Week in Review
Finally, Gonzales resigns, and the media seems more interested in Michael Vick.
Meanwhile an amazing article in Newsweek shows just how much the Iraq War has harmed our attempts to capture Bin Laden, including a crucial moment (quoted below) when both Bush and Cheney REFUSED CIA demands for 800 troops to capture Bin Laden.
Why are securing Iraqi oil fields worth the risk of 160,000 troops but capturing Bin Laden not worth the risk of 800?
Quotation from new Newsweek article on why Bush and Cheney refused to go after Bin Laden when they had a strong chance to capture or kill him:
“The Taliban fled for the hills. Bin Laden, it seemed, would be cornered. Indeed, on Dec. 15, CIA operatives listening on a captured jihadist radio could hear bin Laden himself say “Forgive me” to his followers, pinned down in their mountain caves near Tora Bora.
Berntsen went to Crumpton, his boss at the CIA, who described to NEWSWEEK his frantic efforts to appeal to higher authority. Crumpton called CENTCOM’s commander, Gen. Tommy Franks. It would take “weeks” to mobilize a force, Franks responded, and the harsh, snowy terrain was too difficult and the odds of getting bin Laden not worth the risk. Frustrated, Crumpton went to the White House and rolled out maps of the Pakistani-Afghan border on a small conference table. President Bush wanted to know if the Pakistanis could sweep up Al Qaeda on the other side. “No, sir,” Crumpton responded. (Vice President Dick Cheney did not say a word, Crumpton recalled.) The meeting was inconclusive. Franks, who declined to comment, has written in his memoirs that he decided, along with Rumsfeld [not to send the troops].”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
madfuq September 20, 2007 1:36 pm
Hey folks we have a bunch of mad men with power and money as their only directive running our country. We the people need to be aware of their plots and schemes and we need to return to open government and get these nutballs out.
First lets look at who profits from the the current war machine? This answers the money question and any leader willing to put nukes on another country which will kill millions of people for mega years is absolutely insane and should be in a straight jacket not with their finger on the nuke button! God help us all!
Do the Bush bastards want to start nuking? September 12, 2007 12:13 pm
Was a Covert Attempt to Bomb Iran with Nuclear Weapons foiled?
by Michael E. Salla
Saturday Sep 8th, 2007 7:12 AM
“According to the U.S. Air Force statement, the commanding officer in charge of military munitions personnel and additional munitions airmen were relieved of duties pending the completion of the investigation. According to Kristensen, the error could not have come from confusing the Advanced Cruise Missile with a conventional weapons since no conventional form exists. So the munitions Airmen should have been easily able to spot the mistake. Other routine procedures were violated which suggests a rather obvious explanation for the error. The military munitions personnel were acting under direct orders, though not through the regular chain of military command. This takes me to the second question.”
September 08, 2007 04:31AM EDT [general.addtranslation] Download Article (PDF)
Was a Covert Attempt to Bomb Iran with Nuclear Weapons foiled by a Military Leak
By Michael E. Salla, The Canadian – repost
Critically exploring whether or not there was a covert attempt to instigate a catastrophic nuclear war against Iran is illuminated through an introduction using the recent B-52 Incident.
On August 30, a B-52 bomber armed with five nuclear-tipped Advanced Cruise missiles travelled from Minot Air Force base, North Dakota, to Barksdale Air Force base, Louisiana, in the United States. Each missile had an adjustable yield between five and 150 kilotons of TNT which is at the lower end of the destructive capacities of U.S. nuclear weapons. For example, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of 13 kilotons, while the Bravo Hydrogen bomb test of 1954 had a yield of 15,000 kilotons. The B-52 story was first covered in the Army Times on 5 September after the nuclear armed aircraft was discovered by Airmen. LINK
What made this a very significant event was that it was a violation of U.S. Air Force regulations concerning the transportation of nuclear weapons by air. Nuclear weapons are normally transported by air in specially constructed planes designed to prevent radioactive pollution in case of a crash. Such transport planes are not equipped to launch the nuclear weapons they routinely carry around the U.S. and the world for servicing or positioning.
The discovery of the nuclear armed B-52 was, according to Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert at the Federation of American Scientists, the first time in 40 years that a nuclear armed plane had been allowed to fly in the U.S. LINK. Since 1968, after a SAC bomber crashed in Greenland, all nuclear armed aircraft have been grounded but were kept on a constant state of alert. After the end of the Cold War, President George H. Bush ordered in 1991 that nuclear weapons were to be removed from all aircraft and stored in nearby facilities.
Recently, the Air Force began decommissioning its stockpile of Advanced Cruise missiles. The five nuclear weapons on the B-52 were to be decommissioned, and were to be taken to another Air Force base. An Air Force press statement issued on 6 September 2007, claimed that there “was an error which occurred during a regularly scheduled transfer of weapons between two bases.”
Furthermore, the statement declared: “The Air Force maintains the highest standards of safety and precision so any deviation from these well established munitions procedures is considered very serious.” The issue concerning how a nuclear armed B-52 bomber was allowed to take off and fly in U.S. air space after an ‘error’ in a routine transfer process, is now subject to an official Air Force inquiry which is due to be completed by September 14.
Three key questions emerge over the B-52 incident. First, did Air Force personnel at Minot AFB not spot the ‘error’ earlier given the elaborate security procedures in place to prevent such mistakes from occurring? Many military analysts have commented on the stringent security procedures in place to prevent this sort of mistake from occurring. Multiple officers are routinely involved in the transportation and loading of nuclear weapons to prevent the kind of ‘error’ that allegedly occurred in the B-52 incident.
According to the U.S. Air Force statement, the commanding officer in charge of military munitions personnel and additional munitions airmen were relieved of duties pending the completion of the investigation. According to Kristensen, the error could not have come from confusing the Advanced Cruise Missile with a conventional weapons since no conventional form exists. So the munitions Airmen should have been easily able to spot the mistake. Other routine procedures were violated which suggests a rather obvious explanation for the error. The military munitions personnel were acting under direct orders, though not through the regular chain of military command. This takes me to the second question
Who was in Charge of the B-52 Incident?
Who ordered the loading of Advanced Cruise missiles on to a B-52 in violation of Air Force regulations? The quick reaction of the Air Force and the issuing of a public statement describing the seriousness of the issue and the launch of an immediate investigation, suggests that whatever occurred, was outside the regular chain of military command. If the regular chain of command was violated, then we have to inquire as to whether the B-52 incident was part of a covert project whose classification level exceeded that held by officers in charge of nuclear weapons at Minot AFB.
The most obvious governmental entity that may have ordered the nuclear arming of the B-52 outside the regular chain of military command is the last remaining bastion of neo-conservative activism in the Bush administration.
Vice President Cheney has taken a very prominent role in covert military operations and training exercises designed for the “seamless integration” of different national security and military authorities to possible terrorist attacks. On May 8, 2001, President Bush placed Mr. Cheney in charge of “[A]ll federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction, consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies”. LINK. Mr. Cheney subsequently played a direct role in supervising training exercises that simultaneously occurred during the 911 attacks.
According to former Los Angeles Police Officer Michael Ruppelt, Mr. Cheney had a parallel chain of command that he used to override Air Force objections to stand down orders that grounded the USAF during the 911 attacks, LINK.
Mr. Ruppelt learned that the Secret Service had the authority to directly communicate presidential and vice presidential orders to fighter pilots in the air thereby circumventing the normal chain of command. (Crossing the Rubicon, pp. 428 – 429). Furthermore: “It is the Secret Service who has the legal mandate to take supreme command in case of a scheduled major event – or an unplanned major emergency – on American soil; these are designated “National Special Security Events”.LINK.
Mr. Ruppelt and others have subsequently claimed that 911 was an “inside job;” and alleges Mr. Cheney through the Secret Service, played a direct leadership role in what occurred over 911. Consequently, it is very possible that Mr. Cheney could have played a similar role in circumventing the regular chain of military command in ordering the B-52 incident. The B-52 incident could be part of a contrived “National Special Security Event” directly controlled by Cheney by virtue of the alleged authority granted to him by President Bush, and through the Secret Service which at least theoretically, has the technological means to by pass the regular chain of military command. I now move to my third key question.
Why was the nuclear armed B-52 sent to Barksdale AFB?
If initial reports that the weapons were being decommissioned, but were mistakenly transported by a B-52 bomber, then the weapons should have been taken to Kirtland Air Force Base. According to Kristensen, this is “where the warheads are separated from the rest of the weapon and shipped to the Energy Department’s Pantex dismantlement facility near Amarillo, Texas”. LINK.
However, it has been revealed that Barksdale AFB is used as a staging base for operations in the Middle East, LINK.
This is circumstantial evidence that the weapons were being deployed for possible use in the Middle East.
There has been recent speculation concerning a possible attack against Iran given reports that the Pentagon has completed plans for a three day bombing blitz of Iran according to a Sunday Times report, LINK. The Report claims that 1200 targets have been selected and this will destroy much of Iran’s military infrastructure. Such an attack will devastate Iran’s economy, create greater political instability in the region, and stop the oil supply. A disruption of the oil supply from the Persian Gulf could trigger a global economic recession and lead to the collapse of financial markets.
In a rather disturbing synchronistic development, there have been reports of billion dollar investments in high risk stock options in both Europe and the U.S. that would only be profitable if a dramatic collapse of the stock market were to occur before September 21. Similar stock options were purchased weeks before the 911 attack in 2001, and investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible insider trading. The combination of the Sunday Times report and the Stock market option purchases is circumstantial evidence that plans for a concerted military attack against Iran have been secretly approved and covert operations have begun, LINK.
Seymour Hersh in May 2006 reported the opposition of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran.
In late April, the military leadership, headed by General Pace, achieved a major victory when the White House dropped its insistence that the plan for a bombing campaign include the possible use of a nuclear device to destroy Iran’s uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. .. “Bush and Cheney were dead serious about the nuclear planning,” the former senior intelligence official told me. “And Pace stood up to them.
Then the world came back: ‘O.K., the nuclear option is politically unacceptable.’ LINK.
Given earlier opposition by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it is likely that the present attack plans for Iraq drawn up by the Pentagon don’t involve the use of nuclear weapons. In order to circumvent the regular chain of command, opposed to a nuclear attack, it is very likely that Vice President Cheney contrived a “National Special Security Event” that involved a nuclear armed B-52. This would have given him the legal authority to place orders directly through the Secret Service to the Air Force officers responsible for the B-52 incident.
Conclusion: Exposing those Responsible for the B-52 Incident
Consequently, there is considerable circumstantial evidence to argue that the nuclear armed B-52 was part of an apparent covert operation, outside the regular chain of constitutional military command. The alleged authority responsible for this was Vice President Cheney. He very likely used the Secret Service to take charge of a contrived National Special Security Event involving a nuclear armed B-52 that would be flown from Minot AFB. The B-52 was directed to Barksdale Air Force base where it would have conducted a covert mission to the Middle East involving the detonation of one or more nuclear weapons most likely in or in the vicinity of Iran. This could either have occurred during a conventional military strike against Iran, or a False Flag operation in the Persian Gulf region.
Apparently, the leaking and discovery of the nuclear armed B-52 at Barksdale was not part of the script. According to a confidential source of Larry Johnson, a former counter-terrorism official from the State Department and CIA, the discovery of the nuclear armed B-52 was leaked. Johnson concludes: “Did someone at Barksdale try to indirectly warn the American people that the Bush Administration is staging nukes for Iran? I don’t know, but it is a question worth asking.” LINK.
While the general public is likely to be given a watered down declassified report by the Air Force over the B-52 incident on September 14, the real investigation will reveal that it was part of a covert operation that intended to bypass the regular chain of command in using nuclear weapons in the Middle East. This will likely result in a furious backlash by key figures in the regular military chain of Command such as Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and the Commander of Central Command, Admiral William Fallon, who have direct responsibility for the conduct of military operations in the Middle East. The US. Air Force, the Secretary of Defense and Commander of Central Command, is now aware of what was likely going to be the true use of the B-52 and the responsibility of the Office of the Vice President.
It is very likely that the exposure of the B-52 incident will lead to an indefinite hold on plans to attack Iran given uncertainty whether other nuclear weapons have been covertly positioned for use in the Middle East. Significantly, public officials briefed about the true circumstances of the B-52 incident will almost certainly place enormous pressure on Vice President Cheney to immediately resign if it is found that he played the role identified above. It is therefore anticipated that in a very short time, the public will learn that Cheney has resigned for health resigns.
The forthcoming September 14 U.S. Air Force report will likely describe the B-52 incident as an “error” and an “isolated incident” as foreshadowed in the September 6 Press Statement. This will create some difficulty in exposing the actual role played by Cheney and any other government figures that supported him. There will be a need for continued public awareness of the true events behind the B-52 incident in order to expose the actual role of Mr. Cheney. Only in that way can Cheney be held accountable for his actions, and other government figures that supported his neo-conservative agenda be exposed. Regardless of whether Cheney’s role as the prime architect of the B-52 incident is exposed to the public, the official backlash against his covert operation should force his resignation. In either case, a very dangerous public official would be removed from a powerful position of influence. More importantly, the world has been spared a devastating nuclear war by courageous American airmen who revealed the true contents of an otherwise routine B-52 landing at Barksdale, AFB headed for a covert nuclear mission to the Middle East.
–About the author:
Michael E. Salla, M.A. Ph.D., is a former Assistant Professor in the School of International Service, American University, Washington D.C. He is the author of five books and founder of the Exopolitics Institute, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization based in Kona, Hawaii
Robt September 4, 2007 1:28 pm
It does appear the Bush Adm in the PR have eerily summoned someof the most egregious propaganda techniques from the Nazi era. Their language and that of titling bills and such as “clear sky act” that does the exact opposite and “the Dept of Homeland Security” are prime examples. You can’t get any more Goering than “Homeland”. Motherland and Fatherland would way be too mimicking, as if they are not now.
I will have to consider reading the Edward Bernay book you mentioned, I’ll put it on my future list of reads. I know Dean has a new book coming out. His Conservatives without Conscience is tough look at the Conservative today. I expect his new book is as thoughtful as his Cons w/out Conscience.
It is disheartening to see these Republicans flying over to Iraq and disrupting the troops for the shopping sprees on cheap rugs at the taxpayers
One of the latest group you might have heard was fired at while taking off from the Iraq airport. You can picture the wet fear stain of their crotches during the attack. Now they return and want medals of honor and spew how safe it is with the surge.
Blitzer (CNN) just had a a republican on telling of his “stroll in Fallujah and said the deaths and bombing were down.
I have to give Wolf Blitzer credit on this one for he called Rep Charles Boustany (R-la) on his claims.
Wolf telling himm that Death toll was up!
That it is a strategy change for the surge on their part, less bombs, higher elposive charges and better placed.
Also Wolf called the Republican on his “walk in the park”. Wolf actually scolded him by telling him he had body armour and military security, that the area was swept several times before arriving. I hadn’t seen Wolf Blitzer like this for some time.
For me Micheal Ware has been in Iraq since the beginning, he reports for CNN. He is one of the better reporters with some of the most credible facts. Ware is one of those I have trust in to report and not create illusion for a agenda….
And I don’t think we the public will ever know the outcome of the Ricin/anthrax letter to the Dems only in our capitol. I suspect it could have been a Tim Mcveigh type all frothed up from listening to Rush about the Dems and liberals and acted on their hate. The “Hate” that is whipped up by the right, They will find these people that act on their hate to Vote republican (against Dems acutally) will not be able to turn the hate off and will act on that hate thinking they are doing the Lords work. You can see the Hate turning on Sen Larry Craig. And that is with the Republican lifeboats coming silently to his rescue. Craig and repubs want to re wrtie what actually occurred. They can’t turn off this hate so they work at re directing it. Clinton’s fault which makes it all liberals. Which means Democrats.
Someday someone should present a show on “liberal Republicans”. Some are more moderate than the extremist repubs in the party you know. Somehow they seem to overlook that.
Skip September 3, 2007 4:11 am
Hate is one of their MOs. The PR/propaganda campaign has been much more sophisticated. I see that Edward Bernay’s book “Propaganda” is being republished. I think everyone should read it since he’s the founder of the PR industry, and the book is the basis of modern PR. Bush’s “you are with us or you are for the terrorists” is almost an exact quote from Goering. The Nazis learned a lot from Dr Bernays, who was the nephew of Sigmond Freud.
The Cheney/Bush cabal was also trying to strike terror into anyone who challenged them. Does anyone still remember the anthrax letters? The cancellation of the investigation into that event was justified by the need to concentrate all our efforts into the war in Afganistan. Well “all our efforts” has succeeded wildly in maximizing heroin production. It seems like it failed by design. Just when Dashel (sp?) and another senator started to question the patriot act, he receives the weapons grade poisoned letter straight from our own biological warefare labs. And how about Paul Welstone? Of course, the fact that only democrats were attacked is simply a coincidence (lets not forget JFK, RFK, & MLK). I wonder if there is any connection to the “jackels” described in the book “Economic Hitman” by Perkins.
As far as the drug trade goes, try reading Gary Webb’s “Dark Alliance”. It outlines the CIA’s involvement in flooding the poor areas in our cities with crack, etc in order to fund covert activities like death squads in South America.
Robt September 3, 2007 12:02 am
It sure seeems like This Adm’s need and use of a Osama as the bad guy to HATE. Doesn’t seem to you that the GOP’s M.O. is through hate.
Their conclusion is if they get you/us to hate someone or something enough, you will naturally be on their side. Wasn’t it Karl Rove’s 9/11 tour blame the Democrats speechs connecting terrorist to Democrats?
Remember the speech, “after 9/11 the Republicans prepared for War and the Democrats sought sought theropy for the attackers “, Rove.
As for the Afgahnistan opium trade. As U.S. military are in the country, we look the other way. It was a well known fact that opium was their big agricultural profit marigin before we invaded. Now that the U.S. is in country, America’s war on drugs is over?
Bush always tried to pretend he was a CEO. Now he uses the CEO presumption and claims Afgahnistan’s economy is depending on the opium sales to keep “freedom and democracy” alive in the country. There is no doubt that the U.S. knows specifically who is purchasing opium in Afgahnistan and where they are taking it for market.
It has actually been in some of the media that opium sales are up. Mostly that the Afgahn crop is supporting Al-Qaida, specifically Osama and that the opium profits are not proping up a
” free democratic ally” in afgahnistan. Bin Ladin probably has more influence n the country than the Afgahn leader karzai himself does. But Karzai gives Bush a name and a face in that country he can use in one of his illusions he portrays to Americans.
And Skip, I know I might have said it before BUT,
The Saudi Royal family & Bush and his family are and have been very close for some time. In my opinion, Bush would never actually kill Osama for those close family ties. I do not think your allowed to kill Royalty. Hunting is OK and fun. Just no killing of the Osama of the Royal Saudi family.
That Was where Saddam came in. So your right about that enemy to hate manufactured and advertised for sale. And still 27% to 30% still are proud of buying and owning that Iraq War lie. Saddam was easy to hate. Like Gays, Abortion, liberals, democrats, Aethists, Muslims, Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, pacifists, anti war activists, eco supporters, the poor, even flip-floppers. It is a long list of hate baiting votes for the GOP isn’t it?