27 August 2007

The more I read history, the more I’m convinced that the United States, far from being God’s appointed beacon for all mankind, was always a big talking, poor performing country in which the massive and willful stupidity of the majority engendered a moral rot incapable of withstanding manipulation and seduction by self-serving business/political interests. Thus, columnist Richard Cohen was merely acknowledging the latest example of such rot among the majority, when he asserted the Iraq War “was no mere failure of intelligence. This was a failure of character.”

“Character” implies steadfast adherence to a moral code. But, as Walter Lippmann so cogently expressed it: “No moral code, as such, will enable [a person] to know whether he is exercising his moral faculties on a real and an important event. For effective virtue, as Socrates pointed out long ago, is knowledge; and a code of right and wrong must wait upon a perception of the true and false.” (Walter Lippmann, The Phantom Public, p. 20)

By disdaining knowledge unless it’s practical (mainly in the service of business), technological (in the service of business) or biblically based — most Americans have proven themselves incapable of distinguishing between the true and the false throughout our history. Such willful ignorance has produced a culture of conformism (lending itself to manipulation) that was observed as early as the mid-19th century by Alexis de Tocqueville: “I know of no country where there is so little true independence of mind and freedom of discussion as in America.”

In 1984, two scholars revalidated Tocqueville’s observations in their book, The American Ethos. They concluded: “Most public debate in America…takes place within a relatively restricted segment of the ideological spectrum.” Yet, more than 150 years ago, both Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau thought they knew why.

Long before business was centralized by dehumanizing corporate power, Emerson could assert in 1841: [T]he general system of our trade…is a system of selfishness; is not dictated by the high sentiments of human nature; is not measured by the exact law of reciprocity; much less by the sentiments of love and heroism, but is a system of distrust, of concealment, of superior keenness, not of giving but of taking advantage….”

And Thoreau, writing in Walden would complain: “Most men, even in this comparatively free country, through mere ignorance and mistake, are so occupied with the factitious cares and superfluously coarse labors of life that its finer fruits cannot be plucked by them…Actually the laboring man has not the leisure for a true integrity day by day; he cannot afford to sustain the manliest relations to men; his labor would be depreciated in the market. He has no time to be any thing but a machine. How can he remember his ignorance – which his growth requires – who has so often to use his knowledge?”

Troubled by a culture based upon such “ignorance” and “taking advantage,” civic and religious leaders, dating back to Puritan New England, “emphasized literacy, especially sufficient literacy to read the Bible, as a means to bring civilization to their country.

“But, as Lee Soltow and Edward Stevens conclude, this push for literacy ‘was never more than a utilitarian value to serve greater spiritual and social ends.’ [Soltow and Stevens, The Rise of Literacy and the Common School in the United States, p. 18] It was a ‘particular‘ sort of literacy; certainly not designed to ‘open vistas of imagination.'” [Ibid, p. 22, quoted in Walter C. Uhler, “Democracy or dominion,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January/February 2004]

Because such “education” actually was designed to “instill proper beliefs and codes of conduct” [Soltow and Stevens, p. 22] rather than rigorous thinking in the minds of coarse, laboring Americans, one shouldn’t be surprised that the mere ability to read the Bible didn’t prevent the widespread propagation of the bogus “Curse of Ham” as the “most authoritative justification for ‘Negro slavery.'” [David Brion Davis, Inhuman Bondage: The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World, p. 66]

As actual readers of Genesis 9:18-27 should have known, Noah did not curse Ham, but Ham’s son, Canaan. Moreover, Genesis 9:18-27 contains nothing to hint of race or color. That hardly mattered, however, because, as David Brion Davis has concluded, “it was not an originally racist biblical script that led to the enslavement of ‘Ham’s black descendents,’ but rather the increasing enslavement of blacks that transformed biblical interpretation.” [Ibid, pp. 66-67] Moral rot!

Professor Davis offers a devastating comparison of the immorality of late 19th century Southern Christians, still embracing the bogus “Curse of Ham,” and the barbarian Tupinamba slaveholders in 16th century Brazil. According to Davis, the Tupinamba took great delight in humiliating their male slaves, before eventually murdering them and eating them – even saving specific bodily organs for honored guests. According to Davis, “[T]his freedom to degrade, dishonor, enslave, and even kill and eat gave the Tupinamba not only solidarity but a sense of superiority and transcendence.” [Ibid, p. 29]

Although late 19th century American lynch mobs did not eat the blacks they murdered, a rotten superiority and solidarity were served as “Southern whites eagerly gathered as souvenirs the lynched victims’ fingers, toes, bones, ears and teeth.” They called them “nigger buttons.” [Ibid]

Unfortunately, as Anatol Lieven has pointed out, “for a century and a half…the desire to preserve first slavery and then absolute Black separation and subordination had contributed enormously to the closing of the Southern mind, with consequences for America as a whole which has lasted down to our own day.” [Lieven, America Right or Wrong p. 112]

For example, as Stephen R. Haynes has written, in Noah’s Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery, the Rev. Benjamin Palmer delivered a 1901 New Year’s Day, “Century Sermon” in New Orleans, in which he “utilized Noah’s prophecy as an ex post facto rationale for his government’s removal of Native Americans ‘from the earth.'” And, as Haynes also notes, “when legal segregation came under concerted attack in the 1950s, the first impulse for many white Christians was to revive the curse to serve as a biblical defense of racial separation.” [p. 103].

Keep in mind, (1) the Greater South extends beyond the borders of the former Confederacy, perhaps as far north as Route 40, which cuts across the middle of Ohio, Indiana and Illinois [Lieven, p. 107], (2) Southern evangelical Protestant religion has spread to other parts of the country [Ibid.] and (3) there are many Southerners and other Americans to whom these generalizations do not apply.

Nevertheless, says Lieven, “a process may have been at work in the United States which could be called the ‘principle of the Claymore mine.’

“A Claymore is essentially a shaped plastic case packed with explosives and steel balls. The explosion, blocked at the rear and sides, hurls shrapnel in the direction of the enemy. Politicians and even media and business figures who express racist hostility to domestic minorities in public now often pay a very heavy price, even though everyone is well aware that, in private, such attitudes continue to stream through much of White American society.

“But as with a Claymore mine, the suppression of feelings at home may have only increased the force with which they are directed against foreigners, who remain a legitimate and publicly accepted target of hatred.” [Ibid, p. 46] It’s called bellicose nationalism.

And it’s easy to tap into such moral rot. Take the candid 1989 admission by first generation neoconservative, Irving Kristol, the all-too-deserving father of the despicable “thug,” William Kristol. It was the father who boasted: “If the president goes to the American people and wraps himself in the American flag and lets Congress wrap itself in the white flag of surrender, the president will win…The American people had never heard of Grenada. There is no reason they should have. The reason we gave for intervention – the risk to American medical students there – was phony but the reaction of the American people was absolutely and overwhelmingly favorable. They had no idea what was going on but they backed the president. They always will.” [Ibid, p. 166]

Such moral rot explains why, when presidential candidate George W. Bush smugly asserted, “I may not know where Kosovo is, but I know what I believe,” he was not judged to be a dimwit, but a man of character. Such moral rot also explains the ease with which an evil president and vice president — with the cynical aid of America’s neocons — could manipulate the ignorant fears and blind rage of Americans into support for an illegal, immoral unprovoked war against Iraq.

Moreover, such moral rot explains why, even in the disastrous wake of the evil invasion he inspired, Darth Cheney could send out Christmas cards containing Benjamin Franklin’s words: “And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?” And, alas, such moral rot explains why President Bush – who, until two months before ordering his evil invasion of Iraq didn’t even know that the country was populated by Sunnis and Shiites – could feel sufficiently confident about the collective stupidity of Americans to erroneously compare Iraq to Vietnam (a war that the moral coward supported, but worked so mightily to dodge).

Moral rot also explains American’s current inability to see through Bush’s “surge” propaganda. Simply consider two incontestable truths: (1) “As of late-August, no progress had been made in achieving the key objective of the “surge” – to provide safe space for political progress at the national level.” [Anthony Cordesman, “Iraq’s Insurgency and Civil Violence: Developments through Late August 2007,” p. ii] and (2) such political progress, in the form of national reconciliation, cannot occur because the Shiites now in power consider their permanent political ascendancy to be predicated upon their ability to outlast the American occupation.

As the New York Times correctly noted: Mr. Maliki’s government “is the logical product of the system the United States created, one that deliberately empowered the long-persecuted Shiite majority and deliberately marginalized the long-dominant Sunni Arab minority. It was all but sure to produce someone very like Mr. Maliki, a sectarian Shiite far more interested in settling scores than in reconciling all Iraqis to share power in a unified and peaceful democracy.” [“The Problem Isn’t Mr. Maliki,” New York Times, August 24, 2007] Of course, it’s difficult to foresee such problems, if you’re a president who did not even know that the country he was preparing to invade contained such Shiites and Sunnis. Moral rot!

Finally, moral rot now explains what appears to be the inevitable march to war against Iran, or at least the bombing of its nuclear energy facilities. Having supported an illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq, which has inflicted untold suffering upon its people, most Americans – including Americans currently sitting in congress and running for president – find themselves incapable of thinking through just how to deal peacefully with Iran, the sole regional power to emerge preeminent from the debacle we initiated.

And, yet, we still consider ourselves an exceptional people!

Walter C. Uhler is an independent scholar and freelance writer whose work has been published in numerous publications, including The Nation, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the Journal of Military History, the Moscow Times and the San Francisco Chronicle. He also is President of the Russian-American International Studies Association (RAISA).



FAIR USE NOTICE: This blog may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.

The Spy Who Came Out of the Shadow by Andrew G. Marshall

by Andrew G. Marshall
featured writer
Dandelion Salad
Global Research, August 28, 2007

Recently, it was announced that the use of US spy satellites is now to be expanded to include a domestic usage. As reported by the Wall Street Journal, “The U.S.’s top intelligence official has greatly expanded the range of federal and local authorities who can get access to information from the nation’s vast network of spy satellites in the U.S,” and that “The decision, made three months ago by Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell, places for the first time some of the U.S.’s most powerful intelligence-gathering tools at the disposal of domestic security officials. The move was authorized in a May 25 memo sent to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff asking his department to facilitate access to the spy network on behalf of civilian agencies and law enforcement.”1 The article continued, “Until now, only a handful of federal civilian agencies, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the U.S. Geological Survey, have had access to the most basic spy-satellite imagery, and only for the purpose of scientific and environmental study,” however, now “According to officials, one of the department’s first objectives will be to use the network to enhance border security, determine how best to secure critical infrastructure and help emergency responders after natural disasters. Sometime next year, officials will examine how the satellites can aid federal and local law-enforcement agencies, covering both criminal and civil law. The department is still working on determining how it will engage law enforcement officials and what kind of support it will give them.”

The article went on to explain the usage of these newly granted satellite spying powers, stating, “Access to the high-tech surveillance tools would, for the first time, allow Homeland Security and law-enforcement officials to see real-time, high-resolution images and data, which would allow them, for example, to identify smuggler staging areas, a gang safehouse, or possibly even a building being used by would-be terrorists to manufacture chemical weapons,” and further, “Plans to provide DHS with significantly expanded access have been on the drawing board for over two years. The idea was first talked about as a possibility by the Central Intelligence Agency after 9/11 as a way to help better secure the country. ‘It is an idea whose time has arrived,’ says Charles Allen, the DHS’s chief intelligence officer, who will be in charge of the new program. DHS officials say the program has been granted a budget by Congress and has the approval of the relevant committees in both chambers.” These new powers will be placed in the hands of a newly formed office within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), called the ‘National Applications Office’ (NAO). And in a concerning statement, the article said, “Unlike electronic eavesdropping, which is subject to legislative and some judicial control, this use of spy satellites is largely uncharted territory.”

The Washington Post reported on this story as well, saying “A program approved by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Department of Homeland Security will allow broader domestic use of secret overhead imagery beginning as early as this fall, with the expectation that state and local law enforcement officials will eventually be able to tap into technology once largely restricted to foreign surveillance,” and that “Administration officials say the program will give domestic security and emergency preparedness agencies new capabilities in dealing with a range of threats, from illegal immigration and terrorism to hurricanes and forest fires. But the program, described yesterday by the Wall Street Journal, quickly provoked opposition from civil liberties advocates, who said the government is crossing a well-established line against the use of military assets in domestic law enforcement.”2 The article continued, “Although the federal government has long permitted the use of spy-satellite imagery for certain scientific functions — such as creating topographic maps or monitoring volcanic activity — the administration’s decision would provide domestic authorities with unprecedented access to high-resolution, real-time satellite photos. They could also have access to much more. A statement issued yesterday by the Department of Homeland Security said that officials envision ‘more robust access’ not only to imagery but also to ‘the collection, analysis and production skills and capabilities of the intelligence community’.”

Important to note is the following excerpt from the very same above-mentioned article, “Allen said the agreement with the DNI grew out of the general impetus for wider intelligence-sharing in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when administration and intelligence officials began examining the possibility of increasing officials’ access to secret data as a means of strengthening the nation’s defenses. The program was formally authorized in May in a memo by Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. The two officials have been coordinating for months, as recommended in a 2005 study headed by Keith Hall, then the director of the National Reconnaissance Office. Hall’s group cited an ‘urgent need’ for expanding sharing of remote sensing data to domestic groups other than scientific researchers. ‘Opportunities to better protect the nation are being missed,’ the report said.” Further, the article states that, “Oversight of the department’s use of the overhead imagery data would come from officials in the Department of Homeland Security and from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and would consist of reviews by agency inspectors general, lawyers and privacy officers.”

The admission that this idea was fostered under the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), is very significant, because as the Associated Press reported in 2002, “In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn’t terrorism — it was to be a simulated accident,” and that “Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet would crash into one of the four towers at the agency’s headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure,” and it further stated, “Agency chiefs came up with the scenario to test employees’ ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art Haubold. No actual plane was to be involved — to simulate the damage from the crash, some stairwells and exits were to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate the building.” The same article explained that, “The National Reconnaissance Office operates many of the nation’s spy satellites. It draws its personnel from the military and the CIA,” and further, “After the Sept. 11 attacks, most of the 3,000 people who work at agency headquarters were sent home, save for some essential personnel,”3 [Emphasis added].

As Webster Tarpley mentioned in his book, 9/11: Synthetic Terror, “The NRO [National Reconnaissance Office] was a super-secret agency responsible for spy satellites and other eavesdropping from space. It was created in 1960, and its existence was not acknowledged for some 32 years. The NRO draws its personnel from the military and Central Intelligence Agency [CIA] and has a budget equal to the combined budgets of both the CIA and the National Security Agency. On 11 September 2001, the NRO director was Keith R. Hall, who had headed the agency since 1996. In his capacity as DNRO [Director of NRO], Hall was responsible for the acquisition and operation of all United States space-based reconnaissance and intelligence systems. At the same time Hall also served as Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Space. As Nico Haupt has pointed out, Booz Allen Hamilton [a global strategy and technology consulting firm] is a prominent subcontractor for the NRO. The obvious effect of evacuating the NRO was at least temporarily to blind institutional US intelligence to events which could have been monitored from outer space. NRO could have provided a real-time view of the air space over North America; as a result of the evacuation, this may not have been available. The advantages for the perpetrators are obvious.”4 Keith Hall, the head of the agency, who would have been a pivotal figure involved with the plane-into-building drill, which took place on 9/11, and as the Associated Press article had mentioned, after the actual “real world” 9/11 (plane-into-building) attacks were underway, the NRO was evacuated, except for ‘some essential personnel’. Without a doubt, one such personnel would have been Keith Hall.

Further, it was reported that, “On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. [John] Fulton and his team at the CIA were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building,” and in giving the biography of Fulton, it was explained that, “John Fulton’s 25 years in the intelligence community has contributed to his recognition as an expert in risk & threat response analysis, scenario gaming, and strategic planning. He is on staff for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), currently serving as Chief of the Strategic War Gaming Division of the National Reconnaissance Office, and as a member of U.S. Joint Forces Command’s Project Alpha – a prestigious ‘think tank’ for advanced concepts related to such issues as homeland security,” not to mention, “His counter-terrorism and homeland security responsibilities include advising the Director Central Intelligence Staff for Homeland Security, the U.S. Marshall’s Office, and collaboration with the National Security Council.”5

The ‘Project Alpha’ think tank “is a U.S. Joint Forces Command rapid idea analysis group. It was created to “scout the future” and identify high-impact ideas from industry, academia and the defense community that could transform the Department of Defense into an organization better equipped to deal with the uncertain landscape of the future,” and that some of the reports produced by this group have suggested, “Using lessons learned from bees and ants, the idea is to use numerous unmanned systems working in collaboration with each other to converge from disperse locations to strike and disable targets. Entities control themselves through use of digital signal to direct other entities to a target or to avoid a target. One person could monitor and control lots of small cheap unmanned vehicles rather than a team controlling one UAV [Unmanned Aerial Vehicle].”6

So, John Fulton and Keith Hall were two individuals who were almost definitely among the stay-behind personnel at the NRO on September 11, 2001, which would have had the ability to monitor all the happenings in the North American air space that day. Not to mention, they were instrumental in running a drill that acted as a cover for the actual “real world” attacks that occurred. It is this very same Keith Hall who wrote the 2005 report on recommendations for enhancing the US security apparatus to ‘prevent’ another 9/11-type event, which outlined as a specific recommendation to “expand sharing” of information such as satellite imagery. However, this very concept, that he was writing a report to “help” security efforts is absurd, giving that he would have been a key individual who would be subject to a serious independent investigation for possible criminal actions on 9/11, and he is supposed to come up with security recommendations? Further, Keith Hall, after leaving the NRO as Director, joined the Board of Directors of Booz Allen Hamilton,7 the same consulting firm, which was a prominent contractor for the NRO.

Other people affiliated with Booz Allen Hamilton are James Woolsey,8 former CIA director and member of Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the neo-con think tank that called for a “new Pearl Harbor” in September 2000, in order to justify an enormous increase in defense spending and to invade Iraq, Iran and North Korea, among other countries, all of which is outlined in their document, ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’.”9 Another person affiliated with Booz Allen Hamilton is Dov Zakheim, who, from 2001-2004, served as Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and Chief Financial Officer for the Department of Defense, and who, during the 2000 Presidential campaign, served as a senior foreign policy adviser to the then-governor George W. Bush and is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR),10 Pamela Lentz, who is on the Booz Board of Directors since 1994, “and now serves as client service officer for the firm’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and military intelligence markets, which include organizations within the U.S. Navy, Air Force, Army, Unified Combatant Commands, and Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence,” as well as that some of her projects have included “Managing a 120-person team supporting the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), providing a full range of systems engineering and technical assistance,” and “Managing a task supporting the DIA’s [Defense Intelligence Agency’s] Human Factors Analysis work,” not to mention, “Overseeing strategic planning activities for the intelligence organization at the Joint Forces Command,”11 which is the same organization that headed the “Project Alpha” think tank of which John Fulton was involved with, the man overseeing the 9/11 attack drill scenario.

Another very interesting person who is affiliated with Booz Allen Hamilton is Dale Watson, who was Executive Assistant FBI Director for Counterterrorism, and that “As a principal in Booz Allen’s Global Strategic Security practice, Watson will work to build public-private sector partnerships in support of the nation’s security and help ensure resilience in corporations, government agencies, and critical infrastructures.”12 But what’s most interesting about this individual is the role he has played in the Counterterrorism Department in the FBI. As reported by the Washington Post in 2002, “In separate cases, two new FBI whistle-blowers are alleging mismanagement and lax security — and in one case possible espionage — among those who translate and oversee some of the FBI’s most sensitive, top-secret wiretaps in counterintelligence and counterterrorist investigations,” and “That whistle-blower, Sibel Edmonds, 32, a former wiretap translator in the Washington field office, raised suspicions about a co-worker’s connections to a group under surveillance.” On top of this, the article mentions, “The FBI confirmed that Edmonds’s co-worker had been part of an organization that was a target of top-secret surveillance and that the same co-worker had ‘unreported contacts’ with a foreign government official subject to the surveillance,” and that “the linguist failed to translate two communications from the targeted foreign government official,” and most importantly, “The allegations add a new dimension to the growing criticism of the FBI, which has centered in recent weeks on the bureau’s failure to heed internal warnings about al Qaeda leading up to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.”13 The article continues, “In the second whistle-blower case, John M. Cole, 41, program manager for FBI foreign intelligence investigations covering India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, said counterintelligence and counterterrorism training has declined drastically in recent years as part of a continuing pattern of poor management,” and that “Cole also said he had observed what he believed was a security lapse regarding the screening and hiring of translators.”

With Sibel Edmonds, she joined the FBI shortly after 9/11, as they announced their need for Middle Eastern translators, and “She was fired less than a year later in March 2002 for reporting shoddy work and security breaches to her supervisors that could have prevented those attacks,” and that “Even though she followed all appropriate procedures for reporting her concerns up the chain of command, Edmonds was retaliated against and fired. After her termination, many of Edmonds’ allegations were confirmed by the FBI in unclassified briefings to Congress. More than two years later, in May 2004, the Justice Department retroactively classified Edmonds’ briefings, as well as the FBI briefings, and forced Members of Congress who had the information posted on their Web sites to remove the documents.”14 So, Sibel was fired because she was exposing flaws in the FBI’s security which could have prevented the 9/11 attacks, and since then, she has suggested that the government was covering up, and responding to a question on the Alex Jones Radio Show, she stated, “Well, that is the whole point, Alex. They are not letting out all the evidence. And since we don’t have it to this date. It is as I was telling you, the [unintelligible] Force has been all classified. They also had 35 pages– and this is according to Senator Graham– the most important evidence and information on 9/11 by the Senate and House Joint Inquiry that happened in 2002 classified and 5 years later everything about it is classified. And again, you are still having people who are gagged. So this already points out that they don’t want the evidence out. And they are keeping the evidence out of the public,” and she further commented, “The evidence points to a massive government cover-up,” as well as responding to a question that was asked about whether she believed that all available evidence is pointing to 9/11 being an inside job, she said, “Well, again, considering the level of cover-up and the length at which they have gone to gag people and prevent information– this information from coming out, I would say yes.”15

As the previously mentioned Washington Post article about the two FBI whistleblowers reported, “Edmonds and Cole have written about their concerns to high-level FBI officials. Edmonds wrote to Dale Watson, the bureau’s counterterrorism chief,” and every successive individual she reported her concerns to, she heard nothing and nothing was done, until she was fired. This same Dale Watson who Sibel wrote her concerns to without action being taken, is the very Dale Watson who joined Booz Allen Hamilton. As reported by Global Free Press, “Booz-Allen Hamilton (BAH), another global leader in strategy and technology consulting, runs the Military Staff College of Saudi Arabia. But BAH has its corporate headquarters in McLean, Virginia. On August 15th, 2002, Dale Watson, former FBIHQ, went to work for Booz. No one ever complained that it was Watson who was unwilling to connect the dots during the increased warnings on a pending attack against America in Summer, 2001, and it is clear why: Watson formerly worked for the CIA and seems to have political support from their headquarters.”16

Keith Hall, the man who was Director of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) during the 9/11 attack-scenario war game on 9/11 and who later joined Booz Allen Hamilton, had, while working for the NRO, written the report suggesting that the US expand its domestic use of spy satellites, and it was later reported, as of March 2007, “Keith Hall accepts a prominent role in overseeing GPS support for U.S. military interests—and for the needs of a global population,” and further, “Comprised of a constellation of about two dozen U.S. government satellites, the Global Positioning System (GPS) was built by the DoD to aid in national security,” as well as the fact that “With the potential of the GPS having such an enormous global impact, the President established the National Space-Based PNT Executive Committee in 2005 to advise federal agencies on GPS-related issues. Chaired by the Deputy Secretaries of Defense and Transportation, the committee includes officials from the Departments of State, Commerce, and Homeland Security, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and NASA.” It was further reported that, “In March 2007, Hall was appointed to the 24-member PNT Advisory Board,” of which other members of the board include people from United Airlines, Ford Motor Company, OnStar Corporation, US Chamber of Commerce, Boeing, and the CIA.17

As the Director of National Intelligence and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security put into the action the ideas of Keith Hall, regarding using Satellite surveillance for domestic “security”, the man put in charge of the new office which runs this system, the National Applications Office (NAO), is Charles Allen, the Chief Intelligence Officer of Homeland Security. His Department of Homeland Security biography states, “Mr. Charles Allen is the Assistant Secretary for the Department’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis reporting directly to Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff. In this role, he is responsible for coordinating with the Intelligence Community and providing guidance on Homeland Security specific issues,” and that “Prior to joining the Department of Homeland Security, Mr. Allen served as the Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Collection since June 1998. In this capacity, he was responsible for Intelligence Community collection and requirements management and reported to the Deputy Director of Central Intelligence (DDCI) for Community Management. Mr. Allen also chaired the National Intelligence Collection Board, which ensured that collection was integrated and coordinated across the Intelligence Community.”18 This means that Charles Allen was a principal figure in the CIA, whose responsibilities included analyzing and collecting various intelligence and information, and reporting his analysis to the Deputy Director, and it just so happens that Allen had this position on 9/11. Again, here is another individual whose activities prior to 9/11 should be investigated in an independent inquiry.

Since the activities within high levels of the government that day remain largely a secret today, and the resources are not available to do an independent investigation of his personal actions on and leading up to 9/11, I will conduct an independent investigation into the history of Charles Allen himself, leading up to the present day, to examine who this man is who now is responsible for running the new domestic satellite surveillance program in Homeland Security. Allen’s biography on the Homeland Security website further states that, “Mr. Allen served in the CIA since 1958, holding a variety of positions of increasing responsibility both in analytic and managerial capacities. From 1974-1977, he served overseas in an intelligence liaison capacity and from 1977-1980 held management positions in the Directorate of Intelligence. From 1980 to November 1982, he served as a program manager of a major classified project, reporting to DDCI’s [Frank] Carlucci, Inman, and McMahon, respectively,” the same Frank Carlucci who was Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm which had racked up some notable employees and investors, such as “the first President Bush and his secretary of state, James Baker; [Former British Prime Minister] John Major; one-time World Bank treasurer Afsaneh Masheyekhi and several south-east Asian powerbrokers,” as well as the fact that “among the firm’s multi-million-dollar investors were members of the family of Osama bin Laden,” and “former Philippines president Fidel Ramos is an adviser, as is former Thai premier Anand Panyarachun – as well as former Bundesbank president Karl Otto Pohl, and Arthur Levitt, former chairman of the SEC, the US stock market regulator,” and the Guardian article which reported this also continued, stating, “more investors, including the international financier George Soros and, in 1995, the wealthy Saudi Binladin family,” and that “The first president Bush is understood to have visited the Binladins in Saudi Arabia twice on the firm’s behalf,” and even “the current President Bush’s own links to the firm go far deeper. In 1990, he was appointed to the board of one of Carlyle’s first purchases.”19

Back to Charles Allen; his Homeland Security biography further stated, “In December 1982, Mr. Allen was detailed to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense, where he held a senior position in strategic mobilization planning. In 1985, Director Casey asked Mr. Allen to return to CIA in the capacity of a National Intelligence Officer (NIO) for Counterterrorism. In February 1986, he also was appointed Chief of Intelligence in CIA’s newly established Counterterrorist Center,” and that “Mr. Allen served as the NIO for Warning from 1988 to 1994. In this capacity, he was the principal adviser to the DCI [Director of the CIA] on national-level warning intelligence and chaired the Intelligence Community’s Warning Committee,” and “In October 2005, CIA Director Goss awarded Mr. Allen the Distinguished Intelligence Medal, the CIA’s highest and most coveted award. In addition, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence Negroponte awarded Mr. Allen the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal in October 2005.”

Off the official biography, we learn a very different story about Mr. Allen. For example, the New York Times reported on an impending CIA report in 2005, about the agency’s performance up until the 9/11 attacks, and it stated, “In 1998, after Al Qaeda’s bombing of two American embassies in East Africa, it was Mr. [Charles] Allen whom Mr. Tenet assigned to organize the agency’s efforts against the terrorist network, according to testimony Mr. Tenet gave last year [2004]. He said that at the advice of Mr. Allen, he created a special unit with officers from the C.I.A., the eavesdropping National Security Agency and the satellite photo agency to meet daily and focus on Al Qaeda’s leaders and headquarters in Afghanistan,” and that he was never even interviewed by the Commission investigating the 9/11 attacks.20 More discussion on the report entailed that “A long-awaited CIA inspector general’s report on the agency’s performance before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks includes detailed criticism of more than a dozen former and current agency officials, aiming its sharpest language at George Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, according to a former intelligence officer who was briefed on the findings and another government official who has seen the report,” and further, “One earlier draft of the inspector-general’s report criticized the management of the Counterterrorist Center, or CTC, and the Directorate of Operations.”21 So, Charles Allen, who was a leading figure in the CIA’s Al-Qaeda surveillance and tracking unit, which used satellite surveillance and the NSA (National Security Agency), up until and during the 9/11 attacks, was not interviewed by the 9/11 Commission. Well, considering his position, maybe he should have been; after all, he was involved with tracking, surveilling, and spying on Al-Qaeda’s leadership. Seems somewhat relevant. In fact, it was noted in the Pulitzer Prize winning book, Ghost Wars, that in the late spring of 2000, “[Chief Counter-Terrorism Adviser Richard] Clarke asked his longtime acquaintance in the national security bureaucracy, Charles Allen, who ran all of the CIA’s intelligence collection efforts, to work with Admiral Scott Fry, head of operations at the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on fresh approaches to the bin Laden problem.”22 So why was he not questioned?

As the Political Science Quarterly reported in the summer of 2002, a journal of the Academy of Political Science, that, in the run-up to the 1991 Persian Gulf War, “One high-level intelligence official on the National Intelligence Council (NIC), charged with advising the DCI [Director of Central Intelligence], was more forward leaning than the analytic judgments published in the NID [National Intelligence Daily – a CIA intelligence publication]. The National Intelligence Officer (NIO) for Warning Charles Allen on 25 July issued a ‘warning of war’ memorandum in which he stressed that Iraq had nearly achieved the capability to launch a corps-sized operation of sufficient mass to occupy much of Kuwait. The memo judged that the chances of a military operation of some sort at better than 60 percent,” and that “Allen on 26 July visited NSC’s senior director for the Middle East Richard Haass [now President of the Council on Foreign Relations] and briefed him with satellite imagery that showed the magnitude of Iraq’s military build-up near Kuwait,” and further, “Allen on 1 August personally informed Haass that an Iraqi attack against Kuwait was imminent. Haass, in turn, informed [National Security Adviser Brent] Scowcroft, but the White House refrained from moving to a crisis mode.”23

But, during the war, Charles Allen played a very sinister and concerning role. In a summation cited from the book Crusade: The Untold Story of the Persian Gulf War, it was stated that, “Charles Allen, CIA’s National Intelligence Officer for Warning supported the selection of bomb targets during the first Gulf War. He coordinated intelligence with Colonel John Warden, who headed the Air Force’s planning cell known as ‘Checkmate.’ On February 10, 1991 Allen presented his estimate to Col. Warden that Public Shelter Number 25 in the Southwestern Baghdad suburb of Amiriyah had become an alternative command post and showed no sign of being used as a civilian bomb shelter. On February 11, Shelter Number 25 was added to the Air Force’s attack plan. At 4:30 am the morning of February 13, two F-117 stealth bombers each dropped a 2,000 pound, laser-guided, GBU-27 munition on the shelter. The first cut through ten feet of reinforced concrete before a time-delayed fuze exploded. Minutes later the second bomb followed the path cut by the first bomb,” and that, “Satellite photos and electronic intercepts indicating this alternative use were regarded as circumstantial and unconvincing to Brigadier General Buster Glosson, who had primary responsibility for targeting. Glosson’s comment was that the assessment wasn’t ‘worth a shit.’ A human source in Iraq, who had previously proven accurate warned the CIA that Iraqi intelligence had begun operating from the shelter. On February 11, Shelter Number 25 was added to the Air Force’s attack plan.” Lastly, it stated, “In the shelter at the time of the bombing were hundreds of Iraqi civilians. More than 400 people, mostly women and children were killed. Men and boys over the age of 15 had left the shelter to give the women and children some privacy. Jeremy Bowen, a BBC correspondent, was one of the first television reporters on the scene. Bowen was given access to the site and did not find evidence of military use.”24

This is very important, as it explains that the man who is now responsible for domestic satellite surveillance, running the unit in the Homeland Security Department whose purpose is to analyze, interpret, and forward intelligence and satellite imagery to local law enforcement agencies in the United States, has, in the past, in a very similar position of interpreting and analyzing satellite intelligence, been responsible for the deaths of 400 innocent women and children. Moreover, the fact that the General who was in charge of targeting rejected Allen’s proposal of target because it appeared “circumstantial and unconvincing” (until a field CIA agent spoke up with an identical, and equally false, report), is very concerning because now, Allen will not be “recommending” targets or any other satellite surveillance-related materials, because now Allen will be making the selections, as head of the unit.

In 1991, then-President George Bush nominated a man by the name of Robert Gates to be the new CIA Director [and who is currently the present George W. Bush’s Secretary of Defense]. This brought to light, however, some more reminders and mentions of the Iran-Contra Scandal, which broke in the late 80s. The New York Times reported that, “Mr. Gates has done his best to dispel the doubts that forced him to withdraw when he was first nominated in 1987. He has seemed contrite and open-minded and cites his broad experience and future vision. But senators would do well to consider at least three criteria. Whether his past performance shows him to warrant their trust . . . whether he has earned the confidence of agency employees . . . and above all, whether he, an insider, is the right person to lead the agency into uncertain times. On each count, Mr. Gates falls short,” and further, it stated, “David Boren, the committee chairman, commends Mr. Gates for forthrightness. Yet he overlooks occasions when Mr. Gates helped skew intelligence assessments and was demonstrably blind to illegality. The illegality concerns the Iran-contra scandal. Mr. Gates contends he was `out of the loop’ on decisions about what to tell Congress. And he defends his professed ignorance on grounds of deniability–that he was shielding the C.I.A. from involvement. These contentions defy belief.” The article further explains, “The testimony of other puts Mr. Gates, on at least two occasions, very much in the loop. He supervised preparation of [CIA] Director William Casey’s deceitful testimony to Congress about the scandal. And one C.I.A. analyst, Charles Allen, says he informed Mr. Gates, before it came to light, of three unforgettable details: Oliver North’s involvement, the markup of prices of arms sold surreptitiously to Iran, and diversion of the proceeds into a fund for covert operations. In a telling lapse of his reputedly formidable memory, Mr. Gates could not recall the details when Congress asked two months later.”25

This was further mentioned during Gates’ Senate Confirmation Hearings, at which it was revealed that, “On September 9, 1986, a senior CIA analyst, Charles Allen, wrote a memo on the arms sales to Iran, a copy of which went to Mr. Gates. He also claims to have talked to Mr. Gates regarding shipments of arms to Iran. Mr. Gates cannot recall the conversation or receiving the memo,” and that, “A September 8, 1986, entry in Oliver North’s notebook on the proceeds from the arms sales to Iran includes a notation `Gates supportive.’ Another entry on September 30 includes the entry `Call Charlie [Allen] Re: letter to Gates.’ Mr. Gates claims he does not know the meaning of these notes. As Deputy DCI [Director of Central Intelligence] since April 1986 Mr. Gates was an authorized recipient of all the intelligence on the Iran initiative. He admits he may have scanned the relevant memos, but claims he did not bother to try and understand the codes,” and further, “Allen has testified that when he met with Mr. Gates on October 1, 1986, Mr. Gates appeared to already have some general awareness of pricing problems with the sale of weapons to Iran. According to Allen, `Mr. Gates captured the central message that I had brought to him, that there was possibly a diversion occurring and this was a matter of serious concern’.”26

It was further reported in the book, Eclipse: The Last Days of the CIA, that “A number of outspoken analysts bitterly criticized him [Allen] for bending his views to political expediency during the Iran initiative. Allen, they said, took advantage of his access to [CIA Director William] Casey to promote a political line – that an opening could be made to Iranian moderates-that could not be supported by the information they had gathered on Iran’s internal politics. Allen played the White House game, these critics claimed, by using contrived information provided by CIA consultant George Cave to support the Iran program. ‘Charlie Allen briefed the NSC on the basis of Cave’s disinformation,’ a senior CIA analyst explains.”27 Charles Allen was even reprimanded by the new CIA Director William Webster, because Allen failed to properly comply with the Director’s request for total cooperation in the CIA’s own Iran-Contra investigation. However, Charles Allen got a very slick lawyer to get the reprimand lifted, whose name was James Woolsey, later to become a CIA Director himself, and later still, a member of the Project for the New American Century, and today, working with Booz Allen Hamilton.28

As Webster Tarpley notes in his book, George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography, on July of 1985, “Vice President George Bush was designated by President Reagan to lead the Task Force on Combating Terrorism (or Terrorism Task Force). Bush’s task force was a means to sharply concentrate the powers of government into the hands of the Bush clique, for such policies as the Iran-Contra armaments schemes,” and that Charles Allen of the CIA was a Senior Review Group member of the Task Force, and other members included John Poindexter, Oliver North [both convicted in Iran-Contra], and Noel Koch,29 who was Deputy to Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Armitage [who would go on to be Deputy Secretary of State during the George W. Bush administration]. Tarpley further mentioned, “CIA official Charles E. Allen, a member of George Bush’s Terrorism Task Force, wrote an update on the arms-for-hostages dealings with Iran. Allen’s memo was a debriefing of an unnamed member of the group of US government officials participating in the arms negotiations with the Iranians. The unnamed US official (from the context, probably NSC [National Security Council] terrorism consultant Michael Ledeen [who was a principal adviser to the current President, George W. Bush on foreign affairs30]) is referred to in the text as ‘Subject’. Allen wrote: ‘[Speaker of the Iranian Parliament] Rafsanjani . . . believes Vice President George Bush is orchestrating the US initiative with Iran. In fact, according to Subject, Rafsanjani believes that Bush is the most powerful man in the US because in addition to being Vice President, he was once Director of CIA.”31

Perhaps scariest of all, is the fact that as mentioned in the book, Eclipse: The Last Days of the CIA, that “From 1980 to November 1982, Allen was detailed to the Office of the Secretary of Defense, where he was deputy director of a continuity of government [COG] planning project. A colleague quoted Allen as saying during a COG meeting, ‘our job is to throw the Constitution out the window’. His assignment to the COG project brought him into contact with Oliver North, who was delegated to monitor COG’s findings by National Security Adviser Robert McFarlane.”32 As it was even stated in Allen’s Homeland Security biography, “From 1980 to November 1982, he [Allen] served as a program manager of a major classified project, reporting to DDCI’s [Deputy Director of Central Intelligence, Frank] Carlucci, Inman, and McMahon, respectively.”

As UC Berkley Professor Peter Dale Scott pointed out in a recent article, “The Halliburton subsidiary KBR (formerly Brown and Root) announced on Jan. 24 that it had been awarded a $385 million contingency contract by the Department of Homeland Security to build detention camps. Two weeks later, on Feb. 6, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced that the Fiscal Year 2007 federal budget would allocate over $400 million to add 6,700 additional detention beds (an increase of 32 percent over 2006),” and that “The contract calls for a response to ‘an emergency influx of immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs’ in the event of other emergencies, such as ‘a natural disaster.’ ‘New programs’ is of course a term with no precise limitation,” and he further mentions, “Since 9/11 the Bush administration has implemented a number of inter-related programs, which had been planned for secretly in the 1980s under President Reagan. These so-called ‘Continuity of Government’ or COG proposals included vastly expanded detention capabilities, warrantless eavesdropping and detention, and preparations for greater use of martial law.” On top of this, Scott reveals that, “Prominent among the secret planners of this program in the 1980s were then-Congressman Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, who at the time was in private business as CEO of the drug company G.D. Searle. The principal desk officer for the program was Oliver North, until he was forced to resign in 1986 over Iran-Contra. When planes crashed into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, Vice President Cheney’s response, after consulting President Bush, was to implement a classified ‘Continuity of Government’ plan for the first time, according to the 9/11 Commission report. As the Washington Post later explained, the order ‘dispatched a shadow government of about 100 senior civilian managers to live and work secretly outside Washington, activating for the first time long-standing plans’.” In discussing Oliver North’s Rex-84 COG (Continuity of Government) plans in 1984, Scott continued, “This called for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to round up and detain 400,000 imaginary ‘refugees,’ in the context of ‘uncontrolled population movements’ over the Mexican border into the United States. North’s exercise, which reportedly contemplated possible suspension of the United States Constitution, led to questions being asked during the Iran-Contra Hearings. One concern then was that North’s plans for expanded internment and detention facilities would not be confined to ‘refugees’ alone.”33

So, as this detention camp program is contracted out of Homeland Security, and is a very important aspect of Continuity of Government, it should be extremely concerning to everyone that someone who was once quoted as saying “our job is to throw the Constitution out the window”, is Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis at the Department of Homeland Security. The ‘Analysis’ aspect of his title is what is most concerning, as we have seen from Charles Allen’s role in the Gulf War, where he worked as an intelligence analyst, choosing targets, which resulted in 400 innocent women and children to be murdered. Now, he will be running the spy satellite program, which is to support local law enforcement agencies by providing them updated satellite data and intelligence. However, considering that Allen is running this program, ‘analysis’ is a pretty creative term, as he is likely to analyze and decipher what he wants to see, not necessarily what’s true. In simple words; like how some people have selective hearing, hearing only what they want to hear; Allen may have selective analysis, analyzing things how he wants to see them. Then, this ‘information’ would be passed on to local law enforcement officials, who would be none the wiser.

The disturbing aspect of Continuity of Government is that under the new National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 51, issued on May 9, 2007, it changes the role played by various actors in Continuity of Government. For example, the new Presidential Directive defines a ‘Catastrophic Emergency’ as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions,” and defines Continuity of Government as “a coordinated effort within the Federal Government’s executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency.” It goes on to explain that, “The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government. In order to advise and assist the President in that function, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (APHS/CT) is hereby designated as the National Continuity Coordinator. The National Continuity Coordinator, in coordination with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs (APNSA), without exercising directive authority, shall coordinate the development and implementation of continuity policy for executive departments and agencies. The Continuity Policy Coordination Committee (CPCC), chaired by a Senior Director from the Homeland Security Council staff, designated by the National Continuity Coordinator, shall be the main day-to-day forum for such policy coordination,”34 [emphasis added].

What the above means is that, while regular government is divided between three branches; the Executive (President and administration), the Legislative (Congress), and the Judicial (Supreme Court); the government in a time of emergency, under the ‘Continuity of Government’, is to be run entirely by the Executive branch. It states that the President is in charge, and then designates two other individuals, the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, who is Frances Townsend, who also sits as Chair of the Homeland Security Council, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, also known as the National Security Adviser, who is Stephen Hadley, and then announced the creation of a Continuity Policy Coordination Committee, which will be chaired by a member of the Homeland Security Council, which includes the top administration officials, including the Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and Dick Cheney, as well as Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, the Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the CIA director Michael Hayden, Director of the FBI Robert Mueller, the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice.

But the most important thing to note, is that, in the event that Continuity of Government is enacted, i.e. in the event a ‘Catastrophic Emergency’ occurs, the President of the United States overtakes all branches of government, rendering the Judicial and Legislative branches non-existent, under a state of complete irrelevance. In essence, the President, by definition, becomes a dictator, the Supreme Leader, Il Duce, der Fuhrer, Chairman, choose your terms, they all mean the same thing; a Presidential seizure of absolute power. Remember, in the event of ‘Continuity of Government’, the Constitution is “thrown out the window”.

In an article in the Oregonian, from July of this year, the issue of ‘Continuity of Government’ came to the mainstream media when they stated, “Oregonians called Peter DeFazio’s office, worried there was a conspiracy buried in the classified portion of a White House plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack. As a member of the U.S. House on the Homeland Security Committee, DeFazio, D-Ore., is permitted to enter a secure ‘bubbleroom’ in the Capitol and examine classified material. So he asked the White House to see the secret documents,” and then it continued, “On Wednesday, DeFazio got his answer: DENIED.”35 The article continued, quoting DeFazio as saying, “I just can’t believe they’re going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack,” and then the article stated, “Homeland Security Committee staffers told his office that the White House initially approved his request, but it was later quashed. DeFazio doesn’t know who did it or why.” Again quoting DeFazio, he said, “We’re talking about the continuity of the government of the United States of America. [ . . . ] I would think that would be relevant to any member of Congress, let alone a member of the Homeland Security Committee.” Further, “Bush administration spokesman Trey Bohn declined to say why DeFazio was denied access: ‘We do not comment through the press on the process that this access entails. It is important to keep in mind that much of the information related to the continuity of government is highly sensitive’,” and that, “This is the first time DeFazio has been denied access to documents. DeFazio has asked Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., to help him access the documents.” The article ended with a quote from DeFazio, stating, “Maybe the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right.”

In another Oregonian article written 8 days later, they wrote a follow-up to the previous article, saying, “After conspiracy theorists fanned the Internet with their outrage, the Oregon congressman renewed his push Friday to gain access to the classified portion of a White House plan to operate the government after a terrorist attack. This time, DeFazio is joined by two other Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee who wrote to a top Bush administration Homeland Security official requesting access to the information,” and then stated, “The letter was addressed to Frances Townsend, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism,” the very woman who would be acting directly under Bush as the National Continuity Coordinator, one of the top officials in the event of Continuity of Government. The article continued, “DeFazio wants to read the secret file after hearing from constituents concerned about a conspiracy. The public portion of the presidential directive lays out general policies for operating the government during a major catastrophe, but it referred to classified portions. According to the letter, White House staff had initially said it would provide the document to Homeland Security Committee staff so DeFazio could review it. But on July 18, White House staff, the congressmen wrote, ‘informed the committee that the request had been reconsidered and rejected. In fact, the committee staff was told the document is ‘close hold,’ and ‘frankly we are not willing to share it’.” It further revealed that DeFazio wrote that, “This response is as troubling as it is shocking.”36

Why all of the above about the ‘Continuity of Government’ is relevant to the topic of the domestic spy satellite program is that it is all a part of the same process; that is, the move towards a fascist state fully equipped with a state-of-the-art police-state apparatus. Take what the dictators of the past have done, and add on the massive technological advances made since the 1930s and 40s. This is why the ‘Continuity of Government’ issue is very relevant when it comes to the domestic spy satellite program, because of the announcement that it is to be used by local law enforcement agencies, provided to them by the Department of Homeland Security [the Department of Homeland Securitization and Militarization], which is incidentally, the same department which operates, under the direct command of the President, the Continuity of Government (COG) plans.

A recent article from Raw Story exposed how, “A Democratic congressman is seeking answers after revelations that the US plans to use spy satellites against American citizens. Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), who chairs a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee, has written Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff to ask a series of detailed questions about the new spying initiative,” and that the Congressman’s letter “outlines a string of inquiries about the legality of the domestic spying program and seeks assurances that American civil rights will be protected once the program becomes operational,” and further, “Eyeing the legality of the proposed spy plan, Congressman Markey inquires as to what ‘memoranda, opinions or analyses have been prepared’ to evaluate the new program, and asks specifically if the spying would violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which regulates the use of the U.S. military for non-military purposes.”37

However, maybe what this Congressman isn’t aware of is that the Posse Comitatus Act, which outlines the fact that the US military is never allowed to have the function of policing the United States, has already been made null and void, as on October 17, 2006, Bush signed the ‘Defense Authorization Act 2007’, of which according to US Senator Patrick Leahy, the Conference Report on the Defense Authorization Act “includes language that subverts solid, longstanding posse comitatus statutes that limit the military’s involvement in law enforcement, thereby making it easier for the President to declare martial law”, and that, “it adopts some incredible changes to the Insurrection Act, which would give the President more authority to declare martial law. Let me repeat: The National Guard Empowerment Act, which is designed to make it more likely for the National Guard to remain in State control, is dropped from this conference report in favor of provisions making it easier to usurp the Governors control and making it more likely that the President will take control of the Guard and the active military operating in the States”. He continues, “The changes to the Insurrection Act will allow the President to use the military, including the National Guard, to carry out law enforcement activities without the consent of a governor. When the Insurrection Act is invoked posse comitatus does not apply. Using the military for law enforcement goes against one of the founding tenets of our democracy,” [Emphasis added].

So, as you can see, there is a significant risk of a declaration of martial law, and therefore the creation of a Presidential Dictatorship, under which the spy satellite program would be used domestically. That is why I felt it necessary to examine the history of the main individual running this new program, Charles Allen. Given his history, related to the “deep politics” of government, that is; the term coined by the academic, Peter Dale Scott to describe the ‘shadow government’, or ‘secret government’, or Scott’s term, the ‘Deep State’, I feel that it is a concerning sign that this particular individual is now going to be running the spy satellite program. Given the history of Charles Allen, I would not want him to have the authority over cleaning my dishes for fear that he would smash them all to pieces because he misinterpreted the chore. But this is a man who is now in charge of operating the most powerful satellite spy equipment to be used domestically in the United States. No, I’m sure there’s nothing to be concerned over regarding ‘civil liberties’ under a spy program run by a man who has said, “Our job is to throw the constitution out the window.”

Charles Allen is the spy who came out of the ‘shadow state’, with the intent to make the shadow bigger; steps out into the light, if only to bring it into darkness.

Notes

see:

Bush Declares Himself Dictator – Presidential Directive 51 (May 2007; video link)

War and the “New World Order” by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Dandelion Salad

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Global Research, August 29, 2007

“We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. And, in that year, the trustees meeting, for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year, in a very learned fashion. And the question is this: Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people? And they conclude that, no more effective means to that end is known to humanity, than war. So then, in 1909, they raise the second question, and discuss it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war?” -Norman Dobbs, U.S. Congressional Special Committee for the Investigate of Tax-Exempt Foundations (1982)

War is the ultimate means of attempting to change societies and reshape nations. It is through war that national economies and political structures can be forcibly restructured. War is, potentially, the ultimate economic shock therapy. The wars in the Middle East are stepping stones towards establishing a vision of global order that has been in the hearts and minds of the Anglo-American establishment for years. That vision is global ascendancy.

Towards the “New International Order” through the “Global War on Terror”

“There is a chance for the President of the United States [George W. Bush Jr.] to use this disaster [meaning the attacks of September 11, 2001] to carry out what his father…a phrase his father [George H. Bush Sr.] used I think only once, and it hasn’t been used since … and that is a new world order. Think about this. We already have the support of NATO in a remarkable historic departure.” -Gary Hart, National Security in the 21st Century: Findings of the Hart-Rudman Commission (September 14, 2001)

On January 18, 2005 Henry Kissinger appeared on Charlie Rose, a television program on PBS, and talked about a “New International Order” being created by George W. Bush and his administration. [1] Henry Kissinger stated that within the next few years that humanity will see the emergence of the beginning of a “New International Order.” Kissinger also stated that the Bush Jr. Administration could bring about this state; “and it could well be this president, [meaning President Bush Jr.] that is so reviled by intellectuals, will emerge as one of the seminal presidents of …of this…of this period…of American modern history.” [2]

When asked what George W. Bush Jr. has to do to bring about this “New International Order” by his interviewer Kissinger paused again and gave a vague answer that avoided mentioning the criminality of war. “He has to do some certain things and he has to have some luck,” Kissinger answered followed by “Luck is the residue of design.” [3] It should be noted that if luck is a residue of design then it is no longer chance, but a calculation of intent.

Briefly the role of the American public was talked about by Charlie Rose with Kissinger who paused to pick his words carefully. Kissinger told his interviewer, Rose, that the United States is a nation whose public has no clue about American foreign policy. [4] In regards to the American public, the war agenda cannot move forward if the U.S. maintains its multi-cultural characteristics. It was this multi-cultural characteristic that initially presented the U.S. a problem in declaring war on Germany in both World Wars until the sinking of the RMS Lusitania and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour. [5]

Thus, an end to a liberal North American immigration regime that ensures a multi-cultural environment in North America is a prerequisite to expanded American war(s). Zbigniew Brzezinski has written that “as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues [amongst the American people], except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” [6] The E.U. is also beginning to follow suit. This premise by Brzezinski, an individual from within the ruling establishment of America, can be used to explain the demonization of Muslims and several national and ethno-cultural groups such as Arabs, Turks, and Iranians.

It is also worth noting that Gary Hart, a former U.S. senator from Colorado, implied on September 14 of 2001 that the “Global War on Terror” sponsored by the Bush Jr. Adminstration was a pretext for establishing the so-called “New World Order.” [7] Gary Hart also implicated NATO’s role in shaping this “New World Order.” [8] The project is to be implemented by military might.

A Unipolar World: Pax Americana?

“However, what is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.” -Vladimir Putin at the Munich Conference on Security Policy in Germany (February 11, 2007)

During his interview with Charlie Rose Henry Kissinger had referred to what George H. Bush Sr. identified as the “New World Order.” This was a term frequently used by the former American president that became famous during the Gulf War. With the end of the Cold War and the defeat of Iraq in the Gulf War, Georgia H. Bush Sr. said that the World in 1991 was witness to the emergence of a “New World Order” that would be led by America. [9] The Gulf War was merely the beginning of this “New World Order.” The seeds had been planted in the Middle East for future wars and Eurasian expansion.

The Trilateral Commission, an organization founded in 1973 and consisting of the wealthiest and most powerful elites from the U.S., the E.U., and Japan, originally created the term that George H. Bush Sr. drew on. Their word was “New International Economic Order.” The Trilateral Commission’s terminology lays bare the economic fabric of this program. Military might is merely the enforcer of foreign policy, and foreign policy is based on economic interests.

An agenda of perpetual warfare and violence has been fueling the march towards global domination through economic means. In essence this war agenda has been an unbroken process watched over by the different presidential administrations of the United States.

Stepping forth from behind the Curtains: NATO’s Role in the Eurasian Roadmap

“The policies of the U.S., since the end of the Cold War are complicated and vast. They involve an intent to dominate and the use of international organizations to advance U.S. economic and geopolitical interests. They also include the conversion of NATO into a surrogate military police force for globalization and U.S. world economic domination.” -Ramsey Clark, 66th United States Attorney-General (October 6, 2000)

NATO has started replicating long-term American war tactics and strategy. NATO is creating a rapid response force, which involves a significant German role. The force is modeled on the U.S. Rapid Response Force, the forerunner of CENTCOM, and has a global reach. The transformation of the U.S. Rapid Deployment Force into CENTCOM was part of long-term Anglo-American war plans. The NATO force is projected to be able to deploy to any region in the world within five days and planned to be capable of self-sufficient, detached operations for approximately one month. The force will also have land, sea, and air components, including an aircraft carrier. [10]

It is apparent that control over Iraq was planned during the culmination of the Cold War by Anglo-American policy makers. The series of wars that have occurred since the Iraq-Iran War are debatably the products of a historical Anglo-American project in the Middle East— a project that was once a solely British project that predated the Cold War. The project to reshape and control the Middle East is part of the greater project to control Eurasia. Just as how this grand project was embraced by the U.S., as the inheritor of British strategy, the project has been embraced by the Franco-German entente and NATO. Zbigniew Brzezinski argued in 1997 that “Europe is America’s essential geopolitical bridgehead in Eurasia,” or an entry point towards dominating Eurasia. [11]

From the statements and goals of U.S. officials going back to the 1990s NATO was projected to expand across the Eurasian landmass and set to embrace Japan, South Korea, and Australia in what Zbigniew Brzezinski identfies as the “trans-Eurasian security system.” [12] The characteristics of prospective conflicts seem to be slated to become dominated by NATO as France and Germany expand their roles in the “long war.” NATO’s role in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Red Sea, the Indian Ocean, Lebanon, and Afghanistan, along with NATO’s thrust into the post-Soviet niche and inner Eurasia, are all precarious indications of this.

Making Europe the Partner of America in the “Long War:” Enter the Franco-German Entente

“The victory over Iraq [in the Gulf War] was not waged as ‘a war to end all wars.’ Even the ‘New World Order’ cannot guarantee an era of perpetual peace.” -George H. Bush Sr., 41st President of the United States (March 6, 1991)

Brzezinski explained that although Japan was important to American geo-strategy, Europe as a geopolitical entity (via the E.U. and NATO) consitututes America’s bridgehead into Eurasia. [13] “Unlike America’s links with Japan, NATO entrenches American political influence and military power on the Eurasian mainland,” and that “the allied European nations [were] still highly dependent on U.S. protection, any expansion of Europe’s political scope is automatically an expansion of U.S. influence,” Brzezinski explained in regards to Europe and Japan. [14] Brzezinski was paying more than just lip service to America’s allies in continental Europe; he was stressing that they were crucial, albeit as subordinates, to American global interests.

The strength of NATO would rest on the vitality of the European Union, an Anglo-American and Franco-German device. To emphasis this Brzezinski wrote that “the United States’ ability to project influence and power in Eurasia relies on close transatlantic ties.” [15] Brzezinski also added that France and Germany, the Franco-German entente, would be America’s vital partners in NATO expansion and securing Eurasia, but a united Europe was an essential prerequisite. In regards to the Franco-German entente, Brzezinski wrote in 1998 that “In the western periphery of Eurasia, the key players will continue to be France and Germany, and America’s central goal should be to continue to expand the democratic European bridgehead.” [16] This was essentially the forecast of the “E.U. expansion” that has gone hand-in-hand with earlier NATO expansion since the end of the Cold War. According to Brzezinski it would be up to the Franco-German entente to led Europe: “America cannot create a more united Europe on its own — that is a task for the Europeans, especially the French and the Germans.” [17]

None of the Pentagon’s geo-strategic plans can go forward without the E.U. and NATO. For this to happen it is essential that a strategic consensus between the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente be forged. The Anglo-American alliance has pursued this track and deeper integration with the Franco-German side, while also taking an adversarial stance against the Franco-German entente. Iraq is a symbolic testimony to this rivalry while Lebanon and NATO expansion in the Eastern Mediterranean is a parallel testimony to the strategic cooperation between the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente. A contradictory and confusing message is sent from these tracks, but there is always more to the picture. However, it is clear that Franco-German and Anglo-American interests must be synchronized for America to expand its global control.

The Endgame: A “Single Market” under One World Administration?

“I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer…” – Major-General Smedley D. Butler, U.S. Marine Corp Commander (War Is a Racket)

After the Second World War, it was believed that from the nucleolus of Britain and American that a “New World Order” would be formed. Britain and America even had a combined military staff and combined chiefs of military staff. Imaginings for a singular global polity have vividly been tied to the Anglo-American establishment. In 1966, Professor Carroll Quigley, a noted American economist, wrote in his book Hope and Tragedy: A History of the World in Our Time that economics and finance vis-à-vis banking conglomerates were the engine in this drive and the real forces controlling national policies. Carroll Quigley wrote in regards to the Anglo-American alliance that “I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European Power and must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.” [18]

“For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia,” insists Zbigniew Brzezinski. He also contends, “Now a non-Eurasian power [i.e., the U.S.] is preeminent in Eurasia— and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” [19] The former U.S. national security advisor has also stated, in 1997, that in order to co-opt the Franco-German entente a “Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement, already advocated by a number of prominent Atlantic leaders, could also mitigate the risk of growing economic rivalry between a more united E.U. and the United States.” [20]

There is opposition in North America to what is believed to be the emergence of a projected “North American Union.” This North American entity would further amalgamate Canada, the United States, and Mexico, but the mechanisms for a grander global confederacy have already been drawn. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the creation of the E.U. were stepping stones towards this aspiration. Economics is the key that fuses these polities.

A summit between the E.U. and U.S. has shed light on plans for economic amalgamation. [21] The term used at the summit was “single market” by “renewing the Trans-Atlantic partnership.” [22] This is the same term used to describe the “common market” as it intensified Western European integration, which eventually gave birth to the European Union. At the summit President Bush Jr. met with Jose Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission, and Federal Chancellor Merkel. Frau Merkel, while officially there on behalf of the E.U., represented the interests of the Franco-German entente while President Bush represented Anglo-American interests. Jose Manuel Barroso as the President of the European Commission represented both Anglo-American and Franco-German interests because the E.U. is a joint Anglo-American and Franco-German body. America is a de facto E.U. power due to its alliance with Britain, one of the three major E.U. powers along with France and Germany.

An agreement was reached between the E.U. and U.S. to integrate the markets and regulations of the America and Europe even further. This agreement was another layer to add to the strategic consensus that was reached at NATO’s Riga Summit. Both sides also stated that economics is the driving spirit in their relationship and that politics mattered very little. The liberal and conservative leaders of America and Europe are merely two sides of the same coin.

Decade after the end of the Cold War the globe is wrapped within a state of almost perpetual war dominated by the military might of America. The last lines in The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives reveal the ultimate objective of Anglo-American policy: “These efforts will have the added historical advantage of benefiting from the new web of global linkages that is growing exponentially outside the more traditional nation-state system. That web— woven by multinational corporations, NGOs (…) already creates an informal global system that is inherently congenial to more institutionalized and inclusive global cooperation [a reference to global government].” [23]

Brzezinski goes on to predict that “In the course of the next several decades, a functioning structure of global cooperation, based on geopolitical realities, could thus emerge and gradually assume the mantle of the world’s current ‘regent’[a reference to the U.S.],” and “Geostrategic success in that cause would represent a fitting legacy of America’s role as the first, only, and last truly global superpower.” [24] All around the globe nation-states are being absorbed into larger and larger political and socio-economic entities. This is part of the story of globalization, but it has its dark side. This is the globalization of the few and not of the many.

The Fight for Civilization and the Gathering Storm

“When all is said and done the conflict in Afghanistan will be to the war on terrorism what the North African campaign was to World War II: an essential beginning on the path to victory. But compared to what looms over the horizon— a wide-ranging war in locales from Central Asia to the Middle East and, unfortunately, back again to the United States— Afghanistan will prove but an opening battle.” -Robert Kagan and William Kristol, The Gathering Storm (The Weekly Standard, October 29, 2001)

One cannot help but remember what was elucidated in 2001 during the start of the “Global War on Terror” by two members of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), stating that Afghanistan was only part of a “wide-ranging war.” [25] Both Robert Kagan and William Kristol are deeply linked to U.S. foreign and military policy extending from writing presidential speeches to having a former spouse as the U.S. ambassador to NATO. It is not coincidental that a portion of their editorial from October of 2001 in The Weekly Standard has actually materialized. These men should be taken for their words when they say that Afghanistan is merely the “opening battle” compared to what is waiting in the horizon.

Referring back to Robert Kagan and William Kristol: “this war will not end in Afghanistan. It is going to spread and engulf a number of countries in conflicts of varying intensity. It could well require the use of American military power in multiple places simultaneously. It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid. And it is going to put enormous and perhaps unbearable strain on parts of an international coalition that basks in contented consensus.” [26] The “international coalition” being referred to is NATO and the international military network based around the U.S. and the “unbearable strain” is war, but of an unknown scale. On August 10, 2007 Lieutenant-General Douglas Lute, the “War Czar” overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and any expanded theatre, publicly talked about restoring a mandatory military draft. [27] The march to war is not waning, but driving the world towards the abyss.

Afghanistan was the first volley in an advance phase of the global conflict that was in its preparatory stages decades ago during the Iraq-Iran War, the Gulf War, and the Kosovo War. Where this global conflict, this “long war” will lead us is unknown, but all humanity is in this together. The American people will sooner or later feel the pain of war as their freedom is effected. Autocracy is a prerequisite to grand empires. Brzezinski has pointed out that “America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad,” and “never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy.” [28] Deviancy is being normalized all over the globe because of this global project. Those that are behind such projects must be reduced to social leprids, as outcasts, denounced by all societies.

Resistance in the Middle East: The Power of the People

“The Iraqi Resistance is by definition democratic as it is the spontaneous expression of a people who took its destiny into its hands, and is by definition progressive as it defends the interests of the people.” -Hana Al-Bayaty (March 18, 2007)

Anglo-American planners have underestimated the capacity of the power of ordinary people and the human spirit. In the Middle East it has been the resistance of ordinary people that has brought militant globalization to a standstill. Popular resistance movements have bogged down the military might of the remaining global superpower.

A nation is only as legitimate as the people(s) who live in it define it. America is not at war with individual nations, but with the people(s) of these nations. Nor are the American people at war with these nations, it is the American ruling establishment and elites that are at war with these people(s).

The forces of resistance are the forces of the will of the people, without the support of the people none of them could last or stand up to some of the most powerful war machines in human history.

The wars in the Middle East are as much about choice as they are about the right to live. What is at stake is self-determination and liberty. These wars represent the drive to impose an overall monopoly of controls over other nations by a few who have hijacked the foreign policies of America and Britain to serve their own goals.

The Iraqi Resistance and the other resistance movements of the Middle East are movements of the peoples and by nature egalitarian. Would anyone in the so-called West dare label the French, Czechoslovakian, Greek, Libyan, Chinese, Malaysian, and Soviet resistance movements against Germany, Italy, and Japan during the Second World War as terrorist movements? Did not France and the other areas occupied by Germany and the Axis Powers not have governments that said the Axis Powers were welcomed forces bringing stability as do Iraq and Afghanistan? For example in France there was the Vichy Government. When Germany was defeated the leaders of the Vichy Government in France was executed as a traitor.

The U.S. government misleadingly claims that it is bringing democracy to these lands, but since when was democracy forced from the top down to the bottom? Is this not what the opposite of democracy; things being forced down from the top to the bottom? Democracy is an expression of the masses that manifests its self upwards and not from the opposite direction.

No force on earth can defeat the popular will of the people; this is why domestic populations are manipulated into supporting wars. It is only division that allows small groups to take temporary reign over the people(s). However, for every scheme and plan to create division and anarchy amongst the people(s) of the world there is a plan to unite them and strengthen them. This is one of the greatest fears of many in positions of power. This is the fear of any awakening of large societal groups and populations.

There is no greater ally to the movements of resistance in the Middle East and beyond than unadulterated public opinion in the rest of the world. The people(s) of Britain, Israel, and the U.S. are also victims of their own governments who manipulate their fears and create animosity between them and other nations. This in itself is a great crime. What differences exist between nations are only a means to test the best of them.

Fear and hate are the weapons of the real terrorists, the masters of deception, and those who belittle others for profit and personal gain. These are the terrorists who give orders in positions of political leadership in the White House and elsewhere at the expense of their own people and the rest of humanity. The world is now embarking into the abyss of perpetual war and a period in which the contemplation of the use of nuclear weapons is being made. A stand must be made by individuals of good conscience and will. It seems possible that it will be a matter of time before the citizens of Europe, North America, and other lands will be compelled or necessitated to join the peoples of occupied lands in resistance.

War must be averted on two fronts; in the shorter-term (as differentiated from “short-term”) or near future, war must be averted from emerging in the Middle East and in Eurasia, the longer-term. Only the resistance of the people and public opinion can stop war from enveloping the globe. Public opinion must translate into public action if humanity it to spared from a massive war—a war that could prove to become a nuclear armageddon.

Countdown to 1984?

“In brief, the U.S policy goal must be unapologetically twofold: to perpetuate America’s own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still; and to create a geopolitical framework that can absorb the inevitable shocks and strains of social-political change…” -Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)

In a twist of Orwellian fate, the earth seems closer to appearing like the rendition of the world in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. [29] However, the road ahead is not scripted. The future is only anticipated and planned, but never certain in a universe of infinite probabilities. Time will tell where the road ahead will guide us. Those that see themselves as masters of destiny have had their ideas proven wrong in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Somalia, and Lebanon. It may look as if opposition to a war agenda is like tiny raindrops beating against an unrelenting mountain, but mountains can be eventually eroded by those tiny raindrops. There exists a “sensitive dependence on initial conditions,” commonly called the “butterfly effect,” whereas the flaps of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil may set off a tornado in Texas. Individual actions can offset the march to war that is unfolding on this planet.

NOTES

[1] Henry Kissinger, A conversation with Henry Kissinger, interview with Charles P. Rose Jr., Charlie Rose (show), January 18, 2005.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] The U.S. government was secretly arming Britain during the First World War and profiting off the war. In regards to the sinking of the RMS Lusitania, a British passenger ship, unknown to the public at the time the ship was also carrying military supplies from the U.S. to Britain.

In the case of Pearl Harbour, the U.S. government was aware of a Japanese plan to attack the U.S. Pacific Fleet in Hawaii. American officials allowed the attack to take place to arouse public support for the entry of the U.S. in the Second World War. It should be noted that prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour the U.S. government had led a complete embargo of oil and materials to Japan and frozen all Japanese assets by July 25, 1941. Oil is needed to run economies and war and all strategists and military planners know this very well. Japan was baited into an inevitable war with the U.S. and decided to take the first shot. This benefited the U.S. government in mobilizing the American public to support the war effort in the Second World War just as the tragic events of September 11th, 2001 allowed the Bush Jr. Administration to launch the “Global War on Terror.” U.S. involvement in the Second World War was for economic purposes and had nothing to do with morality.

In the case of the RMS Lusitania the German embassy in Washington D.C. was trying to make clear to the Americans before it started sinking merchant ships helping Britain that it would engage in such activities. It should be noted that Britain was doing the same in both World Wars. U.S. officials are actually believed to have obstructed these attempts by the Germans in an attempt to involve the U.S. in the First World War.

[6] Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives (NYC, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997), p.211.

[7] Gary Hart, Transcript. National Security in the 21st Century: Findings of the Hart-Rudman Commission, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), September 14, 2001.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/4049/national_security_in_the_21st_century.html

[8] Ibid.

[9] George Herbert Walker Bush Sr., Gulf War Victory Speech, (Address, Capitol Hill, Washington, District of Columbia, January 6, 1991) March 6, 1991.

[10] Bettina Berg, High readiness and global deployability, Federal Ministry of Defence (Germany), November 30, 2006.

[11] Zbigniew Brzezinski, A geostrategy for Eurasia, Foreign Affairs, vol. 76, no. 5 (September- October, 1997): p.50-64.

Note: The writings from Brzezinski’s paper for Foreign Affairs and the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR) were also used for his book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives that had its first edition published in 1997. Brzezinski’s 1997 Foreign Affairs journal entry is a condensed synopsis of his 1997 book. Points and quotes cited from are identical or almost identical to the writing from his 1997 book.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (NYC, New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966), p.950.

[14] Brzezinski, A geostrategy for Eurasia, Op. cit.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.30.

[20] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.200.

[21] Desmond Butler, E.U., U.S. Agree on Iran, Russia Disputes, Associated Press, April 30, 2007.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6597779,00.html

[22] US and EU agree ‘single market,’ British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), April 30, 2007.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6607757.stm

[23] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.215.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Robert Kagan and William Kristol, The Gathering Storm, The Weekly Standard, October 29, 2002, p.13.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Editorial-102901.pdf

[26] Ibid.

[27] Toby Harnden, ‘Return to conscription should be considered,’ The Telegraph (U.K.), August 11, 2007.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/11/wdraft111.xml

[28] Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, Op. cit., p.35-36.

[29] Refer to the polity and geographic boundaries of Winston Smith’s fictional world, in Orwell’s novel. In the fictional state of Oceania (which includes America, the British Isles, and Australia) there is absolute control exercised over all aspects of the lives of all citizens by one single entity, the Party, which has three political mottos: WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya


© Copyright Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Global Research, 2007
The url address of this article is:
www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6577

Reposting Code Tool Guide by Guinea: The 1930’s Smut Peddler + Add me on Sitespaces by Lo (Myspace)

Dandelion Salad

So, Myspace sucks again, what else is new? Add me on Sitespaces where the links work, to repost a bulletin to all your friends, all you have to do is click at the bottom of the bulletin, and no censorship!

Lo on Sitespaces.net

Lo from Sitespaces.net (where the links work)
~ Lo

Thanks to
Guinea: The 1930’s Smut Peddler



Here’s something to set up to put at the bottom of your blogs, so people can repost your blogs as bulletins or as blogs. This is really only good if you blog all your bulletins. And its easier than it looks. It just may be a little difficult at first but you’ll get the hang of it.

http://www.thesmut.net/repostingcodetool.htm

Merry Christmas! and all of that good stuff! Don’t let Myspace’s bugs and censors get you down. Peace!


see:

How to Borrow a Blog Post by Lo (Myspace tip)



From: <a href=”http://www.myspace.com/lorri”>Lo</a><br><br><font size=”3″>So, Myspace sucks again, what else is new? Add me on Sitespaces where the links work, to repost a bulletin to all your friends, all you have to do is click at the bottom of the bulletin, and no censorship! <br><br><a href=”http://www.sitespaces.net/profiles/lorri”><img src=”http://static.flickr.com/39/103324965_1be1f36e85_m.jpg&#8221; alt=”Lo on Sitespaces.net” height=”44″ width=”146″></a><br><br><a href=”http://www.sitespaces.net/profiles/lorri&#8221; rel=”me”><font size=”3″>Lo from Sitespaces.net (where the links work)</font></a><font size=”3″><br></font><font size=”3″><br>~ Lo<br><br>Thanks to<br><a href=”http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=212015896″><b><font size=”3″>Guinea: The 1930’s Smut Peddler</font></b><font size=”3″></font></a><font size=”3″> <br><a href=”http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendID=212015896″&gt; <img src=”http://a573.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/87/s_4afc4cfc1d288b6644754a48650c0bf4.jpg&#8221; border=”0″></a><br></font><font size=”3″><br></font></font></font><div style=”margin-left: 40px;”><font size=”3″><font size=”3″><font size=”3″>Here’s something to set up to put at the bottom of your blogs, so people can repost your blogs as bulletins or as blogs. This is really only good if you blog all your bulletins. And its easier than it looks. It just may be a little difficult at first but you’ll get the hang of it.<br><br></font><font size=”3″><span style=”font-weight: bold;”></span><a href=”http://www.thesmut.net/repostingcodetool.htm&#8221; target=”_self”><font size=”3″>http://www.thesmut.net/repostingcodetool.htm</font></a><font size=”3″></font><font size=”3″><span style=”font-weight: bold;”></span><br><br></font><font size=”3″>Merry Christmas! and all of that good stuff! Don’t let Myspace’s bugs and censors get you down. Peace!<br></font></font></font></font></div><font size=”3″><font size=”3″><font size=”3″><font size=”3″><br>see:<br><br></font><font size=”3″><font size=”3″><font size=”3″><a href=”http://collect.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=90669&blogID=251457316&Mytoken=40012237-82D3-45C0-90479E113F29C4CC16208344″><font size=”3″>How to Borrow a Blog Post by Lo (Myspace tip)</font></a><font size=”3″><br><br><br></font></font></font> </font></font></font></font>