VIEW Recent Articles
Browse by Category
Graphic image for 9/11 foreknowledge
Graphic: unanswered questions
Graphic of paper shredder- destruction of evidence
Graphic: conflict of interest
Cui bono graphic
Alleged Hijacker graphic
9/11 Commission Shield

Middle East

2 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 Last

FBI Role in Terror Probe Questioned

Lawyers Point to Fine Line Between Sting and Entrapment

by Walter Pincus

Washington Post

September 2, 2006

Standing in an empty Miami warehouse on May 24 with a man he believed had ties to Osama bin Laden, a dejected Narseal Batiste talked of the setbacks to their terrorist plot and then uttered the words that helped put him in a federal prison cell.

“I want to fight some jihad,” he allegedly said. “That’s all I live for.”

What Batiste did not know was that the bin Laden representative was really an FBI informant. The warehouse in which they were meeting had been rented and wired for sound and video by bureau agents, who were monitoring his every word.

Within a month, Batiste, 32, and six of his compatriots were arrested and charged with conspiracy to aid a terrorist organization and bomb a federal building. On June 23, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales held a news conference to announce the destruction of a terrorist cell inside the United States, hailing “our commitment to preventing terrorism through energetic law enforcement efforts aimed at detecting and thwarting terrorist acts.”

But court records released since then suggest that what Gonzales described as a “deadly plot” was virtually the pipe dream of a few men with almost no ability to pull it off on their own. The suspects have raised questions in court about the FBI informants’ role in keeping the plan alive.

The plot featured self-proclaimed militant religious leaders who referred to themselves as kings, talked of establishing their own nation inside the United States, called their headquarters an embassy and discussed plans to train their recruits to use bows and arrows.…

Continue reading

2 US Reports Seek to Counter Conspiracy Theories About 9/11

By Jim Dwyer

New York Times
September 2, 2006

People holding a banner, Stop the 9-11 Cover-up

Marchers were among the 500 conspiracy theorists at a two-day Chicago convention in early June calling for what they considered “9/11 truth.” – Photo by Joe Tabacca for The New York Times

Faced with an angry minority of people who believe the Sept. 11 attacks were part of a shadowy and sprawling plot run by Americans, separate reports were published this week by the State Department and a federal science agency insisting that the catastrophes were caused by hijackers who used commercial airliners as weapons.

The official narrative of the attacks has been attacked as little more than a cover story by an assortment of radio hosts, academics, amateur filmmakers and others who have spread their arguments on the Internet and cable television in America and abroad. As a motive, they suggest that the Bush administration wanted to use the attacks to justify military action in the Middle East.

Most elaborately, they propose that the collapse of the World Trade Center was actually caused by explosive charges secretly planted in the buildings, rather than by the destructive force of the airliners that thundered into the towers and set them ablaze.

The government reports and officials say the demolition argument is utterly implausible on a number of grounds. Indeed, few proponents of the explosives theory are willing to venture explanations of how daunting logistical problems would be overcome, such as planting thousands of pounds of explosives in busy office towers.

Nevertheless, federal officials say they moved to affirm the conventional history of the day because of the persistence of what they call “alternative theories.” On Wednesday, the National Institute of Standards and Technology issued a seven-page study based on its earlier 10,000-page report on how and why the trade center collapsed.…

Continue reading

The Conspiracy to Rewrite 9/11

Conspiracy theorists insist the U.S. government, not terrorists, staged the devastating attacks

by Jonathan Curiel, Staff Writer
San Francisco Chronicle

Dylan Avery has a theory that he says casts doubts on Mark Bingham’s actions on Sept. 11, 2001. According to Avery, the San Francisco public relations executive never called his mom on a cell phone from the cabin of Flight 93, and never told her that “some of us here are going to try to do something.” Instead, says Avery, someone using a voice synthesizer — possibly a government official — called Alice Hoglan on the morning that Flight 93 — and Bingham — became part of Sept. 11 lore.

“The cell phone calls were fake — no ifs, ands or buts,” Avery says in “Loose Change,” a film he wrote and directed that’s one of the most-watched movies on the Internet, with 10 million viewers in the past year. “Until the government can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that al Qaeda was behind Sept. 11, the American people have every reason to believe otherwise.”

Avery is one of perhaps millions of Americans who believe the U.S. government — or rogue elements within it — either orchestrated the attacks or tacitly supported them for nefarious reasons.

As the five-year anniversary of the attacks approaches, the clamor of Avery and other conspiracy theorists has gotten stronger — and more widely accepted. According to a poll by Ohio University and Scripps Howard News Service, 36 percent of Americans believe that government officials “either assisted in the 9/ 11 attacks or took no action to stop the attacks because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.” Twelve percent of Americans believe a cruise missile fired by the U.S.…

Continue reading

Are You an ‘Unlawful Combatant’? Maybe So…

There has been a great deal of discussion about the Military Commissions Act
of 2006
[.pdf], recently passed by both houses of Congress, and most of it has
to do with the provisions allowing torture of alien detainees, that is, of non-citizens
apprehended in, say, Afghanistan or Iraq, and their treatment at the hands of their American captors. Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and John Warner,
all Republicans, grandstanded for weeks over the torture provisions, then capitulated.
Another “Republican maverick,” Arlen Specter, zeroed in on the real
issue, however, when he said the bill would set us back 800 years by repealing
the habeas corpus protections against arbitrary arrest and jailings — and then went ahead and voted for it, anyway.

Liberal opposition mainly centered around the morality
— or, rather, immorality — of torture, but the debate largely ignored the ticking time-bomb at the heart of this legislation, scheduled to go off, perhaps, in tandem with some future crisis, e.g., another terrorist attack on American soil: the redefinition of the “unlawful combatant” concept that lays the foundations for this administration’s reconstruction of the gulag. Here is the new, broadened definition, as enunciated in the legislation recently passed by the House:

“The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means ñ (i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al-Qaeda, or associated forces); or (ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the president or the secretary of defense.”

It doesn’t say “alien” or “terrorist,” although it specifically includes members of the Taliban and al-Qaeda.…

Continue reading

Enforcers or Enablers? Will the Democrats Become Part of the Problem?

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
November 9, 2006

It only took six years for Americans to comprehend George Bush and the Republican Party and to realize that the Republicans were not leading America in any promising directions.

Exit polls and interviews with voters across the country by CNN political analyst Bill Schneider show that the November 2006 election was a vote against both Bush and the war in Iraq. Schneider reports that voters did not even know the name of the Democrats for whom they voted. Voters said: “I am going to vote Democrat, because I don’t like Bush, I don’t like the war. I want to make a statement.”

I believe that voters recognized that the peril of one-party rule is that political accountability exists no where except at the ballot box. With the Republican built and programmed electronic voting machines, even accountability at the ballot box was disappearing.

Americans realized that they had made a serious mistake giving power to one party, and they rectified it.

With Republican control of the legislative branch ended, Pentagon Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was immediately swept from power. With the troops, generals, and the service newspapers calling for Rumsfeld’s head, only the delusional warmonger, Vice President Richard Cheney, wanted to keep Rumsfeld in power.

It was a battle that Cheney lost. Cheney’s defeat is an indication that reality has elbowed its way back into Republican consciousness, pushing hubris and delusion away from the control they have exercised over political power.

The lust for unbridled power proved to be too strong a temptation for normally cautious Republicans.…

Continue reading

9/11 Widows Keep on Asking the Tough Questions

by Joseph Murtagh

February 12, 2007 — When it comes to 9/11, America right now is divided between two camps, those who trust the official account of the attacks, and those who, well, have questions. It’s occasionally the case that the first camp will publicly denounce the second camp as a bunch of nutcases, and when this happens, it’s usually the rowdier section of Camp Two, the Loose Change , bullhorn-wielding, “death to the New World Order” crowd, that takes the most heat.

What tends to get ignored, however, is the quieter section of Camp Two, and especially a group of widowed mothers from New Jersey and New York who over the last six years have worked harder than just about anyone to protect the country from terrorism. Few people realize that had it not been for the tireless efforts of the “Jersey girls” — Mindy Kleinberg, Kristen Breitweiser, Lorie Van Auken, Patty Casazza, and Monica Gabrielle — not only would the 9/11 Commission never have happened, but there most likely never would have been any investigation into what was the worst loss of life on American soil since the Civil War. No inquiry into our failed military defenses, or the collapse of the towers, or just why it was that President Bush sat in that Florida classroom for a full seven minutes after the second plane struck. No scientific reports, no effort to discover what went wrong, no hearings of any kind. No attempt to figure out the details… Continue reading

KSM Confesses

by John J. Albanese
March 15, 2007
www.crisisinamerica.org

I must profess embarrassment. After 5 years of 9/11 activism KSM’s confession
today has brought my world crashing down. After years of paranoid conspiracy
theories I must now accept the government’s word that this confession
is the genuine bona fide article – the final smoking gun behind 9/11.

It is therefore out of respect for our legal system that I will reproduce KSM’s
confession here:

I, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, being of sound mind and body, un-coerced by torture,
and fully enjoying the legal representation and due process afforded me under
the Constitution of the United States of America, hereby confess to the following
crimes associated with 9/11:

  • I confess that in the summer of 2001, I instituted the Visa Express Program
    in Saudi Arabia which allowed terrorists to enter the United States without
    even being interviewed by a consular officer. The Visa Express Program was
    ONLY instituted in Saudi Arabia, and no such privileges were extended to other
    US allies in Europe or the Middle East – ONLY Saudi Arabia, a country
    known to have a large population of Muslim fundamentalists hostile to the
    United States, and loyal to Osama Bin Laden.
  • I confess that when Consular representatives objected to this practice
    I posed as Richard Armitage (a member of the Project for the New American
    Century) and wrote a letter in his name defending the practice. Stating:
    o "Unfortunately, the information we have received from Foreign Terrorist
    Tracking Task Force so far has been insufficient to permit a consular officer
    to deny a visa.
Continue reading

The Terror Entrepreneurs

Terrorized by ‘War on Terror’: How a Three-Word Mantra Has Undermined America

By Zbigniew Brzezinski

Sunday, March 25, 2007

The “war on terror” has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration’s elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America’s psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.

The damage these three words have done — a classic self-inflicted wound — is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves. The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare — political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.

But the little secret here may be that the vagueness of the phrase was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant reference to a “war on terror” did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.…

Continue reading

David Ray Griffin debunks the official 9/11 story

Dr. Griffin at the National Press Clubby Elizabeth Woodworth

David Ray Griffin is a professor of philosophy of religion and theology and a proponent of 9/11 conspiracy theories that implicate members of the US government in the attacks. His just-released book is Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (Interlink Publishing). Griffin’s 9/11 books include The New Pearl Harbor (2003) and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2004).

New testimony from on-the-job first responders provides proof positive that 9/11 was an inside job. Eminent, world-renowned, Whitehead philosopher Dr. David Ray Griffin has been dogging the steps of the 9/11 official theory since colleagues first pointed out discrepancies in 2003.

Griffin, whose bottom line is the ecological crisis, believes the 911-spawned “War on Terror” is keeping ecology on the back burner. Along with Griffin, hundreds of scholars, pilots, veterans, first responders and CIA, government and military officials, had, by May 2006, convinced a polled 42 percent of Americans that a new independent 9/11 investigation was needed. (See www.patriotsquestion911.com)

Disturbed by the poll, in August of 2006, proponents of the official theory launched a four-pronged attack on the evidence that wouldn’t go away. They overhauled the official theory with revisions presented through a NIST (National Institutes of Standards and Technology) factsheet with information from Without Precedent, written by 9/11 commissioners Kean and Hamilton and material from Popular Mechanics’ Debunking 9/11 Myths, endorsed by Condoleezza Rice.

To buttress these revisions, the government handed previously unreleased NORAD tapes to… Continue reading

Pivotal Moment in the Green Scare

Pivotal Moment in the Green Scare
David Rovics

Bill Rodgers died in a jail cell in Flagstaff, Arizona, fist raised above him, plastic bag over his head, of an apparent suicide, on the 2005 winter solstice. Two weeks before in Prescott, Bill’s baby, the Catalyst Infoshop had been raided by fifteen federal officers and he was taken away.

Bill was essentially accused of destroying corporate property. If he had been arrested for these crimes in, say, an EU country, I’m sure Bill would still be alive today. But the US is not the EU. The prisons of the US are full of nonviolent offenders, and there are special sentences for some of them. Bill knew that in America today, he could do like Jeffrey Luers and go to prison for a very long time. For Bill’s property destruction was politically — ecologically — motivated. Bill apparently chose to end his life rather than spend it in prison.

The last time I saw Bill was at the Catalyst, a few months before his death. We were sitting on (or more like enveloped by) some very old couches and someone was filming an interview for a local Cable Access program, I think. Bill was a couple years older than me, but with twice as much energy. He was small, intelligent, full of vitality, full of both good intentions and actions. He was an unassuming Prescott institution, along with the Catalyst Infoshop.

Bill was part of a sweep of arrests of activists around the US, and more broadly, part of the US government’s efforts to wipe out what it calls “ecoterrorism.” To impose decades-long sentences (Jeffrey Luers was sentenced to a breathtaking 22 years) on people who have harmed no one, people who have essentially committed expensive acts of vandalism — against the corporations that are destroying our world.…

Continue reading

9/11: The elephant that will not leave

Ashland Daily Tidings Opinion/Editorial

May 21, 2007

Nearly six years after the attacks of Sept. 11, the issue remains undiminished,
lumbering around as American leaders still pretend it does not exist.

But the doors of truth, once guarded by ridicule, have slowly parted to reveal
reasonable, rational lingering questions that cannot be dismissed by scoffing.
Local area activists have joined a nationwide movement that has propelled the
memory of 9/11 into political arenas that once regarded the topic taboo. On
Thursday, Southern Oregon University will host David Ray Griffin, a highly regarded
theologian and the author of three books questioning the Bush administration’s
explanation of 9/11.

This local interest, as part of a compelling new level of national interest,
shows the issue is pushing its way into mainstream interest.

A Zogby International poll — an agency frequently sourced by media outlets — said half of all New Yorkers believe the U.S. allowed the attacks. Nearly two-thirds believe an unfettered investigation is warranted.

Also entering into the fight for truth is our own Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, whose legislative call for the Central Intelligence Agency to open its investigative reports on 9/11 (reported May 17 by The Associated Press) has raised the ire of his colleagues. Joining together with Jay Rockefeller, D-W. Va, and Kit Bond, D-Mo., Wyden’s legislation would require the CIA to declassify its executive summary in one month and submit a report explaining why any material was withheld.

Although initially dismissed as crackpot theory, the truth-seeker’s movement has continually gained momentum since the dust cloud from the fallen twin towers seemingly covered the investigative instincts of our national media, which in turn, ignored a third building collapsing in exactly the same manner.…

Continue reading

Forty years later, searching for truth

WARD BOSTON, JR., THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, JUN 8, 2007

This article was originally published by The San Diego Union-Tribune and is republished with the author’s permission.

Forty years ago this week, I was asked to investigate the heaviest attack on an American ship since World War II. As senior legal counsel to the Navy Court of Inquiry it was my job to help uncover the truth regarding Israel’s June 8th 1967 bombing of the USS Liberty.

On that sunny, clear day 40 years ago, Israel’s combined air and naval forces attacked our American intelligence-gathering ship for two hours, inflicting 70 percent casualties. Thirty-four American sailors died and 172 were injured. The USS Liberty remained afloat only by the crew’s heroic efforts.

Israel claimed it was an accident. Yet I know from personal conversations with the late Admiral Isaac C. Kidd — president of the Court of Inquiry — that President Johnson and Secretary of Defense McNamara ordered him to conclude that the attack was a case of “mistaken identity.”

The ensuing cover-up has haunted us for forty years. What does it imply for our national security, not to mention our ability to honestly broker peace in the Middle East, when we cannot question Israel’s actions — even when they kill Americans?

On June 8th, survivors of Israel’s cruel attack will gather in Washington, DC to honor their dead shipmates as well as the mothers, sisters, widows and children they left behind. They will continue to ask for a fair and impartial congressional inquiry that, for the first time, would allow the survivors themselves to testify publicly.…

Continue reading

Bush Directive for a ‘Catastrophic Emergency’ in America: Building a Justification for Waging War on Iran?

Bush Directive for a “Catastrophic Emergency” in America: Building a<br /> Justification for Waging War on Iran?<br />

By Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, June 24, 2007

Another [9/11 type terrorist] attack could create both a justification
and an opportunity that is lacking today to retaliate against some known targets

(Statement by Pentagon official, leaked to the Washington Post, 23 April 2006)

The US media consensus is that “the United States faces its greatest
threat of a terrorist assault since the September 11 attacks” (USA Today,
12 February 2006) The American Homeland is threatened by ” Islamic terrorists”,
allegedly supported by Tehran and Damascus.

America is under attack” by an illusive “outside enemy”.

Concepts are turned upside down. War becomes Peace. “Offense” becomes
a legitimate means of “self-defense”. In the words of President Bush:

“Against this kind of enemy, there is only one effective response:
We must go on the offense, stay on the offense, and take the fight to them.”
(President George W. Bush, CENTCOM Coalition Conference, May 1, 2007)

The intent is to seek a pretext to wage a preemptive war.

A “terrorist attack on America” could be used to justify, in the
eyes of an increasingly credulous public opinion, on “humanitarian grounds”,
the launching of a major theater war directed against Iran and Syria.

Allegedly supported by Iran, the terrorists are said to possess nuclear capabilities.
They are supposedly planning to explode “radiological dispersion devices”
(RDD) or “dirty bombs” in densely populated urban areas in the US.… Continue reading

Emergency Anti-War Convention, Philadelphia, July 4th — Call to All Activists

ACT Independent.org

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

The Philadelphia Emergency Anti-War Convention Activist, Groups Across America to Meet in Philadelphia July 4th

This Independence Day activist groups from the across the nation will unite in Philadelphia to develop strategies and unified action to end the war and restore true American democracy

The Philadelphia Emergency Antiwar Convention (PEAC) will create a new alignment of progressive movements including: peace, impeachment, civil liberties, veterans, 9/11 truth, and others will form a united front with the intent of rescuing the current imperiled state of the union.

This gathering is the answer to a malfeasant administration and an irresponsive Democratic Party who have jointly failed to enact the demands of those whom they represent.

This new alliance, forged in response to the false promises of the elected leadership, will restore power to the fourth estate and to the constitutional republic for which we stand.

Speakers include: David Lindorff award-winning journalist for over three decades, contributor to The Nation, Salon, and Business Week; co-author, The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office, and Webster Griffin Tarpley, historian, investigative journalist, and author of 9/11 Synthetic Terror.

Schedule: The event will begin at 12:00 pm with a press conference by the Anti-War Coalition for Truth at the Independence Visitor Center located at One North Independence Mall West, 6th and Market Streets. The convention will begin promptly thereafter at 1:00 pm and end at 9:00 pm.

Endorsed by: Philadelphia World… Continue reading

US Social Forum Supports Call for Independent, International Investigation into 9/11

During June 27th to July 1st, approximately 9,400 people from across the America,
and beyond, gathered in Atlanta for the historic, first-ever United
States Social Forum
. Thanks to donations from some of our generous supporters,
911Truth.org was there, together with about 15 other 911Truth activists from
Georgia, California, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Washington DC, and Maryland.
We went with the idea we’d work to “convince” people to look at the
need for a real investigation into the crimes of 9/11. After all, the various
issues and causes represented by this diversity of People were predicated, to
such a strong degree, upon the events of 9/11, and it made sense that if presented
with the information, we’d win some allies.

We were wrong. What we found, instead, was that nearly everyone we spoke with
was already aware of at least some questions about 9/11 and agreed
with us! The People, in spite of resistance we’ve heard from many of their organizational
“leaders,” are already with us.

We learned that on Sunday, the People would gather for a final Assembly where
resolutions would be read and voted upon. Peter Thottam, of 911TruthLA recommended
we submit a proposal, so the group of us at dinner on Friday pulled together
the whereas’s and therefore’s, Peter and Keith Dunwoody (of Atlanta) tweaked
and typed it up, Brian Ottolini made 1000 copies, and the group hit the ground
Saturday morning to distribute the copies and talk with people. At the last
minute, Jose Rodriguez graciously translated… Continue reading

Impeach Now: Or Face the End of Constitutional Democracy

CounterPunch July 16, 2007

By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS

Unless Congress immediately impeaches Bush and Cheney, a year from now the
US could be a dictatorial police state at war with Iran.

Bush has put in place all the necessary measures for dictatorship in the form
of “executive orders” that are triggered whenever Bush declares a
national emergency. Recent statements by Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff,
former Republican senator Rick Santorum and others suggest that Americans might
expect a series of staged, or false flag, “terrorist” events in the
near future.

Many attentive people believe that the reason the Bush administration will
not bow to expert advice and public opinion and begin withdrawing US troops
from Iraq is that the administration intends to rescue its unpopular position
with false flag operations that can be used to expand the war to Iran.

Too much is going wrong for the Bush administration: the failure of its Middle
East wars, Republican senators jumping ship, Turkish troops massed on northern
Iraq’s border poised for an invasion to deal with Kurds, and a majority of Americans
favoring the impeachment of Cheney and a near-majority favoring Bush’s impeachment.
The Bush administration desperately needs dramatic events to scare the American
people and the Congress back in line with the militarist-police state that Bush
and Cheney have fostered.

William Norman Grigg recently wrote that the GOP is “praying for a terrorist
strike” to save the party from electoral wipeout in 2008.
Chertoff, Cheney, the neocon nazis, and Mossad would have no qualms about saving
the bacon for the Republicans, who have enabled Bush to start two unjustified
wars, with Iran waiting in the wings to be attacked in a third war.…

Continue reading

Cheney Determined To Strike In US With WMD This Summer: Only Impeachment, Removal or General Strike Can Stop Him

Cheney Determined To Strike In US With WMD This Summer
Only Impeachment, Removal or General Strike Can Stop Him

By Webster G. Tarpley 7-21-7

“The greatest threat now is ‘a 9/11′ occurring with a group of terrorists armed not with airline tickets and box cutters, but with a nuclear weapon in the middle of one of our own cities.” — Dick Cheney on Face the Nation, CBS, April 15, 2007

A few days ago, a group of lawyers from western Massachusetts met with the local congressman, Democrat John Olver. Their request was that Olver take part in the urgent effort to impeach Bush and Cheney. Olver responded by saying that he had no intention of doing anything to support impeachment. He went further, offering the information that the United States would soon attack Iran, and that these hostilities would be followed by the imposition of a martial law regime here.

According to reports in the British press, the Cheney war party has gained the upper hand in the secret councils of the Bush White House, pushing aside the purported hesitations of Miss Rice, Secretary Gates, and the NATO allies to chart a direct course towards war with Iran:

‘The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned. The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although… Continue reading

Dangers of a Cornered George Bush

Dangers of a Cornered George Bush

By Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity & Dr. Justin Frank
July 27, 2007

The “new” strategy of surging troops in Baghdad has simply wasted more lives and bought some time for the president. His strategy boils down to keeping as many of our soldiers engaged as possible, in order to stave off definitive defeat in Iraq before January 2009.

Bush is commander in chief, but Congress must approve funding for the war, and its patience is running out. The war — and the polls — are going so badly that it is no longer a sure thing that the administration will be able to fund continuance of the war.

There is an outside chance Congress will succeed in forcing a pullout starting in the next several months. What would the president likely do in reaction to that slap in the face?

What would he do if the Resistance succeeded in mounting a large attack on U.S. facilities in the Green Zone or elsewhere in Iraq? How would he react if Israel mounted a preemptive attack on the nuclear-related facilities in Iran and wider war ensued?

Applied Psychoanalysis

The answers to such questions depend on a host of factors for which intelligence analysts use a variety of tools. One such tool involves applying the principles of psychoanalysis to acquire insights into the minds of key leaders, with an eye to facilitating predictions as to how they might react in certain circumstances.

For U.S. intelligence, this common-law marriage of psychoanalysis and intelligence work dates back to the early 1940s, when CIA’s forerunner, the Office of Strategic Services commissioned two studies of Adolf Hitler.…

Continue reading
2 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 Last