Archive | August 23rd, 2011

Bahrain: not forgotten


Angry Arab chief Bahrain correspondent wrote me this: “I thought I’d give you a few updates on Bahrain. Its been really depressing to be honest. The february days seem like a distant memory and I feel like everyone I know that’s Bahraini is in some deep depression and is just going through the motions. But here’s the latest on what’s happening:

– The good news is that two female prisoners – Rolla AlSaffar head of the Bahraini Nursing Society and Jaleela AlSalman were finally released. Both had been on a hunger strike. Bahrain is obviously very obsessed with PR and these two became very high profile so they released them. Bassiouni apparently intervened too. He’s been playing an active role these days trying to release prisoners instead of doing his job which is to investigate what happened. The bad news is that they will still be tried in military court:.

– The amnesty link of course brings up another development. A month or so ago (I believe it was more) the King stated that all the trials will now be transferred to civilian courts. This never happened. Apparently the Minister of Justice refused to transfer the cases. Now people are being tried in military court again. See here also: So of course you can read this is two ways: The King isn’t in control of the country – the Prime Minister is or the King is in control and he was just making some statements for PR purposes. Apparently all the doctors and medical staff will be facing military trials on August 28.

– All of the opposition societies will be boycotting the elections. The government obviously isn’t too happy with this and has been threatening any society that boycotts saying it amounts to treason etc. Half of the districts have no one running (elections are not taking place everywhere, just is districts where MPs resigned)

– I had emailed you about the entire fiasco with Bassiouni. A member of the commission had told activists that the entire team was resigning. This was after an interview Bassiouni had with pro-government newspaper Alayam where they quoted him as saying that there were no human rights violations in Bahrain. That didn’t happen so there are a lot of rumors as to what happened behind the scenes. Bassiouni has now stopped giving interviews. The Commission issued the following two statements on their website:  They say his statements have been misinterpreted by the media. My question is, why talk to the media in the first place? People of course are really cynical and skeptical about Bassiouni. See this article on Bahrain Mirror: By the way Bassiouni has been making surprise visits to protests to see how the protestors are acting. Apparently the protestors have to behave. I can already see the report before it is published: King is great, security forces made mistakes, but protestors made mistakes too. You know, kind of like the goldstone report. Bassiouni is of course becoming the mediator between the King and the opposition – you know, trying to release prisoners here and there, making visits, trying to get some workers reinstated. It is all very interesting. Maybe Bassiouni should be running the country.

– The Washington Times had a very interesting interview with the head of the national unity gathering Shaikh Abdul Latif Al Mahmood where he says that the Prime Minister should step down after he handles the crisis and after the crisis is over.  Straight after the article was published the National Unity Gathering issued a statement denying that he said that:  But then the journalist who interviewed him released the audio so they are kind of stuck. What’s funny is that from the interview, Shaikh Abdul Latif seemed to still admire the PM but just believed that he should retire and the King should appoint a fresh face after the crisis is over. But even him saying that is controversial – apparently saying that a 75 year old (I believe thats his age) should retire is a red line that no one can cross.

– The past three days are el tharba of imam Ali so there have been Azaa processions. Two processions were attacked by pro-regime thugs chanting the people want Khalifa Bin Salman. One of the processions was in the village of Bani Jamra and the other in the city of Muharraq.

– The Minister of Justice and Islamic Affairs wrote a threatening letter to Shaikh Isa Qasim (who I can’t stand by the way – don’t like religious figures who talk in really low voices and act as if there is some halo on their head – but thats besides the point) telling him that his speeches are sectarian, that they encourage people to break the law, that he is inciting hatred, dividing the country etc. This is hilarious. He never said anything of that sort and in fact keeps telling people not to use the slogan “Al mawt li AlKhalifa). Of course the people who are actually inciting hatred are ignored because they are pro regime.The only reason I am telling you about this entire fiasco is because a lot of the protestors from the villages respect and revere Sh. Isa Qasim so this has made a lot of them very angry.

– The crown prince is back. He’s been visiting a couple of ramadhan majlis’s talking about peace and unity and love etc etc. On a recent visit to a majlis in the village of Buri, the villagers of Buri starting protesting and chanting slogans for the release of the prisoners. This pissed a lot of crown prince lovers off saying that the crown prince is their red line. Now where were these people when the village of Buri was attacked?

So my summary is as follows: Small protests continue. Attacks on villages continue. People are still angry. Bassiouni is acting like some mediator. Bahraini government is acting schizophrenic – saying one thing, doing another, changing its minds. They seem to have no plan. Each ministry is like its own country. King issues an order. No one follows which makes you wonder what the King is really up to.

Thanks for mentioning Bahrain on Al Jazeera. I wasn’t able to see the interview but please post it on your blog when you can! If you have any insights on what is happening please do share. Its getting really depressing.”

Posted in BahrainComments Off on Bahrain: not forgotten

Rebels claim the victory – but did the Brits win it?


Cahal Milmo and Kim Sengupta on the army of spies and special forces at work in Libya

 23 August 2011

Evidence that British special forces were on the ground in Libya advising the rebels first emerged in June. The man in the pink shirt, centre, pictured with rebel fighters near Misrata, is thought to be ex-SAS

Evidence that British special forces were on the ground in Libya advising the rebels first emerged in June. The man in the pink shirt, centre, pictured with rebel fighters near Misrata, is thought to be ex-SAS

The Berber rebels in the Nafusa Mountains to the west of Tripoli have played a key role in the endgame of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime. What has received less publicity is the small but vital part played in that offensive by British intelligence officials, who from their seat in the Libyan highlands have been advising the rebel leadership on the strategy behind their final assault.

Since 19 March – when the Royal Navy launched cruise missiles on Libyan air-defence targets, followed the next day by attacks by Royal Air Force Tornado jets – Britain has placed itself in the front ranks of Western powers enforcing the United Nations resolution protecting civilians from Colonel Gaddafi’s forces and simultaneously pursuing the Brother Leader’s removal from power.

While the Ministry of Defence has been diligent in providing daily updates on the progress of “Operation Ellamy”, the British codename for its £250m part in the Nato campaign in Libya, a quieter London-sponsored offensive has been taking place on the ground for six months, involving an army of diplomats, spooks, military advisers and former members of the special forces.

One British intelligence operative in the Nafusa Mountains had previously been deployed elsewhere in Libya, including the besieged city of Misrata, part of attempts by London to influence events in Libya beyond the activities of warplanes and naval vessels.

It is a clandestine operation that got off to a spectacularly inauspicious start in March when seven SAS soldiers and an MI6 officer were detained by militia members outside the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, during a botched mission to make contact with anti-Gaddafi leaders. Since then, the British auxiliary efforts have been conducted more clandestinely.

A British diplomatic source said: “From quite an early stage there has been a view that Gaddafi’s stranglehold would only be broken if there were practical measures on the ground as well as the air campaign. We are not talking legions of SAS crawling through the undergrowth. What we are talking about is offering expertise, diplomatic support and allowing others to be helpful.”

The “others” in question are the small groups of former special forces operatives, many with British accents, working for private security firms who have been seen regularly by reporters in the vanguard of the rebels’ haphazard journey from Benghazi towards Tripoli.

These small detachments of Caucasian males, equipped with sunglasses, 4×4 vehicles and locally acquired weaponry, do not welcome prying eyes, not least because their presence threatened to give credence to the Gaddafi regime’s claims that the rebel assault was being directed by Western fifth-columnists.

Amid frustration and even disdain in British and Allied circles about the ragtag nature of much of the Libyan rebel army – whose reputation as fair-weather fighters proved to be literal in April when two days of rainfall halted their offensive – London has been content for the Benghazi-based National Transitional Council to use funds to buy in ex-SAS men and others with a British military background to help train and advise anti-Gaddafi forces.

The Independent understands that the contracts for the security companies, often signed in Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, have involved funds provided by Western countries to the NTC, although much of the money has come from previously frozen regime bank accounts and assets.

The coalition, including Britain, France and Italy, has also funded high-tech equipment used by rebel fighters to communicate their position to Nato commanders as they plot the air strikes that have helped to tilt the balance against Colonel Gaddafi’s demoralised military forces. Since March, British forces have destroyed 890 targets in Libya, including 180 tanks or armoured vehicles and 395 buildings.

But it is arguably in the arena of post-conflict planning that the British have been most active. In the wake of last month’s decision by London to recognise the NTC as the de facto government of Libya, expelling pro-Gaddafi diplomats in London, the UK mission to Benghazi is now the second largest in North Africa. Diplomats have been engaged in drawing up a blueprint for a post-Gaddafi Libya, including humanitarian aid, help with policing, governance and reform of the military. The prize of being seen as a “friend” in a stable, oil-rich Libya is considerable.

Call for Megrahi’s return

Pressure was mounting last night on the British Government to seek the return of the Lockerbie bomber Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, who has been a vigorous supporter of the Gaddafi regime since being returned to Tripoli from a Scottish jail two years ago. The Tory MP Robert Halfon said rebel leaders should be urged to extradite the former intelligence officer. The Foreign Office said: “He was convicted in a Scottish court under Scottish law. He could be returned under the terms of his release but that is a matter for the relevant authorities.”


Posted in LibyaComments Off on Rebels claim the victory – but did the Brits win it?

Hackers, Worms and IsraHelL-USA Collusion Versus Gaza-Palestine

by Eileen Fleming


On Sunday, an Egyptian hacker published a picture of Egyptian soldiers raising the Egyptian flag in Sinai on October 6, 1973, on the website of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Egyptian hackers also managed to hack into the official Israeli Radio webpage to protest the death of the five Egyptian soldiers killed by the Israeli army. [1]

On August 19th, the conservative Jerusalem Post reported:

“Israel’s strikes on the Gaza Strip in response to terror attacks that killed 8 Israelis on Thursday are part of efforts by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to thwart the Palestinians bid for UN statehood recognition Senior Fatah official Nabil Shaath claimed in a statement.” [2]

Officials of Israel’s Kadima party, headed by Tzipi Livni and the head of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, Shaul Mofaz are pushing for another large-scale military offensive, including a ground invasion, against the Gaza Strip. [3]

Last week’s deadly three-pronged attack by unidentified gunmen on Israeli soldiers and civilians near the Red Sea resort town of Eilat has not yet been linked to any group in Gaza, and both Hamas and the PRC have denied responsibility for the attacks.

Responsibility is defined by Webster’s as a “state or fact of having a duty to deal with something. The state or fact of being accountable or to blame for something.”

This reporter and Citizen of CONSCIENCE for House of Representatives 2012 states the fact that America’s “special relationship” with Israel is not in the best interests of Americans!

I also comprehend that we the people have a “duty to deal” with that!

Case in Point:

In mid-July, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta revealed at a news conference that the Pentagon considers the commercial Internet to be “another operational theater of war”—and that StratCom [United States Strategic Command] and Cyber Command must be ready to take on more offensive roles in combating cyber assaults. [4]

Every hack attack “makes the case for even greater government encroachment on our civil liberties. Every new intrusion builds the case for government waging offensive forms of cyber-warfare to pre-emptively defend our national security. And StratCom now serves as the command center for conducting this 21st-century brand of war.” [IBID]

In January 2012, The New York Times reported on the USA-Israeli Nuclear collaboration called The Stuxnet Worm.

The Stuxnet Worm is a “fringe benefit of a program launched by Israel with the help of U.S. cyber-forces to cripple Iran’s nuclear capabilities with a computer worm—a rogue program similar to a virus. The ‘Stuxnet’ worm was designed to interrupt the operation of centrifuges at the Natanz uranium enrichment plant, but now has been confirmed to have spread to other Iranian nuclear facilities, including Bushehr.” [IBID]

Over the past two years, according to intelligence and military experts familiar with its operations, Israel’s clandestine WMD facility in the Negev, known as the “Dimona has taken on a new, equally secret role — as a critical testing ground in a joint American and Israeli effort to undermine Iran’s efforts to make a bomb of its own.

Behind Dimona’s barbed wire, the experts say, Israel has spun nuclear centrifuges virtually identical to Iran’s at Natanz, where Iranian scientists are struggling to enrich uranium. They say Dimona tested the effectiveness of the Stuxnet computer worm, a destructive program that appears to have wiped out roughly a fifth of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges and helped delay, though not destroy, Tehran’s ability to make its first nuclear arms.

“Though American and Israeli officials refuse to talk publicly about what goes on at Dimona, the operations there, as well as related efforts in the United States, are among the newest and strongest clues suggesting that the virus was designed as an American-Israeli project to sabotage the Iranian program…Officially, neither American nor Israeli officials will even utter the name of the malicious computer program, much less describe any role in designing it.

“How and when Israel obtained this kind of first-generation centrifuge remains unclear, whether from Europe, or the Khan network, or by other means. But nuclear experts agree that Dimona came to hold row upon row of spinning centrifuges. Another clue involves the United States….[an] expert added that Israel worked in collaboration with the United States in targeting Iran, but that Washington was eager for ‘plausible deniability.’” [5]

There is no ‘plausible’ way to deny US and Israeli Nuclear Deceptions or what Mordechai Vanunu exposed in 1986:

The Stuxnet’s designers “are believed to be computer experts in Israel’s ‘Unit 8200’ signals-intelligence agency [who] failed to consider how it might spread to other facilities with dangerous results.” [6]

Americans should intelligently consider the “dangerous results” of the 81 Members of Congress who took an AIPAC-funded junket to Israel during the summer recess.

According to the House Ethics Rules, Congress is prohibited from participating in any multiple-day trip that is planned, organized, requested, or arranged by a lobbyist.

Americans should also intelligently consider the “dangerous results” of the “special relationship” with Israel and Congress’ collusion in Operation Cast Lead; Israel’s 22-day attack on the people of Gaza, which was enabled by US-supplied weapons and foreign policy.

We the people of the US who pay taxes provide over $3 billion annually to Israel although Israel has consistently misused U.S. weapons in violation of America’s Arms Export Control and Foreign Assistance Acts.

America is the worlds largest arms supplier to Israel and under a Bush negotiated deal with Israel that Obama signed onto, we the people who pay taxes in America will also provide another $30 billion in military aid to Israel over the next decade.

During the 22 days of Israeli assault on Gaza, “Washington provided F-16 fighter planes, Apache helicopters, tactical missiles, and a wide array of munitions, including white phosphorus and DIME. The weapons required for the Israeli assault was decided upon in June 2008, and the transfer of 1,000 bunker-buster GPS-guided Small Diameter Guided Bomb Units 39 (GBU-39) were approved by Congress in September. The GBU 39 bombs were delivered to Israel in November (prior to any claims of Hamas cease fire violation!) for use in the initial air raids on Gaza. [7]

In a 71-page report released March 25, 2009, by Human Rights Watch, Israel’s repeated firing of US-made white phosphorus shells over densely populated areas of Gaza was indiscriminate and is evidence of war crimes.

In November 2006, Father Manuel of the Latin Church and school in Gaza warned the world:

“Gaza cannot sleep! The people are suffering unbelievably. They are hungry, thirsty, have no electricity or clean water. They are suffering constant bombardments and sonic booms from low flying aircraft…Many children have been violently thrown from their beds at night from the sonic booms. Many arms and legs have been broken. These planes fly low over Gaza and then reach the speed of sound. This shakes the ground and creates shock waves like an earthquake that causes people to be thrown from their bed. I myself weigh 120 kilos and was almost thrown from my bed due to the shock wave produced by a low flying jet that made a sonic boom…These actions are War Crimes!”

While hard working American tax payers face economic hardships, 81 members of Congress neglected listening to their constituents during this summers recess to take a lobbyist-funded trip designed to pressure them into sending even more tax-payer-funded weapons to the Israeli military which will be used to commit human rights abuses against Palestinians.

We the people should also be cognizant that The Stuxnet Worm is a software smart-bomb, and the worm always turns:

“To whom do lions cast their gentle looks?
Not to the beast that would usurp their den.
The smallest worm will turn being trodden on,
And doves will peck in safeguard of their brood.” –Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 3.

The Pentagon strategy released July 13

1. Egyptian Hacker Hacks Into Netanyahu’s Website

2. ‘Israeli strikes on Gaza ploy to thwart statehood bid’

3. Kadima Opposition Party Demands Massive Military Attack On Gaza

4. StratCom the Cyber Warriorr

5.Israeli Test on Worm Called Crucial in Iran Nuclear Delays

6. US Arms Used for War Crimes in Gaza

Posted in GazaComments Off on Hackers, Worms and IsraHelL-USA Collusion Versus Gaza-Palestine

9/11: A Conspiracy Beyond Theory


Of course the hijackers knew nothing about any plan to fly into buildings like kamikaze pilots on a suicide mission.


by Paul J Balles

Let’s say Mossad, Israel’s intelligence deceivers, speaking perfect Arabic and pretending to be Arabs, infiltrated an Al Qaeda cell and hatched a plan to highjack four planes; and that would show everyone how clever Al Qaeda was.

The biggest political mistake I’ve ever made was to vote for Barack Obama. I should have known that a really great campaign speaker and organizer would probably make an inept president.

All of Obama’s emphatic talk about change sounded appealing; even though Washington has proven so often that it’s incapable of changing. There are just too many self-interests needing trade-offs with other self-interests, none of which has public needs in mind.

The fact that Obama opposed the Iraq War carried a lot of weight with those who don’t believe America should mind everybody else’s business.

Many had enough of Bush-Cheney war-mongering for the neo-cons (aka American Zionists who desperately wanted America to take out Iraq before Saddam Hussein could wage the mother of all WMDs against Israel).

YouTube – Veterans Today –

So the Zioncons made up stories, pretended that fiction was fact and lied about non-existent WMDs.

Some argue they even went so far as to arrange for the slaughter of 3000 plus people on 9/11 with Israel’s help.

Let’s say Mossad, Israel’s intelligence deceivers, speaking perfect Arabic and pretending to be Arabs, infiltrated an Al Qaeda cell and hatched a plan to highjack four planes; and that would show everyone how clever Al Qaeda was.

Of course the hijackers knew nothing about any plan to fly into buildings like kamikaze pilots on a suicide mission.

Once they got into the air and managed to get control of the planes, there would be nothing else the hijackers had to do. Thank you very much; everything would now be on remote control, with planes being flown like drones and directed by the Pentagon.

All the Israeli-firsters needed to do now was trigger the already placed thermal devices in the Trade Centre buildings just before the time the flying drones were guided into the top of the twin towers.

Another plane was droned into a largely unoccupied wing of the Pentagon, and the last–not allowed to fly into the White House–was shot down over Pennsylvania.

The whole story is perfect enough to allow Bush to continue reading to school children in Florida and for Cheney to pretend fear of terror while hiding in a bunker under the White House.

Of course the dots had to be connected between hijackers and Al Qaeda who at first knew nothing about the operation, and later -Bin Laden hearing they were blamed for 9/11- ignorantly accepted credit.  (Editor’s note:  We have no records of Osama bin Laden ever taking credit for 9/11, quite the opposite.  The last statement made by bin Laden blamed Israel and others inside the US)

Is there any better rationale for assassinating Bin Laden, once he was allowed to be found, than to keep him from eventually testifying that he had nothing to do with 9/11?

Once Bin Laden claimed credit for bombing America, the Taliban refused to turn him over to US authorities without evidence that Bin Laden was indeed guilty.

That provided enough reason for America to gather a coalition of 9/11 sympathizers to agree to invade Afghanistan. Does anyone seriously believe it took 10 years to find Bin Laden? Certainly Obama must know better!

Before locating and capturing the Al Qaeda mastermind, it was necessary to go to war with Iraq. In order to do that, Iraq had to be associated with the reign of terror connecting the triumvirate of evil: Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

North Korea was simply thrown into Bush’s Axis of Evil to send a message to China while pretending that the US wasn’t focusing only on Middle Eastern threats to Israel.

Now here’s Barack Obama, foster child of Bush-Cheney, trying to prove to the Zioncons (who have already jumped ship) that he’s as much a warrior for Israel as his predecessors were.

Shame on me for ignoring the lessons of history: a great campaigner can make an inept leader!

Posted in USAComments Off on 9/11: A Conspiracy Beyond Theory

Another Zionist False Flag?


 by Stephen Lendman


Mossad and Shin Bet (Israel’s Security Agency) have long, odious histories of committing them. More on that below.

At issue now is whether the August 18 bus and other attacks inside Israel were committed by external elements or Israel, and if so, why?

Also at issue always is cui bono? In fact, Hamas and various Palestinian resistance groups have nothing to gain. Clearly Israel benefits greatly at least two ways:

(1) The upcoming September UN General Assembly vote on Palestinian self-determination Israel very much wants to derail.

(2) Weeks of nationwide internal social justice protests Netanyahu also wants to diffuse and end.

Both are compelling reasons for employing tried and true tactics – change the subject by diverting public attention.

In this case, scaring people enough to put safety above pocket book issues, as well as getting UN member states perhaps to rethink the wisdom of supporting Palestinian sovereignty at this time, with Israel allegedly under attack.

Whether it works will be known when the UN General Assembly meets in September. What’s clear is that last March, Israel informed all Security Council members and prominent EU countries that if Palestinian self-determination efforts within 1967 borders persisted, unilateral Israeli steps would follow, implying harsh ones.

In addition, diffusing social justice protests temporarily worked based on an August 18 Reuters report, saying:

Campaigners “called off planned weekend demonstrations against the high cost of living after a series of terror attacks in the south left seven people dead.”

Of concern is how to reignite protest energy after it wanes, even for a short time. Resumption often lacks initial levels of passion, mass support, and commitment to stay the course, especially when people have other daily priorities, besides worrying whether their country is under attack.

Add it up and it suggests classic false flag reasons, perhaps with planned follow-up attacks for reinforcement. They’re likely if Israel also has another objective in mind – using the attacks as pretext for Cast Lead II.

Israel blamed the Gaza-based Popular Resistance Committees (PRC – a coalition of resistance factions) for launching internal attacks.

PRC spokesman Abu Mujahid told AFP:

“We salute (the operation) and we are proud of it, but we do not claim it. The occupation wants to pin (it) on us in order to escape its own internal problems.”

Hamas also denied responsibility, spokesman Taher al-Nunu telling AFP:

“These (unfounded) accusations are an attempt to distract from the Israeli domestic crisis.”

As expected, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak pointed fingers, despite no corroborating evidence, saying:

“The source of the terror incidents is Gaza and we will act against them with all our strength and determination.”

Also as expected, New York Times coverage was pro-Israeli. On August 19, Heba Afify and Isabel Kershner headlined, “A Long Peace Is Threatened in Israel Attack,” saying:

“A cross-border terrorist attack and an Israeli retaliation (threatened) to undermine” peace with Egypt, with no evidence, except rhetoric, to suggest either.

Afify and Kershner implied Israel was right, saying “attackers were Palestinians from Gaza who had crossed into Israel from the Egyptian Sinai, an assertion Egypt rejected.”

Based on no evidence whatever, Israel’s scripted story is that Gaza-based “terror” operations “began weeks” earlier, likely “involv(ing) 10 to 15 terrorists,” entering Israel “with rifles, explosive belts, grenades, (and) heavier weapons.”

Yet Times writers didn’t question how they managed unspotted, given tight Israeli security and high-tech surveillance, assassinating children and farmers on the slightest pretext.

As for a “long peace,” there’s been none for decades. Daily, the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) and other human rights organizations document regular Israeli bombings, shellings, Cast Lead, Mavi Marmara and other massacres, shootings, targeted assassinations, other attacks, casualties, incursions, Gaza under siege, mass arrests, illegal settlement expansions, bulldozed homes, theft of Palestinian land, dispossessions, and overall Israeli lawlessness – enforcing militarized hell on Palestinians, not peace.

On August 19, PCHR discussed Israel’s response to internal August 18 attacks, saying:

Israeli forces “launched a series of air attacks against civilian-populated areas in the Gaza Strip,” including “extra-judicially executing Kamal al-Nairab, Secretary General of the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC), 4 PRC leaders and a two-year old child….”

Other strikes injured 23 Palestinians, including seven children, six women and three police officers.

On August 20, various news agencies said Israeli air attacks and shelling raised the death toll to 16 and counting. In response, Hamas’ Al-Qassam Brigades armed wing suspended its unilateral ceasefire, a spokesman saying:

“There can be no truce with the Israeli occupation while it commits massacres against the Palestinian people without justification.”

In fact, blaming victims, lawlessness, violence, crimes of war and against humanity, collective punishment, intimidation, attacking unarmed civilians, and overall brutality are Israeli specialties. Combined, they define a rogue state, defiant of international law principles, pursuing its own interests extrajudicially, and getting away with it.

Gazans now worry about a possible Cast Lead II, Israel using perhaps false flag attacks as pretext to launch it. Again, it’s the oldest trick in the book, Israel expert at it like America.

Previous Israeli Targeted Assassinations and False Flags

An Israeli specialty, they began well before 1948 during the Mandatory Palestine period when Jewish terrorist groups targeted Jews, Brits and Arabs. Involved were paramilitary Hagana members, Irgun headed by future prime minister Menachem Begin, and Lehi (also called the Stern Gang) led by another future prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir. They were rogue killers before entering politics.

In November 1944, Lehi assassinated Lord Moyne, Britain’s Middle East minister of state, near his home in Cairo.

In September 1948, it also killed UN mediator Folke Bernadotte in Jerusalem, five months after Israel was established. Yitzhak Shamir personally approved the assassination.

In July 1946, Irgun bombed the King David Hotel, massacring 92 Brits, Arabs and Jews, wounding 58 others, an operation future prime minister David Ben-Gurion approved as head of the Jewish Agency at the time.

Before and after May 1948, many thousands of targeted killings occurred or were attempted, most little remembered today except among relatives and their descendants.

Little wonder Israel’s history is so bloodstained, involving individual and mass killings, including on April 9, 1948 (during Israel’s “war of independence”) when Irgun, Lehi and complicit terrorists slaughtered well over 120 Palestinian men, women and children in the bloody Deir Yassin village massacre. On April 14, The New York Times reported 254 killed.

Post-1948, Palestinian supporters were targeted regionally and in Europe. Waves of successful and attempted assassinations occurred, notably against high-profile figures.

In 1954, Israeli agents in Egypt planted bombs in various buildings, including US and UK facilities, using evidence to implicate Arabs. The so-called Lavon Affair failed when a device prematurely detonated, letting Egyptians capture and identify one of the bombers. In turn, it led to rounding up an Israeli spy ring.

More recently, Hamas member Mahmoud al-Mabhouh was killed in Dubai after two earlier failed attempts. Abu-Dhabi’s the National reported he was poisoned, drugged, and suffocated after previously surviving a failed shooting. Found dead in a Dubai hotel on January 20, 2010, police accused Mossad of murder.

Earlier incidents included Palestinians Abdel Wael Zwaiter, shot 11 times by Israeli agents in Rome after returning home from dinner. It was the first of dozens of retaliatory assassinations against persons suspected of involvement in the 1972 Munich summer Olympic killings of Israeli athletes, coaches and officials, allegedly by Black September members, a resistance, not a terrorist organization.

On June 14, 1980, Yahia El Meshad, then head of Iraq’s nuclear program, was found bludgeoned to death in his Paris hotel room. No one was arrested, but French authorities named Israeli intelligence.

On August 20, 1983, Mamoun Meraish was shot and killed while driving in Athens. Israeli agents were blamed.

During the 1970s and 1980s, Mossad was implicated in numerous Beirut and other car bombings, one of its specialities.

On January 6, 2007, Haaretz reported that newly released British documents claim Shin Bet collaborated with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) in the hijacking of Air France 139 from Israel, diverted to Entebbe, Uganda.

Arab terrorists were falsely blamed. Elite Israeli commandos led by Yonatan Netanyahu, Bibi’s older brother, became instant heros for their “miraculous” rescue. An unnamed UK diplomat blamed Israel, saying:

“The operation was designed to torpedo the PLO’s standing in France and to prevent what (was seen as) growing rapprochement between the PLO and the Americans.”

British diplomat DH Colvin included information in the document that Israel and the PFLP collaborated. Haaretz said it “was written on June 30, 1976, three days after the hijacking and prior to the rescue operation.”

On September 25, 1997, two Mossad agents with forged Canadian passports attacked Hamas leader Khaled Meshal in Jordan, spraying him with an unknown poison. He survived and recovered to explain.

In January 2002, a car bomb killed former Lebanese cabinet minister Elie Hobeika and three bodyguards. In 1982, he was involved in the infamous Sabra and Shatilla camp massacres. Days before his assassination, he expressed willingness to implicate then Defense Minister Ariel Sharon’s direct role. Clearly, Mossad killed him to prevent it.

In May 2002, Mossad murdered Mohammed Jihad Jibril, son of Ahmed Jibril, founder and head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP).

In August 2003, Mossad assassinated Ali Hassan Saheh, Hezbollah’s top security officer. Prime Minister Sharon ordered Meir Dagan, its head until January 1, 2011, to conduct assassinations abroad.

No explanation is needed for why Mossad exists. It functions as a de facto Murder, Inc. within or outside Israel, making Mafia families seem benign by comparison.

From 2002 – 2006, it was responsible for numerous car bombings, killing Hezbollah, Hamas, and other officials regionally.

On February 12, 2008, a car bomb killed Hezbollah member Imad Hugniyeh in Damascus. Mossad again was responsible.

On August 1, 2008, it killed Muhammad Suleiman, a Syrian army officer close to President Bashar al-Assad, shot by snipers offshore near his vacation villa.

Rafik Hariri’s Assassination

On February 14, 2005, compelling visual and audio evidence revealed real time intercepted Israel aerial surveillance footage of routes former Prime Minister Hariri used on the day his motorcade was attacked. Clearly, Israel was involved.

Washington blamed Syria. Assad denied responsibility. Hezbollah was later falsely named. It was a typical Mossad assassination though no one at the time knew for sure. The blast ripped a 30 foot crater in the street, injuring over 100 besides those killed.

An International Court of Justice (ICC) Special Tribunal (STL) investigated Hariri’s killing. On January 17, its sealed indictment was released, Canadian prosecutor Daniel Bellemare saying the next day that the confidential document was important for the people of Lebanon, the international community, and “for those who believe in international justice.”

On June 30, arrest warrants for four Hezbollah members were issued. None were detained. At the time, Hezbollah said no arrests would be made, calling the tribunal a Washington/Israeli manipulated sham, covering up a classic Mossad operation.

On August 17, the 47-page indictment was released, holding Hezbollah members responsible based on falsified evidence. Those named include Mustafa Amine Badreddine, Salim Jamil Ayyash, Hussein Hassan Oneissi, and Assad Hassan Sabra. Badreddine was called the mission head.

No evidence proves it or that others named were involved. Clearly, Hezbollah had nothing to gain from the assassination but plenty to lose if, in fact, responsible.

A Final Comment

Later evidence may prove one way or the other whether Israel staged the multiple August 18 attacks. It has much to gain by doing so. Hamas, PFLP, and other Palestinians, however, have everything to lose, so why risk involvement? No advantage comes to mind.

In contrast, Israel has compelling reasons as explained above and may succeed precisely as planned. In fact, if Cast Lead II is intended, a trifecta of successes may follow. Palestinians and working Israelis, however, will suffer enormous defeats.

As a result, public awareness of what’s at stake is essential to derail Israel’s latest scheme. Failure to do so is an unacceptable option.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Another Zionist False Flag?

IsraHell Video Games in Gaza


Islam Quraiqe in Gaza

“Minimal Collateral Damage”

Islam was the second two-year-old to be killed by Israeli drone strikes in two days.

by Alison Weir

He looks at the camera with bright eyes and the beginning of a smile, wearing a miniature dark blue zipper sweatshirt, the cuffs folded up a bit to make it fit.

I can imagine his mother dressing him that morning, making sure he would be warm enough. I wonder if she’s the one who took the picture. Someone has written on the photo “kisses.”

It’s not a formal picture. He’s outside on a sunny day. It looks like he was probably moving when the picture was snapped; his arms seem to be swinging a little. As with most almost two-year-olds, I suspect it was hard to get him to stay still long enough for a photo.

It’s a happy picture, the kind that makes you smile; perhaps it reminds you of funny, energetic little children you know or remember.

2 year old Islam’s Death from an Israeli drone strike

Until you see the next picture. It was taken on his second birthday. His name was Islam Quraiqe’.

Death from a drone strike is not pretty. The small body is charred, ripped apart; internal organs are pouring out.

He had been riding with his father and uncle on a motorcycle in Gaza when the missile hit them. His 29-year-old father, a member of the Palestinian resistance, and 32-year-old uncle physician were also killed. Five bystanders, including a woman, were injured.

The missile was fired remotely by an Israeli sitting in front of a video screen and operating one of the many drones that periodically fly over Gaza and shoot Palestinians like fish in a fishbowl. The operators are usually female, the preferred group for this kind of desk job.

The drones, which look like small, pilotless jets, are equipped with precision-guided missiles.

Those operating them receive real-time video feeds from sensors located on the drone: a color nose camera, a TV lens, an infrared camera for low light and night, and a synthetic radar for looking through smoke, clouds or haze. The cameras produce full motion video as well as still frame radar images.

Numerous articles extol the virtues of Israeli drones. An August 17th article by David Rodman reports: “The Israel Air Force (IAF) has a rich history of employing unmanned aerial vehicles in battle with excellent results.” Rodman crows that with the possible exception of the United States, “Israel is the country most closely identified with [drone] operations in the post-World War II period.”

Islam was the second two-year-old to be killed by Israeli forces in two days.

The first was killed by an Israeli “precision” rocket the day before. The boy’s name was Malek Sha’at. His father was also killed. The only picture available online is of a small shrouded body.

An article by reporter Aaron Klein proclaims that Israeli weapons are “capable of taking out stationary and moving targets with minimal collateral damage.”

Perhaps Klein is right. Two years of life is decidedly minimal. Intolerably so.


During this period (August 18-20, 2011) Israeli forces killed 14 Palestinians including at least one other child, a 13-year-old, and injured at least 50, nine of them children. Gazan resistance forces killed one Israeli and injured about 20 . Gazan hospitals, hard hit by the years-long Israeli siege, report that they have run out of 150 medicines and 160 types of medical equipment z9 ).

The Israeli assaults were allegedly triggered by attacks on Thursday, August 18th, by unknown gunmen on the Egyptian border with Israel that killed eight Israelis. Israeli forces killed the attackers in Eilat, also shooting dead, according to the BBC, five Egyptian policemen. The Israeli Defense Minister told Egypt afterwards that “Israel regrets the deaths.”

There is no evidence connecting Gazan resistance groups to the attack, and they have denied responsibility for it. Hamas itself had maintained a unilateral de facto ceasefire since 2009(some independent resistance groups, however, refused to take part in this truce and continued to launch rockets in response to Israeli actions). Groups in Egypt have periodically taken actions opposing Israel. Egyptian authorities say they have identifiedthree of the attackers, who appear to have been based in the Sinai, there are reports that Israeli intelligence warned of the attack ahead of time, and there is mounting information suggesting that the attackers may have been Egyptian, not Gazan.

While many reports describe the Israeli actions as retaliatory, Israeli attacks on Gaza occur regularly and were already ongoing before the Eilat attack. Two days earlier, on Tuesday, an Israeli air strike killed a 29-year-old Palestinian man in the morning, and Israeli ground soldiers killed a disabled teenager later in the day. The youth was shot more than 10 times, mostly in the head. On Wednesday night there were more Israeli air attacks throughout Gaza. (The LA Times called this a period of “relative calm.”) Some analysts suggest that the recent Israeli escalation against Gaza may have been prompted, at least in part, by a Netanyahu desire to deflect energy from the massive social protests that have been enveloping Israel recently.

The death toll among Gazans and Israelis has been notably disproportionate. In Israel’s Dec-Jan 2008-09 “Cast Lead” assault, Israeli forces killed approximately 1,387 Gazans , while resistance forces killed nine Israelis. In the preceding year Israeli forces killed 713 Gazans; Gazan resistance fighters killed eight Israelis. Since “Cast Lead” through the end of July of this year, Israeli forces killed approximately 200 Gazans; Palestinian resistance groups killed approximately five Israelis.

Most of Gaza’s residents are refugee families who were forcibly pushed out by Israel in its 1947-49 founding war, in which non-Jews, who originally made up over 70 percent of the inhabitants, were expelled.

In violation of international law, they have been prohibited from returning to their homes and have lived under crippling Israeli occupation for decades. Palestinian land is continually confiscated by Israel for Jewish-only use. A popular uprising against Israeli occupation began in the fall of 2000.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said  yesterday: “Those who operate against us will be decapitated.” That night at least 100 Israeli military vehicles stormed into the West Bank city of Hebron, closing the city off for hours and rounding up more than 50 Palestinians, including several academics and members of charitable associations.

On Saturday, August 20th, Israeli Aerospace Industries proudly unveiled its latest drone, known as the “GHOST,” which the company announced, “is at the forefront of technology thanks to years of experience and knowledge acquired in the field of unmanned aerial vehicles.”

Israel partisan and author David Rodman reports that Israeli drones “played a substantial part” in Israel’s 1982 Lebanon war (in which Israeli forces killed at least 17,825 Lebanese, compared to 344 Israelis killed by the Lebanese resistance) and that their use in what he acknowledges in profound understatement were “asymmetric conflicts” – the 2006 Second Lebanon war (Israeli forces killed at least 1,125 Lebanese , almost all civilians, a third of them children; Lebanese resistance forces killed 164 Israelis, about three-quarters of them soldiers and the 2008–2009 Cast Lead operation – “sparked renewed global interest in Israeli drone operations.”

Rodman states: “In terms of the technological sophistication of its UAV force, Israel is unquestionably well ahead of the pack. Only the United States is in the same league.”

Source: Counterpunch

Posted in GazaComments Off on IsraHell Video Games in Gaza

Doomsday Defense Budget?


by Bob Hanafin

I noted in my last commentary on defense spending that  this post would be on what critics who oppose steep defense cuts have to say in what they label as ‘Doomsday’ defense cuts.

It is remarkable how politicians with close ties to the Defense Industry love to demonize and label any significant cuts to our defense budget with terms likeDOOMSDAY.

Fearing a return to the Peace dividend days of the First Bush and Clinton administrations, defense spending advocates began writing OP EDs and articles in an attempt to circle their wagons against the threat of another so-called Peace Dividend should we pull the bulk of our troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan any time soon.

The irony is that regardless if the political definition of a Peace dividend comes from the left, right or center there is in reality NO PEACE DIVIDEND. Regardless if our troops leave Iraq and Afghanistan or not there will be NO PEACE DIVIDEND.

It doesn’t take a Wall Street Broker or Economist for readers to understand what makes sense. How can we have any dividend when we have not paid into the stock or investment program called DEFENSE?

Our wars and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan have never been paid for by raising war bonds (as during WWI), or a war tax (beginning with the American Civil War).

Just like about everything else included in the US debt ceiling, funding raising funds and collateral for the wars has been largely on loan from foreign nations, including Communist China.

ROBERT L. HANAFIN, Veterans Issues and Peace Activism Writer, Veterans Today

Bipartisan Politicians who benefit from Defense Spending fear a Doomsday Pentagon Budget

According to AP reporter Marc Levy, “For the dozen lawmakers tasked with producing a deficit-cutting plan, the threatened “doomsday” defense cuts hit close to home.

The six Republicans and six Democrats represent states where the biggest military contractors — Lockheed MartinGeneral Dynamics Corp.Raytheon Co. andBoeing Co. — build missiles, aircraft, jet fighters and tanks while employing tens of thousands of workers.

The potential for $500 billion in defense cuts could force the Pentagon to cancel or scale back multibillion-dollar weapons programs. That could translate into significant layoffs in a fragile economy, generate millions less in tax revenues for local governments and upend lucrative company contracts with foreign nations.

The cuts could hammer Everett, Wash., where some of the 30,000 Boeing employees are working on giant airborne refueling tankers for the Air Force, or Amarillo, Texas, where 1,100 Bell Helicopter Textron workers assemble the fuselage, wings, engines and transmissions for the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft.

Billions in defense cuts would be a blow to the hundreds working on upgrades to the Abrams tank for General Dynamics in Lima, Ohio, or the employees of BAE Systems in Pennsylvania.

For committee members such as Sens. Patty Murray, D-Wash., Rob Portman, R-Ohio, and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., the threat of Pentagon cuts is an incentive to come up with $1.5 trillion in savings over a decade. Failure would have brutal implications for hundreds of thousands workers back home and raise the potential of political peril for the committee’s 12.

“I think we all have very good reasons to try to prevent” the automatic cuts, Toomey told reporters last week when pressed about the impact on Pennsylvania’s defense industry. “That is not the optimal outcome here, the much better outcome would be a successful product from this committee.”

The panel has until Thanksgiving to come up with recommendations. If they deadlock or if Congress rejects their proposal, $1.2 trillion in automatic, across-the-board cuts kick in.

Up to $500 billion would hit the Pentagon.

Those cuts, starting in 2013, would be in addition to the $350 billion, 10-year reduction already dictated by the debt-limit bill approved by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama this month.

Doomsday Mechanism

Not surprisingly, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has described the automatic cuts as the “doomsday mechanism.” He’s warned that the prospect of nearly $1 trillion in reductions over a decade would seriously undermine the military’s ability to protect the United States.

For the Pentagon, “we’re talking about cuts of such magnitude that everything is reduced to some degree,” saidLoren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Lexington Institute, a [conservative] think tank. “At that rate, you’re eliminating the next generation of weapons.”

Veterans Today Note: Within the mission statement of the conservative Lexington Institute think tank is a focus on the international projection of American military power to promote and protect DEMOCRACY (hum), “By promoting America’s ability to project power around the globe we not only defend the homeland of democracy, but also sustain the international stability in which other free-market democracies can thrive.”

As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a possible successor to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton if Obama wins a second term, Sen. John Kerry is certain to be protective of the budget for the State Department.

Yet the Massachusetts Democrat…represents a state that was fifth in the nation with $8.37 billion in defense contracts this year, behind Virginia, California, Texas and Connecticut, according to data on the federal government’s website

In Tewksbury and Andover, Mass., deep defense cuts could have serious ramifications for thousands of Raytheon employees working on the Patriot, the air and missile defense system. It was heralded for its effectiveness during the 1991 Persian Gulf War and is now sold to close to a dozen nations, including South Korea, Taiwan and the United Arab Emirates.

Whatever decisions Kerry and the committee make will affect Massachusetts-based Raytheon, which was fourth in defense contracts this year at $7.3 billion, behind Lockheed Martin, Boeing and General Dynamics. Raytheon also has operations in Arizona, home to another committee member, Republican Sen. Jon Kyl.

In February, Senator Patty Murray celebrated when the Air Force ended a decade-long saga of delays and missteps and awarded one of the biggest defense contracts ever, a $35 billion deal to build nearly 200 air refueling tankers, to Boeing, a mainstay in her home state.

Boeing was fourth on the list of [political campaign] donors to Murray from 2007-2012, with its political action committee, individual employees and family members contributing $102,610.

Michigan is home to two committee members, Republican Reps. Dave Camp and Fred Upton, and General Dynamics work on the Abrams tank. The state is struggling with a 10.5 percent unemployment rate, which is above the national average.

Already facing the prospect of $350 billion in defense cuts over 10 years, the Pentagon could look to scale back some projects, such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the stealthy aircraft that has been plagued by cost overruns and delays.

Lockheed Martin, in conjunction with Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems, is building 2,400 of the next generation fighter jet for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, as well as working with eight foreign countries.But the cost of the program has jumped from $233 billion to $385 billion; some estimates suggest that it could top out at $1 trillion over 50 years.

Questioned about the defense cuts, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen recently said that “programs that can’t meet schedule, that can’t meet cost … requirements are very much in jeopardy and will be very much under scrutiny.”

The Joint Strike Fighter is being built in Fort Worth, Texas, and Palmdale and El Segundo, Calif. Those are the states of committee members Reps. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, and Xavier Becerra, D-Calif. Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems also have operations in Pennsylvania.

The Pentagon could decide to scrap the program or scale it back while upgrading the existing F-15 and F-18 aircraft, a troubling prospect for lawmakers from the states that benefit from F-35 production.

In the military world, however, reducing the number could make it more costly.

“The problem when you cut back in numbers is you increase the number for one, you increase the cost for one,” said Laicie Olson, a senior policy analyst with Council for a Livable World and the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. “Sometimes it’s almost better to buy more.”

Boeing, in a statement, said it has been “anticipating flattening defense budgets for some time.” Company spokesman Daniel C. Beck said that while Boeing is trying to improve production and efficiency, it’s moving into new markets such as cybersecurity and energy management.

Posted in USAComments Off on Doomsday Defense Budget?

The Next Bubbles? An Impending Collapse of Foreign Military Aid?


Americans are beginning to ask questions

When pressed for details, Americans are getting congressional obfuscation, bumper sticker-style labels, and a bit of self-righteous anger.

By Karen Kwiatkowski

– Retd. U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel

 The language of bubbles has permeated the American media and the American psyche.  That whole categories of financial flows can grow, glow and then burst revealing emptiness, waste and fraud is now an accepted model for understanding American in the 21st century.

What these modern bubbles, and most historical ones, seem to share is government “leadership” and government blessings, and a taxpayer (born and unborn) subsidy of this or that investment. Ponzi schemes of all kinds lead to bubbles, promises of easy gains for low risk that, when they come due or are discovered, collapse swiftly and painfully.  Bubbles are the predictable result of lies being told about what is wise, what is worthy, and what is good for this or that entity.

We are aware of the housing bubble, the financial bubble stemming from mortgage security swaps, the coming college and the municipal debt bubbles, and the bubble growing around the U.S. Federal Reserve notes.

Some bubbles are bigger than others, of course, and different groups are differently impacted when these bubbles explode and investors sort it out and reallocate any remaining pieces.  Certainly, government intervention delays and warps any post bubble recovery. What is simple in many ways is made complicated and difficult to understand, but the fundamental facts will inevitably have their day.

Karen Kwiatkowski – Retd. U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel

Earlier this week I participated in a panel discussing military aid to Israel, and why it should be reduced drastically. One argument against this aid is that Israel misuses US developed technology by stealing it, selling it, trading on it, and using it to compete against U.S. defense and security firms for global sales.

Another argument is that this aid ends up costing American taxpayers far more than the actual dollar amount by fomenting tension in the region, reducing American credibility and options, and by creating unnecessary enemies, and expensive but ultimately unnecessary supplicants and “allies” in the region.

When they are in the United States, Israel’s politicians and leaders, most recently Benjamin Netanyahu, pay repetitive lip service to the idea that Israel is a dedicated military ally and reliable friend of the United States.   Yet, strangely, the United States and Israel do not have, and have never had, a treaty of mutual defense.

Opposition to such a treaty comes largely from the Israeli side (and consequently, from Israel’s many standing and genuflecting ovationers in Congress) who tend to see any treaty as a possible limitation on Israeli government’s ability to conduct “defense.”

Certainly, territorial expansion, barrier and road building, and control of human movement and trade far beyond the 1967 borders are seen as “defensive nation building” by many Israelis. For the U.S. to be a legally binding party to such activity would be an obvious and public violation of international law, and an open rejection of the ideas that emerged after World War II.

Believe it or not, there was a broad-based recoil around the world at the shocking totalitarian abuses of human rights and liberty conducted by governments on all sides against their own people, and their neighbors, during those wars.

West Bank Israeli – For Jews Only – Settlements

To put it plainly, if the United States president signed such a treaty with Israel, and the Congress ratified it, many elected leaders in the United States would be on record as supporting Israel’s “defense” strategy, rather than having it both ways as they do today.

A defense treaty with Israel would instantly negate all that President Obama said last week about supporting peace and democratic progress in the Middle East, and specifically contradict his vague statement regarding the 1967 borders as a guide to a two-state solution.  A defense treaty would be also a very honest and open thing to do, and it would codify the fundamental and brutal nature of the U.S.-Israel relationship, here and throughout the Middle East.

The First Agreement – Where All the Trouble Began

 Such a treaty would make the United States less of a hypocrite.

It would help the rest of the world and average Americans fully understand our Middle East basing policies and practices, and our various attempts to puppet-master, promote or topple other regional governments.

One of the key features of a bubble ready to pop is that a small number of intimate observers of the situation begin cry into the wilderness, often pointing to certain fundamental flaws, or unnoticed oversights.

These observers and participants who warn of a coming collapse or bursting bubble may be thought of as canaries in a mineshaft.

Th  humble canary song is welcomed because it means the system parameters are still solid.

But the naysayers, the cautious critics, and the wise proactive analysts tend to be ignored by the “investors” when they sing, and these canaries are pressured to go silent.

 The Balfour Agreement’s bubble, “clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”…has been popping for a long time.

Certainly this is the case of those who challenge the idea that the congressionally forced U.S. taxpayer funding of Israel’s defense industry is a worthwhile investment in American security.  The $3 billion in annual financial military financing and other military aid, and the other lending of diplomatic and military credibility to the Israeli government, no matter what that government does, or how it does it, is an expensive policy.

Unlike most other military aid doled out around the world, the United States attaches no substantive conditions on this and the massive in-kind gifts to, and cached weapons we store in, Israel.  We require no U.S. basing rights, no standing overflight rights, and do not require, as we do for all other FMF, that the tax money be 100% spent on U.S.-produced products and services. 

We do not require that Israel abide by international law or norms in the use of American military products, such that American cluster bombs and white phosphorus artillery shells may end up used on civilians or on civilian infrastructure, incriminating the American taxpayer in collateral maiming and murder, and illegal destruction of habitats and economies. 

Instead, Israel has been able to game the free money system such that today, 25% of the assistance may be spent solely on the burgeoning Israeli defense industry, which competes with the major American defense sector for customers around the world – without the constraints U.S. companies have in selling goods, services, and technologies to the United States’ antagonists and sanctionees of the day.

As we speak of bubbles yet unpopped, I will suggest two. In general, the United States defense industry constitutes a bubble, even as contrarians accurately understand that governments in financial trouble and facing a discrediting national collapse tend to go to war to silence domestic critics and squeeze the last nickel from the collective coffers for their political and corporate friends, and as both parties fight to save the industry as a last ditch “jobs” program for the children. It is the way of all empire, and will be so for us.

Thus ultimately, big state debt- and deficit-funded defense spending is a bubble overdue for a collapse, a sputtering and then a raging rush away from this wasteful, unnecessary and over-hyped industry.  When during budget debate time, every other radio advertisement you hear in Washington demands you heart Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, overwhelming even the incessant push for antidepressants, one can sense the concern that someone will find out about this house of cards, and observe that it struts upon the stage, as Shakespeare would say, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Retired General William “Jerry” Boykin

Far more vulnerable to an imminent pop, with few tears by average Americans, will be foreign financial aid to all countries, including Israel, the largest recipient of such aid. AIPAC is stale and aging, an old man’s commiseration club, sufferable only because it is habitual.

Christian Zionists, some of whom I witnessed earlier this week engaged in verbal and physical violence towards a CNIF member, are losing their cool in more ways than one.

For the first time, I met an infamous supporter of U.S. tax-funded assistance to Israel and its geographical expansion, a retired three star Army general and helpful contributor to our current pro-Israel policy that includes several wars and occupations in the Middle East, and our torture and rendition of detainees.

He worked as a second to Stephen Cambone and was part of the neocon cadre so prominent in the Pentagon and Executive corridors in 2002 and afterwards. The portly and emotion-driven Jerry Boykin must have been a weak and angry shadow of his former self, I thought to myself.

But indeed, he is what he is, and what he always was. What changed was my perception of him, my new and concrete awareness that he was a fraud, a walking sale pitch for more war and war spending when, in fact, none was or is necessary. Oil will be pumped, processed and traded, and Israel will survive and prosper, even as the United States withdraws financial aid and symbols of military might from the region.

The great build-up of bases in the region, from Saudi Arabia to Iraq, in Bahrain and Kuwait, in North Africa and Afghanistan – all without a serious defensive debate or justification is amazingly typical of a bubble in the months and years before it decisively collapses.  It’s the hurry up and get on board phase of the Ponzi scheme, the mad rush to get in on the deal, because it is almost too good to be true.

‘US Congress controlled by AIPAC’

Americans are beginning to ask questions, and the answers they are getting from the U.S. Government, the Israel lobby and Israel’s political leadership amount to “…move along, nothing to see here, folks.”  When pressed for details, Americans are getting congressional obfuscation, bumper sticker-style labels, and a bit of self-righteous anger.  By now, Americans know all about the nature of bubbles, and hopefully they won’t be surprised by these coming collapses.

Source: CNI – Council for National Interest

Posted in USAComments Off on The Next Bubbles? An Impending Collapse of Foreign Military Aid?

Challenging AIPAC’s Abuse of Taxpayers Money


AIPAC is the main culprit in the process of defrauding the American people

by Omar Barghouti

The fact is, U.S. citizens have been bankrolling Israel’s system of occupation, racial discrimination and denial of basic human rights to the tune of billions of dollars annually without knowing what they were funding and why.

The Arab democratic spring, striving to end authoritarian rule and establish freedoms and social justice, has not been welcome by all. Israel and its main lobby in the U.S., the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), for instance, appear to have been caught off guard and visibly disturbed by the seemingly irreversible transformations that these uprisings promise to bring about in the Arab world and, to an extent, the world at large.

Having stood on the wrong side of history during the Tunisian and then the Egyptian revolutions, supporting the despots and authoritarian regimes against the people, Israel has a lot to lose from the democratic winds of change in the region. When Hosni Mubarak was about to be overthrown by the people’s revolution in Egypt Israel launched a diplomatic campaign to convince key Western capitals to support him lest stability is lost and Israel’s other tyrannical friends in the region feel abandoned.

In Tunisia, as well, the vaunted electronic surveillance apparatus of the former dictator Ben-Ali was run in close cooperation with Israel, as exposed by Tunisian civil society organizations. With more of Israel’s friends in the region being dethroned, it is becoming abundantly clear how much Israel and its Western partners have invested in safeguarding and buttressing the unelected, autocratic regimes in the Arab world, partially to make a self-fulfilling prophecy of Israel as the “villa in the midst of the jungle” — the myth often repeated by AIPAC. The impact of debunking that myth cannot be overstated.

Israel has, for decades, extracted billions of dollars, not to mention diplomatic, political, and scientific support from the U.S. and European states partially based on this misleading image of Israeli democracy, and despite all the evidence to the contrary. A state that has been imposing an occupation regime for almost 44 years on Palestinians in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza, that has denied on racial grounds millions of refugees their UN-sanctioned right to return home, and that is regularly condemned by its chief benefactor and ally, the U.S. government, for its “system of institutional, legal and societal discrimination” against its own Palestinian minority carrying Israeli citizenship cannot reasonably be regarded as a “democracy.”

Racial discrimination – a tool of occupation Image: Al jazeera

The fact is, U.S. citizens have been bankrolling Israel’s system of occupation, racial discrimination and denial of basic human rights to the tune of billions of dollars annually without knowing what they were funding and why. AIPAC is the main culprit in this process of defrauding the American people, while one cannot ignore the fact that the U.S. military and oil establishments have also stood to gain from Israel’s colonial expansion, endless bloody wars of aggression, and role as the police of the region, preventing popular revolt from threatening the pillage of its vast strategic resources.

For many years AIPAC has falsely advertised Israel as a democratic state that best serves U.S. interests in a turbulent and unpredictable part of the world, covering up Israel’s suppression of human rights and its very nature as a state premised on fanatic militarism, racial segregation and injustice, contrary to the supposed “shared values” with the “West” that AIPAC has fed to the American public so effectively with its well-oiled media machine and its unmatched power of intimidation as well as suppression of debate and dissent by anyone who dares to slightly step out of line and question the “Israel-first” agenda.

But given that Israel in the last few years, especially since the start of the recent Arab revolutions, has largely and quite demonstrably failed in hindering the outbreak of popular uprisings and democratic transformations in the Middle East, leading pundits have started to raise serious doubts about the taken-for-granted mantra of convergence between Israeli and American interests.

Furthermore, at a time when average Americans are losing jobs, benefits and hope, should the U.S. be spending billions to help Israel maintain its regime of oppression and violations of international law? When schools and hospitals in the U.S. are being closed, and when hundreds of thousands of U.S. soldiers are mired in endless wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and elsewhere, where they sow mass destruction and death among the populations of these countries, while they themselves suffer increasing casualties, should U.S. taxpayers continue to fund this immoral war agenda? Should Israel and its lobby groups be allowed to pull the U.S. into more wars or to continue to justify Israel’s own brutal and patently illegal wars of aggression, as the one against Palestinians in Gaza in 2008-09 and on Lebanon in 2006?

If members of the U.S. Congress dare not ask these critical questions for fear of AIPAC’s wrath – perceived and carefully marketed as invincible – and an almost certain loss of career, shouldn’t the working people of the U.S. pose them and demand accountability and, indeed, democratic regime change?

It is in this context that one cannot but highly admire the courage, creativity and resilience of human rights and advocacy groups in the U.S., like CODEPINK, the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, Jewish Voice for Peace and many others that insist on challenging AIPAC’s domination of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and beyond and its detrimental and deeply corrupting influence over U.S. decision making in general. The CODEPINK-led campaign to “expose AIPAC and usher in a new foreign policy,” to be launched in Washington, DC in May is a badly needed and truly inspiring effort that should be widely supported by all those who care about the cause of justice and peace in the U.S. and, by extension, the entire world.

Omar Barghouti is a human rights activist and author of Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS): The Global Struggle for Palestinian Rights (Haymarket, 2011)Take action by attending Move Over AIPAC, a gathering in Washington DC from May 21-24, 2011, to expose AIPAC and build the vision for a new US foreign policy in the Middle East! More information can be found

Posted in CampaignsComments Off on Challenging AIPAC’s Abuse of Taxpayers Money

Richard Helms: The Most Dangerous CIA Director


by Trowbridge H. Ford


No Director of Central Intelligence has a better reputation than Richard McGarrah Helms, “the man who kept the secrets,” according to his biographer Thomas Powers, the implication being that despite all the known scandals, failures, and disastrous programs, there was real substance to what the Agency did, especially under his direction – what Helms valiantly fought to maintain the secrecy of. It was in recognition of Helms’s humiliation for services rendered to Presidents, Republican and Democratic alike, that Reagan awarded him the Medal of Freedom, and George W. Bush permitted him to be buried with military honors in Arlington National Cemetery on the 39th anniversary of his fateful warning to JFK on November 19, 1963 about going to Texas.

Helms’s special position was seen during Watergate when, while its first victim, he, along with “Deep Throat” (though some even thought that he was Helms too), was still credited with being its hero by protecting CIA from the scandal. The usually taciturn Helms had shouted out his refusal to assume responsibility for the break-in, ordered at Nixon’s direction to protect alleged Bay of Pigs secrets, insubordination for which he soon paid by becoming the US ambassador to Iran’s Shah who he had attended prep school with, but did not know. Called back from Teheran to testify about the Agency’s involvement in funding opposition to Salvador Allende, and plotting his overthrow in Chile, Helms lied to Congress about it, but still avoided prison for his perjury, a precedent that subsequent covert operatives, especially in Iran-Contra, followed with near impunity.

The only trouble with this assessment of Helms is that he was most visible during operations, and it seems impossible that he could not have been involved in serious ways. In fact, during Watergate, the Agency’s DD General Vernon Walters did persuade Helms finally to go along with Nixon’s demand of a cover-up, but by then it was too late to prevent at least a partial exposure of the monumental scandal. (Fred Emery, Watergate, p. 193ff.) The more likely explanation for Helms’s reputation appears to be that he was excused when more senior people were being investigated for even greater failures, escaped exposure when overcoming institutional crises took precedence over individual accountability, and was a better manager of men, methods, and memories than his more cowboy-like colleagues when some accounting had to be made of mistakes, especially of independent missions like domestic assassinations.

While no one should consider intelligence services the adult equivalent of the Boys Scouts, or subject their operatives to normal criminal law prosecution when things go askew, there should be some standards, norms about propriety, rationality, and cost effectiveness, for judging their conduct, something more complicated than just concluding that they did what they had to, as Helms has contended. Certainly, managers of a democratic country’s intelligence services should not be excused from legislative and judicial review, and, if necessary, punishment for dictating its policies, either directly or by coopting or eliminating its political leaders, especially if it involves criminal processes or elements.

Helms was born in eastern Pennsylvania’s coal fields at the beginning of WWI, attended the Swiss prep school Le Rosey with Iran’s Shah to-be, graduated from Massachusetts’ Williams College in 1935, and started working for United Press in Germany where he interviewed Adolf Hitler. Two years later, Helms returned to the Indianapolis Times as a reporter. When America went to war, Helms joined the Navy, working in the Operations Department which plotted German submarine activity in the North Atlantic. UP Berlin Bureau Chief Oechsner persuaded him to join William Donovan’s Office of Strategic Services where Helms was introduced into scientist Stanley Lovell’s world of mind-control experiments, and deadly substances to destroy the enemy, starting with the Fuehrer himself.

Working with Frank Wisner and Allen Dulles in Germany at war’s end, Helms became convinced that the Americans’ can-do attitude about the growing communist menace, not Britain’s assumed primacy in the field, was what the situation called for. Helms was convinced that explosive substances like carbamates; natural substances like drugs, bacteria, and poisons; and psychological manipulation of human behavior, especially through hypnosis, were the way forward in the intelligence world. This predisposition was demonstrated by him as Washington struggled to re-establish a central intelligence agency from OSS’s remnants, the Army’s Strategic Services Unit, over the objections of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. The result would be its Technical Services Staff whose Chemical Division head was the secretive, ingenious Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, the former City College instructor who was most eager to make up for the alleged betrayals by Julius and Ethel Rosenberg.

Once CIA had been established by passage of the National Security Act, Helms worked with James Angleton’s Office of Special Operations while Wisner directed its more cowboy-inclined Office of Policy Coordination. Wisner’s OPC concentrated on building up resistance programs against Moscow from Home Army elements in Poland and Czechoslovakia while Britain’s SIS undertook similar operations in the Baltic, Ukraine, and Albania. All these efforts ultimately failed because of simplistic assumptions about the nature of communist control, what effective resistance really entailed, and the extent of Soviet spying, especially by MI6′s Kim Philby’s, what only reinforced Helms’s preferences for fighting the Cold War alone.

While covert operatives like Desmond FitzGerald, Richard Bissell, and Tracy Barnes were trying to roll back the Iron Curtain for Wisner, Helms, along with Angleton and Colby, concentrated on containing communism in Italy. To facilitate this, Truman approved NSC documents 1/1 and 4/A in late 1947, enabling OSO to engage in psychological warfare on the Italian political scene. Using unvouchered funds, including Nazi gold, promises of Marshall Fund aid in return for favorable electoral results, the return of Trieste from Yugoslavia, a letter campaign from Italian-Americans back home about meeting the communist threat, and a most interfering American Embassy in Italian affairs, CIA enabled the Christian Democrats under Alcide de Gasperi to gain, and hold onto power.

This was a far cry from how the Agency let the British lead the overthrow of Iran’s Mohammed Mossadeq, and replace him by the Shah, as Helms later explained to William Shawcross, author of The Shah’s Last Ride. In pulling British chestnuts from the fire after they had apparently left the scene, and the grasping Anglo-Iranian Oil Company to its own devices, CIA’s Kermit Roosevelt, Teddy’s grandson, behaved as if he worked for Winston Churchill, and the American Ambassador, Loy Henderson, acted as if he were the Prime Minister’s emissary to the distracted, increasingly powerless Shah. Henderson even carried Churchill’s personal message to him which kicked off Operation Boot, what the Agency came to call Operation Ajax, once the newly-elected President Eisenhower had been briefed by SIS’s Monty Woodhouse about the need of preventing another communist coup. Still, it required spirited intervention in Rome by the American Embassy in terms of advice, and the Agency in terms of money for the Shah’s coup to succeed since the Army did not immediately rally to his cause, what had forced him to flee to the Italian capital.

While the success in Teheran rekindled CIA confidence in covert operations, leading Wisner and Bissell to organize Guzman Arbenz’s overthrow in Guatamala, thanks to dragging in Ike again at the crucial last moment, Helms increasingly doubted their value, especially since their secrecy could not be guaranteed, in Inspector General Lyman Kirkpatrick’s words, “from inception to eternity.” It was hardly surprising that Helms called upon DCI Dulles on April 3, 1953, just when the Shah was dithering over what to do about Mossadeq, to set up under Gottlieb’s direction a comprehensive program for carrying out offensive operations on a completely scientific basis, MK-ULTRA, and 10 days later, it was approved with a $300,000 budget, and without the usual financial controls. While the program took advantage of what the Clandestine Services were already doing in MK-DELTA operations with CBW substances, and the Army’s Special Operations Division was investigating at Fort Detrick in the way of germ warfare research (MK-NAOMI), its scientific, and operational thrust was to find the perfect agent, the Manchurian Candidate who would do the Agency’s dirty work on cue, and without recall, as the MK (Manchurian Kandidat) digraph indicated.

While Helms had great plans for operations – e.g., rapidly hypnotizing an unwitting Kim Philby to kill a troublesome leftist, now that Minnesota-trained Morse Allen of the BLUEBIRD and ARTICHOKE mind-control programs was finally developing the technique – they were overtaken by the paranoid Dr. Frank Olson’s suicide in late November 1953, Gottlieb having laced the unsuspecting MK-NAOMI operative’s Cointreau with LSD a week before. Once DCI Dulles made sure that Olson’s death could not be tied to CIA, he commissioned Cornell’s Dr. Harold Wolff and Charles Hinkle to determine just how advanced the communists were in these fields. When they determined that the Reds had no magic bullets for fighting the Cold War, Dulles turned the search for the Manchurian Candidate over to more careful researchers of MK-ULTRA, Oklahoma’s John Gittinger, New York psychologist Milton Kline, and Denver’s Alden Sears.

Also, Dulles had great expectations that the Berlin Tunnel operation (Operation Gold) that William King Harvey was conducting would provide the key for the Soviet rollback, what the Suez Crisis, and the suppression of the Hungarian Revolution proved most unfounded, thanks to Moscow’s penetration of the covert operation by no less than three moles – the GRU’s Colonel Pyotr Popov, MI6′s George Blake, and MI5′s Peter Wright.

Helms’s hopes of replacing Wisner – OSO and OPC had long since been amalgamated, and the director of planning had gone completely off the rails after the tragedy in Budapest – were dashed by the President, though, Ike preferring the developer of the U-2 spy plane, Dulles’s deputy Bissell. Helms was left to run secret operations in Central and Eastern Europe, especially the responsibility of finding a safe landing in 1958 for Popov when he was finally threatened with being exposed by the KGB as a spy in Operation Gold.

While MK-ULTRA officials wanted to produce amnesia of his mole work through hypnosis, Helms refused permission because it could well compromise important, new tradecraft in a hopeless case. Alexandr Shelepin, Khrushchev’s new KGB chief, was allegedly setting up Department 13, the successor of Pavel Sudoplatov’s “special tasks” groups which assassinated Trotsky in 1940. Thanks to the briefing that Wright gave in 1959 to the Operations Directorate about the need of fighting fire with fire when it came to communist insurgency (Spy Catcher, p. 154ff.), Moscow’s disinformation at the time, but what Bissell later used to justify going after Castro, Lee Harvey Oswald was to be groomed as CIA’s answer to the problem, taking out Soviet leadership. Helms, despite his distrust of the British, and his bitterness over their betrayals, had been completely taken in by Wright’s distain, like Angleton, of the English establishment, and its leaky intelligence agencies.

Helms’s responsibility for Oswald’s mission was demonstrated soon after he entered the USSR. He had Priscilla Johnson McMillan interview Oswald in Moscow, and file her story from there to rekindle his chances of being taken up by the Soviets for a mission in which he could take out a Soviet leader, particularly Khrushchev, if he got the chance. When this effort was apparently failing, Helms was responsible for the effort in the summer of 1960 to contact Oswald through people in the Domestic Contacts Division in the hope, it seems, of recruiting him as an agent, or at least giving the Agency subsequently an alibi about his not being one of theirs. A year later, Mrs. Marie Hyde, an apparent American agent, hitched a ride with Rita Naman and Monica Kramer, British subjects, to Minsk, where the KGB had an espionage training school, from Moscow where they had run into the ex-Marine, and Oswald was then photographed showing the tourists the City Square, especially its towering statue of Lenin.

By the time the Oswalds returned to the States in June 1962, Helms had a whole new set of priorities since Bissell’s assassination, and invasion programs against Cuba had completely failed at the Bay of Pigs, leading to Dulles’s and his ouster from the Agency. This time, the new DDP would compel the President to do what the Agency required – what had been lacking when Ike sorted out the shooting down of Gary Powers’ U-2 plane on May Day 1960, and CIA had provided details of before JFK had even been installed as President, and during the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

Despite Attorney General Robert Kennedy’s explicit directive to Harvey to have no more dealings with the Mafia in assassinating Castro, Helms deliberately invited Wright back to Washington in October 1961 to repeat the need (Spy Catacher, p. 146ff.), and after they had sorted out their differences over Michael Goleniewski’s defection during the Lonsdale case, Harvey, now with defector Anatoli Golitsyn’s help, was busily occupied infiltrating ZR/RIFLE missions, behind the Kennedys’ back, in the Agency’s Task Force W contribution to Operation Mongoose. Helms, most importantly, developed spy Oleg Penkovsky, with the help of retiring DCI Dulles, into a credible source about the Soviets’ aggressive intentions, and threatening capabilities, especially when it came to Cuba, hoping to force JFK’s hand over the need of an invasion when the time came.

Helms, though, like Harvey, the Pentagon’s Al Haig, and Vice President Nixon who was running in the California gubernatorial election, was bitterly disappointed by JFK’s settlement of the Missile Crisis. Instead of Golitsyn’s and Penkovsky’s political advice to the President about what to do with Castro being followed, DCI John McCone independently determined what Khrushchev was up to, thanks to Penkovsky’s massive intelligence about limited Soviet missile capabilities, and his U-2s determining that the Soviets were arming Castro with intermediate-range missiles which could hit the American mainland, possibly armed with nuclear weapons. While Penkovsky was going down the tubes in Moscow, the President settled the dispute by allowing Castro to stay in place, provided the missiles were removed.

This soon resulted in Helms giving Harvey a free rein to settle scores with the President. The DDP’s particular contribution was to make sure that Oswald was blamed, one way or another, for JFK’s murder, thanks to Angleton’s CI staff working with acting station chief E. Howard Hunt in Mexico City. When the “patsy” could not be programmed to do the deed by rapid induction hypnosis that Harvey arranged for Dr. George White to perform (John Marks, The Search For The ‘Manchurian Candidate’,” pp. 202-3, and the last note of the chapter, p. 244), Oswald was directed to do things, and to go places by CIA which made it look as if the alleged double agent had been reclaimed by the KGB, especially its assassination expert in the Mexican capital, Department 13′s Valeri Kostikov.

Oswald, though, thought that he was part of Operation Little Egypt, Harvey’s latest effort to assassinate the Cuban leader, working with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee’s Gilberto Lopez, CIA’s double agent in Havana, to gain access to the target.

Helms’s own contribution to the campaign was to warn JFK himself two days before the President was to go to Texas to kick off his re-election campaign of the Cuban threat, showing him, with the Agency’s Latin American expert Hershel Peake, one of the rifles recovered from the alleged Cuban arms caches around the Carribean to spread terror (Christopjer Andrew, For The President’s Eyes Only, p. 305), but JFK was not deterred by the diversion. The culmination of the process was the reactivation, just before the assassination, of AM/LASH, Rolando Cubela, by Desmond FitzGerald – Harvey’s replacement in Task Force W, and acting as if he were RFK’s personal representative – to kill the Cuban dictator with a TSS-supplied poison pen device, making the Dallas murder look like an act of revenge.

Unfortunately for the plotters, the assassination went wrong because gunman Richard Cain failed to test fire the rifle which had been purchased by an LHO alias, and, consequently, when Sam Giancana’s lieutenant was shooting at the President, he was hitting Texas Governor John Connally who shouted that they all were going to be killed, indicating that he thought he had been double-crossed, and still lived to make a fuss about it. All the plans to blame the assassination on Castro, and the communists had to be reversed at Oswald’s expense.

Helms’s major responsibility was to hush up the apparent downing of Captain Joe Hyde’s U-2 plane on a flight over Cuba – what was intended to reignite the Missile Crisis. Instead of the spy plane being recovered, and the body of the pilot retrieved, the whole, explosive incident simply disappeared, with only a few bits of the plane being found without comment. The DDP also enlisted Priscilla Johnson to see that her piece about the loonie Lee Oswald in the Soviet capital a few years before was reprinted in The Boston Globe to frame the lone assassin.

Little wonder, once the immediate Agency problems caused by the assassination going askew, especially in Mexico City, were resolved by Angleton, that Helms was its liaison with the Warren Commission. Assured that neither Commissioner Dulles nor Ford would question anything about Agency activities, Helms volunteered nothing, as he had previously done with DCI McCone, about its mind control programs, its use of Oswald and Mafiosos, and Harvey’s and FitzGerald’s independent efforts to assassinate Castro, much less what he had contributed.

Once the cover up was well in place, Helms concentrated on breaking down defector Yuri Nosenko as if he were the KGB’s chief assassin, using only Soviets tactics against him in a cell at Camp Peary for years to prove Golitsyn’s claims that he was a plant to cover up their involvement with Oswald, and the assassination. The DCI was understandably in no hurry to resolve the issue.

It was a clever ruse which covered up the Agency’s mind-control expertise in breaking down suspect defectors, the havoc Golitsyn was causing within its own ranks and beyond, and its total involvement in the Dallas assassination. When CIA was confronted with another questionable defector, Oleg Gordievsky, locking horns with Golitsyn in 1985-86, it settled for Richards J. Heuer, Jr., writing an article about Nosenko’s bona fides, based upon cost-effectiveness, for the in-house journal, Studies in Intelligence, rather than sending the former KGB colonel off for an indefinite stay in a Camp Peary cell.

Golitsyn repaid Wright for contending that the Soviets had taken one step backwards during the Missile Crisis, thanks to Penkovsky disinformation, so that they could take two steps forward when JFK was assassinated, claiming that the Agency had been penetrated by a Soviet mole, and it had – Wright aka ‘K’. Of course, Golitsyn was not so coarse as to make the direct connection. He said the mole’s name began with the letter ‘K’, and that he knew about the American-British electronic-surveillance project, code-named Easy Chair.

Peter Karlow aka Klibansky was the chairman of the project, and Helms pursued Karlow with such vengeance that he was forced out of the Agency, widening the wedge with the Bureau in the process. In the meantime, Wright, Easy Chair’s vice chairman, and the leading Soviet scientific spy ‘K’, took over running the project. After the JFK assassination, in appreciation for services rendered, Helms provided MI5′s Movements Analysis program a 20-man team, and unlimited computer time to track down smaller fish in Britain. By the time the pursuit of Golitsyn’s serials, and lesser leads was finished, intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic were hardly talking to one another, and future historians had fists full of data to work with.

In this growing intelligence morass, McCone, soon after the Warren Commission reported, resigned, and Helms became, in effect, DCI since LBJ’s appointee, Admiral William Raborn, had neither experience nor interest in the position. Helms’s chief operations were getting rid of the Dominican Republic’s Orlando Bosch in a bloodless coup, and Indonesian President Achmed Sukarno in a bloody one, what CIA had failed to do a decade before by various less lethal means, including a TSS provided pornographic film by a lookalike to undermine public support. Actually, Helms spent most of his time preventing CIA’s expanded Vietnam War – what it had caused by the overthrow of Diem, the murder of Ngo Dinh Diem and Ngo Dinh Nhu, and the Tonkin Gulf incidents, especially through agent Lucien Conein’s efforts, and Jim Garrison’s investigation of the JFK murder, particularly during alleged leading conspirator Clay Shaw’s trial – from getting out of hand.

MH-CHAOS was organized by Helms to prevent effective opposition to the war by collecting and disseminating information about its critics in order to intimidate them, starting with the left-wing magazine Ramparts. When the Tet offensive in Vietnam threatened just this, as RFK’s February 8th speech tellingly documented, the DCI turned Harvey loose again, resulting in the assassinations of MLK, and RFK, assuring Nixon’s election. For more on this, see my article, “Mind-Control Experiments and The Deadliest Secrets of the Cold War: Manchurian Candidate,” Eye Spy, Issue Eight, pp.50-55.

Helms had allowed Harvey to make a comeback after gunman Richard Cain’s screwup of the Dallas assassination, and while he, now aka William Wood and Bill Boxley, had infiltrated the Garrison investigation for the DCI, Harvey used his former connections with the Mafia and Gottlieb’s mind-control people to see that the killings in Memphis and Los Angeles were carried out without any mishap this time. The DCI provided cover for Harvey during the operations by writing to influential Senator and critic of the Warren Report, Georgia’s Richard Russell, that he had no connection with the Agency.

Little wonder that Nixon kept Helms on as DCI, and he did not let Nixon down, seeing to the overthrow of Allende, the running of a more efficient MH-CHAOS, and the endorsement of the Tom Huston Plan when more aggressive measures seemed to be called for, as the President requested. The only request that the DCI declined was the Agency’s file on the Bay of Pigs, what had obviously grown, like those of Director Hoover’s, to include its subsequent horrors, particularly Harvey’s, and Nixon’s involvement in the whole process. It was only Hoover’s opposition which killed Huston’s suggested law enforcement changes, helping cause the creation of the Plumbers which Helms gave every assistance to when asked: E. Howard Hunt’s famous disguise when he visited whistleblower Dita Beard, psychological profiles of troublemaker Daniel Ellsberg, and Dr. Edward Gunn’s help for neutralizing Jack Anderson all came from the Agency.

As a result, some investigators have claimed that FBI Director Hoover may have been poisoned by The Plumbers because of his opposition to the Huston Plan, and others that it was because of his sexual blackmailing, now even including Nixon – e.g., Peter Dale Scott in Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, p. 227ff. The almost totally ignored scandal is their Harvey-led assassination attempt of former Governor George Wallace. The President had hardly persuaded Wallace to run for the Presidency to insure his re-election than he concluded that it might prevent it.

As a result, once Hoover was out of the way, the group moved to Milwaukee, the home of Arthur Bremer where he was programmed to stalk the Democrat politician until he could shoot him. In doing the programming, Harvey apparently used the capability that Louis ‘Jolly’ West, a student of Amedeo Marrazzi at Minnesota, and John Gittinger at Oklahoma, was developing at UCLA and his Neuropsychiatric Institute in controlling cults through all kinds of mind-control techniques.

The best evidence that Bremer was programmed by the Plumbers to do his dirty work was provided by Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward in All The President’s Men when they discussed the actions, and travels of Ms. Kathleen Chenow, the Plumbers’ secretary whose office was room 16 in the Executive Office Building, during their trial in November. Chenow not only indicated that there were several Plumbers whose identity she did even know (p. 216), but also she was linked by telephone, whose bills John Ehrlichman of the Oval Office paid, to E. Howard Hunt’s listed operations until March 15, 1972 when the phone, which had not be used for quite awhile, was removed. Most important, she moved her office two weeks later to Milwaukee when the programming of Bremer was becoming operational.

It was just during this time span, as Dan T. Carter has shown in The Politics of Rage, that Bremer started stalking both Wallace and Nixon, planning to kill which one of them he confronted first on the campaign trail – a scheme which would obviously intensify his psychic driving against the Governor as there was no way he was going to get close to the President. (p. 491ff.) Bremer finally shot Wallace three times as he was campainging in a Laurel, Maryland shopping center on May 15, paralyzing him sufficiently to end any political challenges.

While investigators have concentrated on Hunt’s actions after the attempted assassination to connect Bremer to left-wing causes (e. g., Bernstein and Woodward, pp. 325-6), they should have concentrated on Chenow’s, as they became a main source of loyalist John Dean finally breaking with the President, and threatening to tell enough to bring him down. Dean, who had been trying to prevent the FBI investigation from discovering the Plumbers, panicked when he discovered that it had traced her to the secret number, and was trying to interview her while vacationing in England. (Emery, p. 201) Dean managed to get acting Director L. Patrick Gray to stop the effort in the name of national security, and then Fred Fielding managed to bring her back to Washington where Dean coached her so that she told FBI nothing of value.

Once this crisis passed with the successful conviction of only the five burglars, Dean made the opening salvo of Nixon’s undoing by stating to him on March 21 that the cancer surrounding his Presidency was being compounded by the blackmail his supporters were being subjected to – what Nixon suggested repeatedly could be solved by payoffs. From then on, Nixon’s tenure of the Oval Office was increasingly limited. Little wonder when it was over, veteran Washington Post reporter Carroll Kilpatrick, who had been most dubious of the Watergate stories by Woodward and Bernstein because of criticism by his White House colleagues, finally admitted about the Chenow story: “There has to be a lot more meaning in that story than meets the eye.” (Bernstein & Woodward, p. 220, n.)

It was to make sure that this didn’t happen, while Watergate was increasingly being investigated, that Helms and Harvey swung into action. While the DCI was stopping every research program that could be connected to MK-ULTRA and its successors – and destroying all records he could get his hands about its testing and operations – Harvey saw to the assassination, one way or another, of key operatives, starting with Cain, Jack Ruby’s henchman Dave Yaras who coordinated threats on JFK with the actual shooting, and Giancana before he himself died. Subsequent notable killings were that of key organizer of the Dallas assassination Johnny Roselli who was garotted and stabbed to death in 1976, had his body sawed up, and stuffed into an oil drum, and then dumped into Miami’s Dumfoundling Bay, and of JFK assassin Chuckie Nicoletti whose body was burned in his car the following year after he had been shot three times in the back of the head.

In taking leave of office for Teheran, Helms had the Agency hand over to the Justice Department for action the photos that it had developed of the Plumbers casing Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s offices, induced the White House to return the embarrassing memo General Cushman, Helms’s deputy, had prepared to justify such domestic action, cancelled Project OFTEN with the Army Chemical Corps to test the effects of various incapacitating drugs like Dr. Gunn had suggested upon humans and animals, and insulated from congressional discovery what he could, particularly Richard Ober’s International Terrorism Group, of the covert government apparatus. Helms also came back to Washington to force President Ford to redirect charges of Agency assassinations of domestic targets to those against foreign ones, claiming that it had been ordered to do so by now deceased Presidents.

Helm’s last contribution to American democracy was helping revive CIA capability to conduct domestic assassinations after this loss of Mafia support, and Agency wherewithall. As the Carter administration tried to limit CIA to the collection of intelligence by technological means, and put its operation on a legal basis, Langley, especially the shrunken Operations Directorate, was increasingly desperate to stop the rot, but lacked the means to do so. Helms resigned his post ultimately in Teheran to fill the need. Back in the States, he informed former DCI George Bush at many secret meetings, and Operations leader Ted Shackley, who had been in Laos and Vietnam while his former boss Harvey at Berlin and Miami had been doing all the dirty work, during regular visits to Langley where all the mind-control capability, and potential candidates were now to be found in Reagan’s California, especially around ‘Jolly’ West’s establishments, and what was going on at Stanford’s Research Institute.

The result was – once Bush decided to run for the Presidency, and disgrunted members of the Operations Directorate were joining his campaign staff in droves – the recruitment of Ted Kaczynski to carry out mindless acts which would so terrorize Carter that he could not be re-elected; of John Hinckley, Jr., to do the real thing if he pulled off an “October Surpirse” with the American hostages now being held in Teheran, and of Mark David Chapman to kill Beatle John Lennon after Reagan’s election to limit the chances of the dirty operations leaking out. Unfortunately, Hinckley was so distraught over Lennon’s assassination that he almost succeeded in killing ‘The Gipper’ despite all the efforts that now Vice President Bush, and the Secret Service had taken to prevent it. An unexpected ricochet from Hickley’s pistol almost caused another assassinated President.

Little wonder that when the crisis passed, and Helms could be given the Medal of Freedom for all his contributions to right-wing causes, Thomas Powers provided an introduction to the paperback edition of John Marks’s The Search for the’Manchurian Candidate’: The CIA and Mind Control, reassuring readers that all the suspicions by conspiracy theorists about alleged operations had proven unfounded as America’s real enemies – Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Sukarno, Lumumba, Qaddafi, DeGaulle, Nasser, Chou En En Lai, and Khomeini – had died by other means, or were still alive. Helms’s official biographer, of course, was ignoring what happened to the Agency’s real enemies – JFK, MLF, RFK, Governor Wallace, Lennon, and many lesser lights. Even Carter was only spared at Reagan’s expense.

For anyone to receive a medal of freedom from any country, especially the world’s foremost democracy, with this record says it all about the state of self-government by the world’s strongest power in the emerging post-Cold War world.

Posted in USAComments Off on Richard Helms: The Most Dangerous CIA Director

Shoah’s pages