Ex CIA Analyst Ray McGovern on Tell Somebody
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 – 6pm CDT
Tell Somebody, with host Tom Klammer, on KKFI 90.1 FM Kansas City Community Radio, streaming on the Net
“Why do they hate us?”
Does torture work?
Former Vice President Dick Cheney has come out of his non-disclosed location, “oozing out a slimy speech” at the American Enterprise Institute and making multiple TV appearances in defense of torture.
Ray McGovern has been listening- – to Cheney, but also to retired Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former Chief of Staff.
Ray McGovern was a 27 year CIA analyst under seven presidents, and he’s talking to Tell Somebody this week. Tune in this Tuesday at 6pm Central Time on 90.1 FM, KKFI, Kansas City Community Radio to hear what he has to say. If you can’t get by a radio, stream the show live at www.kkfi.org.
Last week’s show on the Free Press Summit: Changing Media is now online – link to a downloadable mp3 of the show (and lots of other past shows) at www.tellsomebody.us. Or subscribe to the pod cast via iTunes. Last week’s show includes an interview with Free Press Senior Program Director Craig Aaron, and a short speech by FCC Commissioner Michael Copps.
Tell Somebody airs every Tuesday at 6pm Central on 90.1 FM KKFI.
By James Ridgeway
Sun May 24, 2009
Say what you will about Dick Cheney, at least he’s consistent. While he was in office, the Vice President made a practice of exploiting the fear and loss wrought by the 9/11 attacks to advance his own political agenda–and he’s still doing it now. During his speech at the American Enterprise Institute on Thursday, according to Dana Milbank’s calculations in the Washington Post, “Cheney used the word ‘attack’ 19 times, ‘danger’ and ‘threat’ six times apiece, and 9/11 an impressive 27 times.”
In this putative rebuttal to Obama speech on national security, Cheney described how he spent the morning of 9/11 “in a fortified White House command post,” receiving “the reports and images that so many Americans remember from that day,” and then declared:
In the years since, I’ve heard occasional speculation that I’m a different man after 9/11. I wouldn’t say that. But I’ll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities.
Since he’s evoking his experience as a rationalization for torture, this might be a good time to review exactly what it was that Cheney was doing in the bunker on that terrible day. Here again, consistency is the rule: A preponderance of evidence points to the fact that Dick Cheney spent the morning of September 11, 2001, violating the Constitution of the United States.
Continued at the source: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/05/cheneys-bunker-mentality…Continue reading
By Thomas C. Fletcher
Review of new book by David Ray Griffin, Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive?
OSAMA BIN LADEN: DEAD OR ALIVE? by David Ray Griffin is a crucially important and timely examination of the whole range of evidence bearing on the question, is Osama bin Laden still alive? The importance of this question for the present comes from the fact that the United States under its new president is escalating its offensive in Afghanistan and expanding the war into Pakistan, and has claimed that the “hunt for bin Laden” is one of its principal motivations for doing so. Either explicitly or implicitly, the US government and major media outlets such as the New York Times and Washington Post continue to assert that bin Laden is alive, hiding in the tribal territories on the “AfPak” border, posing an undiminished threat to US security.
In his gripping new book, Griffin strikes at the root of this pretext for war by closely examining all the evidence that has come out since September 11, 2001, either indicating that bin Laden is still alive or that he is in fact dead. His conclusion is that bin Laden is certainly dead, and that in all likelihood he died in very late 2001. Griffin shows that many US experts in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency came to this very same conclusion long ago, but their views, which do not support the continuation of what President Obama, borrowing the term from Dick Cheney, calls “the long… Continue reading
Peter Dale Scott
Here is an excerpt from the text of what Cheney said at the American Enterprise Institute on May 21, 2009:
“For me, one of the defining experiences was the morning of 9/11 itself. As you might recall, I was in my office in that first hour, when radar caught sight of an airliner heading toward the White House at 500 miles an hour. That was Flight 77, the one that ended up hitting the Pentagon. With the plane still inbound, Secret Service agents came into my office and said we had to leave, now. A few moments later I found myself in a fortified White House command post somewhere down below.
There in the bunker came the reports and images that so many Americans remember from that day – word of the crash in Pennsylvania, the final phone calls from hijacked planes, the final horror for those who jumped to their death to escape burning alive. In the years since, I’ve heard occasional speculation that I’m a different man after 9/11. I wouldn’t say that. But I’ll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities.”
The first radar sighting of a plane approaching Washington was at 9:21 AM. In other words Cheney has confirmed his first account (and ours) that he was taken from his office earlier than 9:36 AM (as claimed in the… Continue reading
The busiest project this week was the Civil Liberties Timeline, which has expanded
its chapter on the PROMIS application, reportedly the granddaddy of today’s
government surveillance software. Claims that the software was distributed to
other countries have been disputed, but a 1992 Congressional investigation found
two Justice Department memos saying a version of the software was about to be
passed to Israel.
In the War in Afghanistan Timeline, a contributor covers a recent statement
by UN official Philip Alston, who said that “personnel belonging to international
intelligence services” have been involved in a spate of civilian deaths
Contributors to the US Electoral Politics Timeline take a look at a Supreme
Court challenge to Indiana’s voter ID law and recall a 2007 Justice Department
probe that turned up “scant evidence” of voter fraud in the previous
The Domestic Propaganda Timeline takes a look at Fox News rising star Glenn
In the Economic Crisis Timeline a contributor highlights a recent statement
by the US Federal Reserve saying that the largest 19 banks will probably not
require any more bailouts.
Finally, in the International Relations Timeline, former State Department Chief
of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson claims that former Vice President Dick Cheney was
manipulating the Bush administration from the outset.
The History Commons needs funding to continue its operations, including maintaining
and updating the site, and undertaking new projects. Everything we do depends
on our generous readers.… Continue reading
April 29, 2009
Posted at 911video.de/news
In Germany the daily newspaper Junge Welt on March, 4 2009 published
following article on the new petition.
9/11 – Today’s Project of Investigation
At long last politicians from several countries succeeded to unite in calling for a “new, really independent
investigation to find out what happened on 9/11.” In the petition 12 politicians
from seven countries call on US president Barack Obama to authorize such an
The investigations until now were
conducted only by people who “were closely connected with the Bush/Cheney
administration, or where even working in it.”
Their findings differed radically
from results independent researchers from different fields have reached. These
researcher-groups–among them architects, engineers, firefighters, legal professionals,
pilots, religious leaders, academics, veterans and medical professionals–for
a long time have called for a new investigation. Now the time had come to have
politicians take it to heart. (Read the letter to President Obama.)
Doubts about the official version
of the collapse of the towers of the World Trade Center on 9/11 have been on
the mind of many people in the last years. A collapse of the of the myth about
Osama and his 19 bandits could have incalculable consequences.
It’s going to be interesting which German parliamentarian will dare to affiliate with the group of Political Leaders
for 9/11 Truth (pl911truth.com).
As of now the former Secretary of State in the Defense Ministry Andreas von Bülow signed the petition. In the UK the former Minister of Environment… Continue reading
April 21, 2009
by George Washington
5 hours after the 9/11 attacks, Donald Rumsfeld said “my interest is to hit Saddam”.
And at 2:40 p.m. on September 11th, in a memorandum of discussions between top administration officials, several lines below the statement “judge whether good enough [to] hit S.H. [that is, Saddam Hussein] at same time”, is the statement “Hard to get a good case.” In other words, top officials knew that there wasn’t a good case that Hussein was behind 9/11, but they wanted to use the 9/11 attacks as an excuse to justify war with Iraq anyway.
And yet, the government knew that Al Qaeda and Iraq were not linked. For example, “Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the [9/11] attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda”.
And a Defense Intelligence Terrorism Summary issued in February 2002 by the United States Defense Intelligence Agency cast significant doubt on the possibility of a Saddam Hussein-al-Qaeda conspiracy.
By Paul Haven
April 16, 2009
MADRID (AP) — Spain’s attorney general has rejected opening an investigation
into whether six Bush administration officials sanctioned torture against terror
suspects at Guantánamo Bay, saying Thursday a U.S. courtroom would be the proper
Candido Conde-Pumpido’s remarks severely dampen the chance of a case moving
forward against the Americans, including former U.S. Attorney General Alberto
Gonzales. Conde-Pumpido said such a trial would have turned Spain’s National
Court “into a plaything” to be used for political ends.
“If there is a reason to file a complaint against these people, it should
be done before local courts with jurisdiction, in other words in the United
States,” he said in a breakfast meeting with journalists.
Spanish law gives its courts jurisdiction beyond national borders in cases
of torture, war crimes and other heinous offenses, based on a doctrine known
as universal justice, but the government has made clear it wants to rein in
Last month, a group of human rights lawyers asked Judge Baltasar Garzon, famous
for indicting ex-Chilean ruler Augusto Pinochet in 1998, to consider filing
charges against the six Americans. Under Spanish law, the judge then asked prosecutors
for a recommendation on whether to open a full-blown probe.
National Court prosecutors have not formally announced their decision, but
Conde-Pumpido is the country’s top law-enforcement official and has the ultimate
say. While an investigative judge like Garzon is not bound by the prosecutors’
recommendation, it would be highly unusual for a case… Continue reading
by Jack Hunter
April 8, 2009
"…there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam
Hussein’s Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans."
–Stephen F. Hayes, The Weekly Standard, 2003
When discussing politics, if there’s one thing that sends people running for
the hills, it’s conspiracy theories — or worse, conspiracy theorists.
As with those who are deemed "racist" or "isolationist,"
conspiracy theorists are automatically dismissed by polite society, not necessarily
because they are wrong, but because of the nature of their arguments. And because
their ideas and opinions are outside of consensus politics or the mainstream
media, conspiracy theorists lack credibility simply for being outside the realm
Take, for example, what is commonly known as the 9/11 Truth Movement, a collection
of conspiracy theories that claim the terrorist attacks in 2001 were orchestrated
by the U.S. government. Watching 9/11 Truth videos online like "Loose Change"
or "Zeitgeist" raises many interesting questions, and might cause
even the most reasonable of folks to at least question the conventional wisdom
on the subject. Yet, by and large, the 9/11 Truth conspiracy remains a fringe
movement, taken seriously by few and laughed at by most.
But if 9/11 "Truthers" are wacky for believing the 9/11 attacks were
orchestrated by Uncle Sam, what about the conspiracy theorists who tried to
convince Americans that 9/11 was orchestrated by Saddam Hussein? Consider the
following from The Weekly Standard‘s cover… Continue reading
By Matt Corley
In an interview on NPR’s Fresh Air yesterday, host Terry Gross asked investigative journalist Seymour Hersh if, as he continues to investigate the Bush administration, “more people” were “coming forward” to talk to him now that “the president and vice president are no longer in power.” Hersh replied that though “a lot of people that had told me in the last year of Bush, ‘call me next, next February,’ not many people had talked to him. He implied that they were still scared of Cheney.
“Are you saying that you think Vice President Cheney is still having a chilling effect on people who might otherwise be coming forward,” asked Gross. “I’ll make it worse,” answered Hersh, adding that he believes Cheney “put people back” in government to “stay behind” in order to “tell him what’s going on” and perhaps even “do sabotage”:
HERSH: I’ll make it worse. I think he’s put people left. He’s put people back. They call it a stay behind. It’s sort of an intelligence term of art. When you leave a country and, you know, you’ve driven out the, you know, you’ve lost the war. You leave people behind. It’s a stay behind… Continue reading
March 28, 2009
NEW YORK (Reuters) — A top Spanish court has moved toward starting a
probe of six former Bush administration officials including ex-Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales in connection with alleged torture of prisoners at Guantánamo
Bay, The New York Times said on Saturday.
The criminal investigation would focus on whether they violated international
law by providing a legalistic justification for torture at the U.S. detention
camp in Cuba, the Times said.
The paper said the National Court in Madrid had assigned the case to judge
Baltasar Garzon, known for ordering the arrest of former Chilean dictator Augusto
Garzon has accepted the case and sent it to the prosecutor’s office for review,
the newspaper said, citing an official close to the case.
The complaint, prepared by Spanish lawyers with the help of U.S. and European
legal experts, also names John Yoo, the former Justice Department lawyer who
wrote secret legal opinions saying the president had the authority to circumvent
the Geneva Conventions, and Douglas Feith, the former undersecretary of defense
Spain can claim jurisdiction in the case because five Spanish citizens or residents
who were prisoners at Guantánamo Bay say they were tortured there.
The other Americans named are William Haynes II, former general counsel for
the Department of Defense; Jay Bybee, Yoo’s former boss at the Justice Department’s
Office of Legal Counsel; and David Addington, chief of staff and legal adviser
to ex-Vice President Dick Cheney.
Yoo, already the subject of a Justice Department… Continue reading
Posted by ‘piscesgutt’ at youtube February 13, 2008; picked up from 911blogger.com 3/24/09
You can run on for a long time
Run on for a long time
Sooner or later God’ll cut you down
George W. Bush
Tim Russert (NBC)
George W. Bush
Wolf Blitzer (CNN)
Jeff Ferrell (KSLA)
Keith Olbermann (MSNBC)
Tucker Carlson (MSNBC)
David Ray Griffin
Councilor Yukihisa Fujita of Democratic Party of Japan
Sabrina Rivera (WeAreChange.org)
Matt Lepacek (Infowars)
Brian Kilmeade (Fox News)
Better Bad News
Paul Craig Roberts
Justin Martell (Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth)
Bill O’Reilly (Fox News)
Jimmy Kimmel (ABC)
Ray McGovern (former CIA)
CODEPINK member Desiree Fairooz
Phillip D. Zelikow
Charles Gibson (ABC)
Harry John Roland
George H. W. Bush
Osama bin Laden
Source URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctqEndNmaFk
March 15, 2009
In his recent TV appearance [reported on at Huffington Post, as reprinted below],
Dick Cheney said “And now he [President Obama] is making some choices that,
in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another
Some investigators of September 11th have concluded that Cheney himself played
a key role in “letting 9/11 happen.”
For example, David Ray Griffin in THE NEW PEARL HARBOR REVISITED (page 94) writes:
“Accordingly, the Commission’s treatment of Norman Mineta’s testimony provides
one of the clearest examples of its attempts to cover up the truth, which in
this case involved Cheney’s presence in the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations
Center] during a crucial 45-minute period, during which he apparently confirmed
a stand-down order.” [emphasis added]
Cheney refused to testify under oath before the 9/11 Commission. If it is true
that Cheney played a key role on 9/11, then his statement about “risk …
of another attack” could be seen a veiled threat about another attack–possibly
now in the planning stage.
A new investigation of 9/11, by a truly independent 9/11 Commission, would have
subpoena power necessary to require citizens Cheney and Bush to testify under
oath. Without a new investigation, we will never know if Cheney and Bush (and
many others) are truly innocent of pre-knowledge or complicity in the tragedy
of that infamous day.
If any officials within the Bush administration are guilty–but remain free,
then we are certainly in danger of “another… Continue reading
Missing email includes day Cheney’s office told to preserve emails in CIA leak case WASHINGTON — Welcome to change.
The Obama administration, siding with former President George W. Bush, is trying to kill a lawsuit that seeks to recover what could be millions of missing White House e-mails in a stunning reversal of Obama’s rhetoric about Bush secrecy on the campaign trail.
Two advocacy groups suing the Executive Office of the President, including one of the groups that helped derail former House Speaker Tom DeLay, say that large amounts of White House e-mail documenting Bush’s eight years in office may still be missing, and that the government must undertake an extensive recovery effort. They expressed disappointment that Obama’s Justice Department is continuing the Bush administration’s bid to get the lawsuits dismissed.
During its first term, the Bush White House failed to install electronic record-keeping for e-mail when it switched to a new system, allegedly resulting in millions of messages that could not be found.
The Bush White House “discovered the problem” in 2005 and rejected a proposed solution.
The exact number of missing e-mails is unknown, but several days on which e-mails were not archived covered key dates in a Justice Department inquiry into the roles of Vice President Dick Cheney and his aides in leaking the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson.
Ironically, Cheney’s office is missing emails from the very day President Bush told reporters he’d “take care of” whatever staff member had actually… Continue reading
We urge Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a non-partisan independent Special Counsel to immediately commence a prosecutorial investigation into the most serious alleged crimes of former President George W. Bush, former Vice President Richard B. Cheney, the attorneys formerly employed by the Department of Justice whose memos sought to justify torture, and other former top officials of the Bush Administration.
UPDATE 2/27/09 6pm: In response to the many email questions we’ve received asking why we have not endorsed this call for a Special Prosecutor: On 2/24, when this statement/petition was posted at AfterDowningStreet.org, 911truth.org immediately signed on as an endorsing organization via the signup at that site. As of now, our name does not appear on that list. Nonetheless, we did submit endorsement. We are not, yet, encouraging 9/11 truth advocates to politely contact David Swanson asking him why he would permanently post a video statement from Willie Rodriguez on the front page of his site, yet continue to ignore/ban the burgeoning 9/11 truth movement from being heard as the powerful voice we are, in calling for truth and accountability. We believe that Mr. Swanson is acting in good faith, all in all, and will post our endorsement with the others on the list shortly.
Our laws, and treaties that under Article VI of our Constitution are the supreme law of the land, require the prosecution of crimes that strong evidence suggests these individuals have committed. Both the former president and the former vice president have confessed to authorizing a torture procedure that is illegal under our law and treaty obligations.…Continue reading
IMAGE OF FORMER VICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEY AND FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
appeared on the bills distributed in Kennard.
February 17, 2009
By Matt Hrodey
KENNARD – James Dudley found something he didn’t expect when he walked out
to get his Monday edition of The Courier-Times.
Sitting on top of his paper was a fake, oversized bill bearing the faces of
former Vice-President Dick Cheney and former President George W. Bush. Instead
of a dollar amount, the bill was marked "9-11."
The realistic feel and color of the note impressed Dudley, who said it felt
like a new bill freshly released from an ATM. It bore words at the top reading
"Fraudulent Event Note," ones at the bottom saying "One Deception"
and several Web site addresses.
Cause stir in Kennard
Charles Millis, another recipient of the bill, was moderately impressed by
its realism. "It’s fairly realistic," he said. Millis called a couple
people he knew who lived on the south side of town, but they hadn’t gotten anything
like the "9-11" dollar with their newspaper.
Managing Editor Randy Rendfeld said the newspaper didn’t deliver the bills,
which had also found their way into several other newspaper boxes in Kennard.
So where did they come from?
He lives in Kennard and said he… Continue reading
January 27, 2009
A little-noticed twist in an order issued by President Barack Obama the day
after his inauguration may present problems for former White House Deputy Chief
of Staff Karl Rove and other Bush Administration officials that have been targeted
for their alleged role in various scandals.
Rove was subpoenaed Monday afternoon by House Judiciary Committee Chairman
John Conyers (D-MI). When the dogged Democrat subpoenaed him last year, Bush
Administration lawyers invoked “executive immunity” to prevent Rove
This year, however, George W. Bush is no longer in the president’s chair. Determination
of executive privilege must now also be examined by President Obama’s lawyers.
In fact, Rove’s lawyer made direct reference to Obama’s role in any future decision
to enjoin Rove’s appearance on the congressional witness stand Monday night.
“It’s generally agreed that former presidents retain executive privilege
as to matters occurring during their term,” Rove’s lawyer, Robert Luskin,
told The Washington Post. “We’ll solicit the views of the new White House
counsel and, if there is a disagreement, assume that the matter will be resolved
among the courts, the president and the former president.”
Luskin doesn’t concede that Rove isn’t covered by Bush’s blanket immunity,
but appears to acknowledge that the question of keeping Rove off the witness
stand has become more complex.
“The Attorney General and the Counsel to the President, in the exercise
of their discretion and after appropriate review and consultation under subsection
(a) of this section, may jointly determine that… Continue reading
By Columbia Journalism Review
January 14, 2009
Advocates for open and transparent government are quick to note that no American
presidential administration has, in practice, been enthusiastic about reducing
secrecy in the executive branch–for some obvious and sometimes quite legitimate
reasons. There are secrets that almost everyone agrees should remain secret.
But secrecy must be balanced with the citizens’ right to examine the operations
of their government–to learn, to improve, to enforce, and sometimes to
shame. That’s especially true when there are political or bureaucratic
incentives for secrecy that deserve far less respect than true matters of national
security. And despite the bipartisan resistance from those in power, the arc
of history has trended, if unevenly, toward openness. Claims of excessive secrecy
have become a tried and true political battering ram, easily wielded by the
party in opposition. Technological evolution has not only made the dissemination
of information easier and faster, but also has heightened our appetite for disclosure.
The trend isn’t confined to the political sphere. Betty Ford’s frank
discussion of her struggles with cancer and alcoholism in the 1970s marked a
new era of openness in our personal medical lives, and the invention of the
personal video camera spawned a cottage industry around moments–gaffes,
goofs, tragedies–that were once private.
Against that backdrop, there is wide agreement among journalists and openness
advocates that the administration of George W. Bush was an aberration, at least
in the modern era. Bush and his advisers came into office with a broad vision… Continue reading