%s1 / %s2
  • economy
  • iran
  • e-voting
  • 9/11
  • media
  • top stories
  • read
  • news archive
  • by deepjournal
1 February 2007  |     mail this article   |     print   |    |  Keith Olbermann
Keith Olbermann exposes false claims in State of the Union
Watch the video
By Daan de Wit
In an excellent story Keith Olbermann exposes the four claims president Bush made in his State of the Union address regarding foiled Al Qaeda plots. Each of the plots mentioned were non exsistent, yet were presented as truths by Bush. By Way Of Deception Thou Shalt Do War is the motto of the Israeli spy agency Mossad, but it might as well be the motto of the Bush government.

The deceptions keep on coming, despite researchers like Olbermann exposing them for what they are.
Through the powers of authority and of mass media these deceptions are painted over as truths dividing people on a horizontal level: terrorists against peace loving citizens, left against right, etc. But is the real struggle not vertical? I think it is - them against us, peace loving citizens who are opposed by the elite that govern them. The majority of people don't want war, they want to provide for their families, live in peace and recognize themselves in each other. Their focus is simply to making a living; but the governing elite and has different interests, it has to manage the the powers given to them. 
It is always the governing elite that by deception needs to persuade the people into starting wars already planned. As soon as 'the people' discover - through researchers like Olbermann - that they should focus on the vertical struggle and not on the horizontal, things can start to change for the better. There is an enormous human and material potential which is now being wasted on wars and paralyzed by fear that could otherwise be liberated and put to good use. This could redistribute the great wealth there is in this world, which is now largely wasted and rendered ineffective because it is out of balance.

We the people should no longer give away that which is ours in elections in which we can only choose between one elitist or another. We should also check to see that if we decide to vote, our votes actually reach the candidate of our choosing. Then we should check, like Olbermann, if the inevitable fear mongering that follows is based in fact. We should also check to see if the enemy as it is presented to us is really the enemy: did Bin Laden actually bypass U.S. defenses on 9/11, were the London bombings actually carried out by ruthless terrorists, was America caught unaware when Pearl Harbor happened and was the U.S. actually attacked in the Tonkin Gulf?

Olbermann exposes the four claims made by Bush as being false. Read more on the fourth case in this article from the BBC: 'UK 'plot' terror charge dropped' DeepJournal: Drop the No Liquid nonsense on airports.

Watch the video and read the trancript:
And finally tonight, as promised, a Special Comment, on presidents and terrorism…

And on the seemingly trivial fact that West Yorkshire in England, has a new Chief Police Constable.

Upon his appointment, Sir Norman Bettison made one of the strangest comments of the year: "The threat of terrorism," he says, "is lurking out there like Jaws 2."

Sir Norman did not exactly mine the richest ore for his analogy of warning. A critic once said of the flopping sequel to the classic film: "You're gonna need a better screenplay."

But this obscure British police official has reminded us, that terrorism is still being sold to the public in that country — and in this — as if it were a thrilling horror movie, and we were the naughty teenagers about to be its victims.

And it underscores the fact that President Bush took this tack, exactly a week ago tonight, in his terror-related passage in the State of the Union…

A passage that was almost lost amid all the talk about Iraq and health care and bi-partisanship and the fellow who saved the stranger from an oncoming subway train in New York City.

But a passage — ludicrous and deceitful…

Frightening in its hollow conviction…

Frightening, in that the President who spoke it tried for "Jaws" but got "Jaws 2."

I am indebted to David Swanson, press secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 Presidential campaign, who has blogged about the dubious 96 words in Mr. Bush's address this year and who has concluded that of the four counter-terror claims the President made, he went 0 for 4.

"We cannot know the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies have prevented," Mr. Bush noted, "but here is some of what we do know: we stopped an Al-Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast."

This would, of course, sir, be the purported plot to knock down the 73-story building in Los Angeles, the one once known as the Library Tower — the one you personally revealed so breathlessly, a year ago next month.

It was embarrassing enough that you mistakenly referred to the structure as the Liberty Tower. But within hours, it was also revealed, that authorities in Los Angeles had had no idea you were going to make any of the details — whether serious or fanciful — public.

Who terrorized Southern California that day, Mr. Bush?

A year ago next month, the Los Angeles Times quoted a source — identified only by the labyrinthine description "a U-S official familiar with the operational aspects of the war on terrorism" — who insisted that the purported "Library Tower plot" was one of many Al-Qaeda operations that had not gotten very far past the conceptual stage.

The former staff director of counter-terrorism for the National Security Council — now NBC and MSNBC News Analyst Roger Cressey — puts it a little more bluntly.

In our conversation, he classified the "Library Tower story" into a category he called the "What-Ifs" — as in the old Saturday Night Live sketches that tested the range of comic absurdity:

– What If… Superman Had Worked For The Nazis?

– What if… Spartacus Had A Piper Cub, during the battle against the Romans in 70 B-C?

More ominously, the L.A. Times source who debunked the Library Tower story said that those who could correctly measure the flimsiness of the scheme, quote, "feared political retaliation for providing a different characterization of the plan than that of the President."

But Mr. Bush, you're the decider.

And you decided that the Library Story should be scored as one for you.

And you continued with a second dubious claim of counter-terror success. "We broke up a Southeast Asian terror cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States," you said.

Well, sir, you've apparently stumped the intelligence community completely with this one.

In his article, Mr. Swanson suggests that in the last week there has been no reporting — even hinting — at what exactly you were talking about.

He hypothesizes that either you were claiming credit for a ring broken up in 1995, or that this was just the Library Tower story, quote, "by another name."

Another CIA source suggests to NBC News that since the Southeast Asian cell dreamed of a series of attacks on the same day, you declared the Library Tower one threat thwarted, and all their other ideas, a second threat thwarted.

Our colleague Mr. Cressey sums it up: this "Southeast Asian cell" was indeed the tale of the Library Tower, simply repeated.

Repeated, Mr. Bush, in consecutive sentences in the State of the Union, in your constitutionally mandated status report on the condition and safety of the nation.

You showed us the same baby twice, and claimed it was twins.

And then you said, that was two for you.

Your third claim, sir, read thusly: "We uncovered an al-Qaeda cell developing anthrax to be used in attacks against America." Again, the professionals in counter-intelligence were startled to hear about this.

Last fall, two Washington Post articles cited sources in the FBI and other governmental agencies who said that hopes by foreign terrorists to use anthrax in this country were fanciful at best, farcical at worst.

And every effort to link the 2001 anthrax mailings in this country to foreign sources has also struck out. The entire investigation is barely still active.

Mr. Cressey goes a little further. Anything that might even resemble an Al-Qaeda cell "developing Anthrax," he says, was in the "dreaming" stages. He used as a parallel those pathetic arrests outside Miami last year, in which a few men wound up getting charged as terrorists, because they couldn't tell the difference between an Al-Qaeda operative and an FBI informant.

Their "ring-leader" seemed to be much more interested in getting his 'terrorist masters' to buy him a new car than in actually terrorizing anybody.

That's three for you, Mr. Bush.

"And just last August," you concluded, "British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean."

In a series of dramatic raids, 24 men were arrested.

Turned out, sir, a few of them actually had gone on the internets to check out some flight schedules.

Turned out, sir, only a few of them actually had the passports needed to even get on the planes.

The plot to which President Bush referred, was a plot without bombs.

It was a plot, without any indication that the essence of the operation — the in-flight mixing of volatile chemicals carried on board in sports drink bottles — was even doable by amateurs or professional chemists.

It was a plot even without sufficient probable cause.

A third of the 24 arrested that day — exactly 90 days before the American mid-term elections — have since been released.

The British had been watching those men for a year.

Before the week was out, their first statement, that the plot was "ready to go, in days," had been rendered inoperative.

British officials told NBC News of the lack of passports and plans; told us that they had wanted to keep the suspects under surveillance for at least another week.

Even an American official confirmed to NBC's investigative unit that there was "disagreement over the timing."

The British then went further. Sources inside their government told the English newspaper the Guardian, that the raids had occurred only because the Pakistanis had arrested a man named Rasheed Raouf. That Raouf had only been arrested by Pakistan because we had threatened to do it for them.

That the British had acted only because our government was willing — to quote that newspaper "The Guardian" — to "ride roughshod" over the plans of British Intelligence.

Oh by the way, Mr. Bush, an anti-terrorism court in Pakistan reduced the charges against Mr. Raouf, to possession of bomb-making materials, and being there without proper documents.

Still, sir, evidently that's close enough.

Score four for you!

Your totally black-and-white conclusions in the State of the Union were based on one gray area, and on three pallets on which the experts can't even see smudge let alone gray.

It would all be laughable, Mr. Bush, were you not the President of the United States.

It would all be political hyperbole, Mr. Bush, if you had not, on this kind of "intelligence," taken us to war, now sought to escalate that war, and are threatening new war in Iran and maybe even elsewhere.

What you gave us a week ago tonight, sir, was not intelligence, but rather a walk-through, of how speculation and innuendo, guess-work and paranoia, day-dreaming and fear-mongering, combine in your mind and the minds of your government, into proof of your derring-do and your success against the terrorists.

The ones who didn't have anthrax.

The ones who didn't have plane tickets or passports.

The ones who didn't have any clue, let alone any plots.

But they go now into our history books as the four terror schemes you've interrupted since 9/11.

They go into the collective consciousness as firm evidence of your diligence, of the necessity of your ham-handed treatment of our liberties, of the unavoidability of the 3,075 Americans dead in Iraq.

Congratulations, sir.

You are the hero of "Jaws 2." You have kept the Piper Cub out of the hands of Spartacus.


Sign up for the free mailing list.
12 September 2013  |  
Why is Syria under attack? - Part 4
When you peek below the surface, it becomes clear that Syria is under attack due to the interests of the parties involved. ‘Syria’ is about power, money, influence and energy.
10 September 2013  |  
Why is Syria under attack? - 3
8 September 2013  |  
Why is Syria under attack? - Part 2
In the event of major military conflicts that risk considerable humanitarian and economic consequences, it is useful to examine the interests of all parties involved as well as the role that the media plays in reporting the events.
7 September 2013  |  
Why is Syria under attack? - Part 1
On the surface it’s straightforward: the U.S. wants to liberate Syria from a brutal dictator who is attacking his own people with poison gas. But beneath the surface there is something very different going on.
28 August 2012
Daan de Wit (DeepJournal) interviewt Webster Tarpley op het Magneetfestival
Het Magneetfestival gaat de diepte in met vier interviews. Daan de Wit interviewt Webster Tarpley, Albert Spits, en Mike Donkers.
Contact - About - Donate - RSS Feeds - Copyright © 2006 DeepJournal, All rights reserved