David Brooks and the Iraq War

David Brooks has responded non-confrontationally, without using Krugman’s name, to Krugman’s op-ed of May 18 where Krugman asserts that the Bush Administration lied us into the Iraq War.  Brooks refers to that notion as a fable and says it doesn’t gibe with the facts, and he cites the Robb-Silverman report which found a major intelligence failure, Brooks apparently taking great comfort in the bi-partisan nature of the commission that rendered the report.

 

Some of us who have been paying some attention over the past several decades don’t feel comfort because there are an equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans on some commission or other.  The amount of money given to the Defense Establishment by Democrats is more than enough to require some other criteria for comfort than bi-partisanship.  And Brooks should probably spend some time considering the statements of Michael Morell, CIA briefer to Bush, that make it quite clear that there was a whole lot more than failure on the part of the Bush Administration as this country lurched towards its greatest foreign policy disaster, maybe ever.  But can there be some sort of debate here?

 

I would ask Mr. Brooks if he agrees that Donald Rumsfeld wrote a note to an aide on the morning of 9/11 with the words:  “good enough, hit SH,(Saddam Hussein)…sweep it all up things related and not.”  I think it is a question, but knowing the character of the character doing the writing, and considering the use of the word “good” under the circumstances, almost all of human conceptions must be allowed for.  What exactly does Mr. Brooks make of this moment in history?  Does he concede that one not implausible reading of the facts is that the thought had crossed DR’s mind before 9/11 that if there were sufficient excuse, military action might be taken against SH?

 

Does he acknowledge that at least one of his beloved Generals, Wesley Clark in this instance, has reported that military action all across the region was being contemplated before 9/11?  Does he acknowledge that this sort of planning would require a certain preparation of the populace since most people look askance at military action without provocation?  It seems there may be a way of conducting business that is being exposed here.  If there were sufficient lack of scruple, the concocting of the right kind of intelligence might well be part of some playbook somewhere.  And in fact, we know now that the facts were not what the Administration claimed at the time.  So there was either misinterpretation or fraud.

Does Mr. Brooks even acknowledge that fraud is a theoretical possibility?  Or has it been stricken from consideration because its possible existence might require Mr. Brooks to reevaluate a whole range of historical events which, haven’t, in his mind, been considered blemishes upon the Administration record to date?  He might be compelled to think: if they, Cheney and Rumsfeld, were capable of considering the benefits of the 9/11 catastrophe so quickly and so blithely, and had been planning for war in the region for some time, is it plausible to consider that they may have had a hand in the catastrophe’s final form? Or, perish the thought, played a role in its facilitation, possibly? And that might lead this fine upstanding man, moral to his core, we presume, to do some research and find the continent of evidence denied admittance by all authority into any court of law, which happens to give wretched substance to suspicion.  In fact, proves complicity in the 9/11 nightmare beyond the slightest question.

Krugman, So Near and yet…

New York Times, Monday, May 18, 2015, Op-Ed page. Paul Krugman rails against the manufacturers of our reasonably recent history, 2001 and onward,, decrying the actions of the Bush Administration in “lying the United States into war.”  Calling it a crime, he appears confused by what might have driven the perpetrators to do such a thing; a mistaken belief that “shock and awe in Iraq would enhance American power and influence around the world,” the instituting of a “a pilot project, preparation for a series of regime changes,” or dog-wagging to “strengthen the Republican brand at home?”

 

And all of these musings come after reference to Rumsfeld’s 9/11-the day-of memo to staff about whether the event would be “good enough,” –imagine, for Jesus’s mother’s sake, the use of the words– “hit SH,(Saddam Hussein)…sweep it all up things related and not.”  And I think Krugman has to think even more deeply about the use of the words, “good enough.”  I don’t mean to suggest that their use ends any inquiry or is irrefutable proof of Rumsfeld’s conspiratorial intent with regard to the “inside job” aspect of the attacks.  And, I am not suggesting that there aren’t quite close to a thousand other evidentiary reasons for Krugman to rethink his understanding of 9/11 in toto, to the extent he has allowed himself to think about it at all.  What I want to call attention to is the vanishingly short distance one needs to trod between the frame of mind that is part and parcel of Krugman’s current understanding of the causes of the Iraq War, and the right-next-door mindset which conspires to create from, in all likelihood but not indisputably, someone else’s plan of a terrorist attack, that devastation which we now refer to as 9/11.

 

9/11 was probably the piggy-backing of a Cheney-Rumsfeld plan on top of a Khalid Sheik Mohammed plan, creating a false flag event of such scope and breadth that wholly decent American citizens would be defanged of their democratic teeth of thought, not to mention power of speech.  It is a fact, now repeated so many times in so many of those citizens, often with honest acknowledgement of the horror sought to be avoided, that it is cliche to suggest that this nation “can’t handle the truth.”  It is certainly no grave accusation to suggest that Krugman is in this class.  Virtually everyone is in this class.  The exceptions are simply mutant outliers whose relevant synapses were cut or frayed or rubbed raw idiosyncratically at some point in the last 14 years or before, through no fault or design of their own, but are now left to try to manage in the world with a corrupted epistemology as I think Sunstein called it.

 

Such corruption will not, however, let one be.  It cries for attention and constantly seeks for a loose brick in the wall.  Mr. Krugman, could you please take a careful look at the criminal intent, the mind behind that most heinous of war crimes, aggression.  I say that its impulses ranged from the political to the base financial, the passage of the Patriot Act, the projection of American power across the globe with the inestimable economic benefits to war contractors, suppliers, and operators, and of course the benefits to the political party in control of a nation at war, …and yes, oil and other resources in the affected regions and others where the power of example will prove helpful in later negotiations that some shorthanders refer to as, “the lead or the gold” conversations.  World domination is not all that hard to figure out once its theoretical possibility is allowed into the room.

 

So I am asking Mr. Krugman to consider that mind.  It is capable of the clear focus it takes to achieve a grand but deplorable accomplishment.  It is bereft of conscience that would ordinarily consider the even smallish body counts our finest wishes for their humanity would have to have envisioned, serious impediments to concerted action.  It is capable of manipulations of vast resources on the largest of stages, able to “see the whole board,” albeit with some genuinely perverted eyesight.  It is able to lie, again in the biggest way, understanding the essential need to mislead virtually an entire population.  And it is capable of the rankest desire for the achievement of financial gain.  Whatever I have left out, I will argue, can be found within the folds of what I have listed, even if there must be some fumbling around at first to find it there.

Denny Chin, then US District Court judge, now judge of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, whose panel agreed with him in every particular, said “it is simply not plausible that the Vice President of the United States, the Secretary of Defense, and other high-ranking officials conspired to facilitate terrorist attacks that would result in the deaths of thousands of Americans.  If anything, the allegations are the product of cynical delusion and fantasy.”  Probably most Americans could have had the thought, if they couldn’t have written the words.  Krugman as well.  But take a look at the mind we have sought to peer into, the one that lied us into war.  Look at the benefits of doubt with which it is bestowed in the face of the worst things you can say about a human being, or group of them.  Yes, they are capable of war criminality, depravity, conscienceless, intricate, merciless imaginings for their own sick ends, and necessarily the ignoring of the probability of substantial if not enormous loss of American troops’ lives–one doesn’t mention Iraqi casualties in a serious conversation.  What in all that blushes at the idea of false flag.  What in all of that stops at the killing of someone with an American passport?   In what fanciful dimension are such parsings meaningful?  And the robe bleats about “fantasy.”

Chris Matthews and Michael Morell

According to some commentators, Chris Matthews got former deputy director and former acting director of the CIA to admit that Cheney and Bush lied to the American people in order to go to war in Iraq.  I am not sure Matthews deserves that much credit for the moment; after all Michael Morell was on the show trying to sell a book.  Could he not have been prepared to make the disclosure; what exactly did he think Matthews was going to ask him about?

 

But let’s go ahead and give Matthews the credit.  Is there more that might have been done?  When Morell suggested it was not his job to watch TV and determine what lies the president was telling supposedly based on information he(Morell) was providing in his briefings, it would have been important to know when and how he learned that lies were in fact being told.  It would have been important to know what concerns about those lies were expressed to whom in the CIA and the rest of government.  It would have been important to learn what action or inaction took place within Morell’s knowledge.  How big a deal was the inaction, to the extent it existed?  If there were lies told, there can only have been one purpose and that was to create the necessary political conditions preparatory to an invasion, or other military action against Iraq.

 

Apparently, Bush and Cheney falsely said that Saddam Hussein was building a bomb when Morell told them he was not.  And apparently, they falsely said there was some connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, when Morell had told them there was none.  It is therefore clear that there was no adequate legal or moral reason to make war against Iraq.  That means that the taking of military action under the circumstances amounted to the war crime of aggression, the most heinous of them all.

It would have been helpful to know if Morell ever considered that what he was countenancing with his silence was a war crime.  For those of us concerned with the character of our governance, Matthews had an opportunity to shed an important bit of light on what sort of people govern us and how they do it, even if it is many years too late for the people of the Middle East.  The same people who gave us the disaster that is still killing people in Iraq are apparently Jeb Bush’s current advisers.  Perhaps a little less hardball and a little more preparation and concern for the question of moral purpose would have served us better.

Open letter to Robert Parry of Consortiumnews.com

Sorry if this is longer or more involved than it should be. I have been a supporter of yours for 25 plus years. Your reporting on the mendacity of the United States Government surrounding the alleged use of sarin gas by the Assad government in Syria is only the most recent example of what has impelled that support. I am not willing to use the term “single-handed” to describe your responsibility for the aversion of war with Syria; the reporting by Mintpress in the US and by local journalists on the ground in Syria about the possible involvement of Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia, not to mention Putin, obviously deserve credit, as well as others probably, of whom I am unaware.

What you have done, however, serves to enhance and exacerbate the disappointment, and admittedly the anger I am afraid, at the path you have chosen to take with regard to the rather much larger homegrown atrocity of 9/11. I hope the presence of these words in this public way will lead you to keep reading, a course of action you might not take in another forum of a more private nature.

The only way that there can exist even the hope of justice, not just as regards that one day in our lives, but of justice in this country as an enduring and uniting, driving force, is if someone with power decides on a course of redemption. I don’t mean to overblow your position as a journalist; I think I understand the distance you stand from the ball, but the first step by that individual to whom I refer will come after their mind has been changed, by an event, by a fact, by an essay, or by the smile on a granddaughter’s face when that person imagines that child’s life with, and then without, action on their part.

The world needs you to conceive of the critical analysis that you have brought to the Syria sarin gas story and its theoretical effect in the case of 9/11. What are you going to say to your granddaughter when she has what it takes to ask you why Norman Mineta’s testimony concerning what Cheney was doing and saying at the time of the crime, at the place of the crime, and concerning an instrumentality of the crime, was left out of the 9/11 Commission Report?

What are you going to say when she inquires about over 2000 architects and engineers visibly and publicly asserting that the 3 buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition, a possibility never even suggested in the 9/11 Commission Report?

What are you going to say when she asks about the peer-reviewed scientific paper which establishes the use of nanothermite in those buildings’ destruction?  How much further along in the Syria story would you be if the UN findings concerning the non-existence of sarin had been peer-reviewed? Peer-review is in fact the essence of a National Intelligence Estimate, is it not?

To be quite honest, I do not criticize you in the slightest for any sort of inability you may have possessed, even for a number of years, to conceive of US government agents reeking the kind of havoc, physical, psychological, or political, that they did on 9/11. But the case has grown in every way. The suspicions have turned into proof. The strength of that proof at this point can only be denied to oneself, or in the presence of others whose conclusions are a known quantity. So much so that I have, for quite a long time now, given up trying to provoke a debate, the depth of the returning silence, so profound and so complete.

The only reason I bother to write these words is because of my belief in your essential integrity; the contrast with the work today so stark and jarring; and because I acknowledge the ability in all of us to be better.

A Review of Phil Shenon’s “A Cruel and Shocking Act” and Anthony Summer’s “Not In Your Lifetime”

Phil Shenon was a reporter for the New York Times. He wrote “The Commission, The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Commission.” That was a helpful bit of writing that missed the rather enormously much larger historical reality that Cheney and Rumsfeld were complicit in the 9/11 attacks and responsible for their success. Shenon’s most recent work on the JFK assassination performs an almost identical function. In this case, the point missed has to do with the becoming-unmistakable fact that Lyndon Johnson’s fingerprints are all over the crime.

Given Shenon’s praise for DeLillo’s “Libra”, we can’t say he still thinks Oswald acted alone as, presumably based on the content found there, his former confreres at the NYT do, but he leaves out so many important pieces of information, also relegating his DeLillo reference to the “acknowledgments” section of the book, that he almost allows the reader to come to whatever conclusion they are predisposed toward. But with all of the scholarship that has passed over the dam or under the bridge at this point, his book seems subversive to accepted history, the NYT to the contrary notwithstanding.

I will mention just a few of the matters that Shenon finds unworthy.

1. Oswald’s words, “I’m a patsy,” cannot be found anywhere in the work, which is important because the Warren Commission, if we are to believe Shenon’s history, did not assume their truth for any purpose. Had they done so, the work of trying to fit the round peg of the “single bullet” theory, into the square hole of “everything else known” would not have consumed so much time and intellectual effort. The idea that criminal suspects categorically lie unless they are confessing has no place in the search for truth.
2. Dr. Charles Crenshaw was one of the surgeons who attended JFK, but he is not alone in declaring the wound in the front of the neck an entrance wound, thereby establishing the fact of a conspiracy. Medical records recording conclusions by emergency room doctors and nurses alike, say precisely the same thing. In connection with this information it is helpful to know that distinguishing between an entrance and an exit wound is one of the simpler determinations that medical examiners make in the bulk of instances where there is a question. An entrance wound is small and clean with the margins relatively precise. An exit wound is a mess. Had the wound in the front of the neck been an exit wound, likely no further cutting would have been necessary in order to complete the tracheotomy except exposing the windpipe, if that was necessary.
3. Mary Moormon took a polaroid picture of the presidential limousine with the grassy knoll in the background right as the shots are being fired. The naked eye is pretty much useless for the pertinent purposes, but there was the expenditure of considerable sums of money, and conclusions as a result of those efforts, that made their way onto television to the effect that behind the picket fence on the grassy knoll in the photograph is something consistent with the head of a man and an elongated object, none of which appear in other subsequent photographs of the same spot. That is important corroboration of another piece of evidence establishing a second shooter on the grassy knoll, in this case an eye and ear witness to the shot and extremely important information about what took place, and who was at the grassy knoll just before bullets flew.
Visible with the naked eye in the same Moormon picture is Gordon Arnold, a young military man on leave who described a rifle shot and bullet whizzing past his ear from behind him. Moreover, when asked about what he saw in 1977 or so, he described an encounter near the spot where his observations were made with a man claiming to be, and showing the identification of, a secret service agent. The problem with the “Oswald as lone gunman” theory is that the Warren Commission established without question that there were no real secret service agents on the grassy knoll at the time. Now I am sure, if I repesented someone at the trial of this case, I would think up something to say in an attempt to discredit what is contained in these paragraphs, but Mr. Shenon is not in that position. He can’t just leave out vital pieces of evidence that get in the way of what he is trying to do. Not honestly, anyway.
4. There have now been many books written about why it should be believed that LBJ was a prime mover in the conspiracy. I will boil it down in what follows. Billy Sol Estes was a Johnson man who made a very big name in the early 60’s as the subject of scandal connected to LBJ having to do with cotton futures and the like. There was very much money involved, and he was being investigated by Henry Marshall of the Texas Department of Agriculture. All of the evidence demands the conclusion that Marshall was murdered by Malcolm Wallace, another Johnson man, but the local Medical Examiner decided it was suicide in spite of the multiple blunt trauma and gunshot wounds. That’s the way things were in Texas back then, and no one would know that better than LBJ and Mac Wallace as their relationship flourished after Wallace was convicted of first degree murder in 1947 and got probation.
Estes was prosecuted for various corrupt criminal acts, but he kept his mouth shut about LBJ until 1984 when he was released from prison, and the former president was dead. At that point, he was taken before the Robertson County Grand Jury and testified that LBJ had ordered the murder of not just Henry Marshall, but also John F. Kennedy. All kinds of things can be said about how much faith one should put in the word, under oath or not, of Billy Sol Estes, but there is corroboration for his testimony that simply cannot be overlooked, honestly, at least.
In 1998 one of the fingerprints found on one of the boxes that comprised the sniper’s nest on the 6th floor of the School Book Depository was examined by a fingerprint examiner who has as much experience in the field as it is possible to have. He identified the print as belonging to …Malcolm Wallace, long since dead himself in the event anyone is interested.
Lastly, there has always been the testimony of police motorcycle riders attached to the motorcade and driving next to LBJ’s car, who said that Johnson was ducking down before any shooting took place, but now an analysis has been done of a photograph taken by a man named Altgens at the time of the first shot, looking back into Dealey Plaza from the Stemmons Freeway overpass. It very clearly depicts the limousine’s driver and Secret Service Agent Youngblood in the front seat, and Senator Ralph Yarborough and Lady Bird Johnson in the back seat. LBJ is nowhere to be seen, entirely consistent with the motorcycle policemen’s statements and a frightening foreknowledge of the grizzly shooting on the part of one of history’s most complex, ambitious, power-driven, sick political figures to have ever carved his name into the consciousness of a nation.
One simply cannot claim to write some sort of definitive book about the Kennedy Assassination while leaving out what appears in the paragraphs above, honestly, at least.

I hadn’t intended to include a review of Anthony Summers’ work, “Not in Your Lifetime”, but now, having read it, I can’t think of a good reason to lay off. Mr. Summers and Mr. Shenon happen to have something in common. They have both had occasion to take up the events of 9/11 in a serious way, Summers, along with his wife Robbyn Swan, in “The Eleventh Day”. The ways in which all of these accomplished writers failed the world with regard to 9/11, I will detail elsewhere. For the purposes before me now, it should simply be kept in mind that while they have all made a substantial contribution to understanding the attacks of 9/11, the evidence which establishes the complicity of the likes of Cheney and Rumsfeld is mostly not mentioned, or if it is, the references shy away from the horrifying verity of their guilt.

Summers did most of his work about the JFK assassination in the late 70’s reporting on the Assassinations Committee’s work and it’s failures. The book was called “Conspiracy” when it came out then. He says it has been updated recently, which means that all of the scholarship which produced the knowledge set out above concerning LBJ’s involvement and Shenon’s failure to mention it, was available to Summers. The same words at the end written about Shenon apply equally to Summers.

Summers is described as a Pulitzer Prize finalist so I guess he didn’t win. Shenon’s book on 9/11 was a best-seller. These are two big names in the field of journalism. The quantity of material on JFK’s murder is vast, but many of the books currently available have the notion of LBJ’s complicity in their titles. Even though I think the case is very strong indeed at this point, I suppose it is permissable to see things another way and, given the uncertainties that some may perceive, give LBJ some sort of pass. What I cannot understand, except in association with surmises of the very darkest nature, is the absence of even a word of mention concerning the oh-so-troublesome evidence.

Death of OBL and Zero Dark Thirty

There is a great, really great, story out there.  Is it the one we are being told at our local movie theatre in ZERO DARK THIRTY, great as that one is?  When the event being depicted is as seminal, as landscape-changing, as the gunning down of the entire globe’s most infamous terrorist, and reputed orchestrator of the earth-defining attacks of 9/11, is it acceptable that serious, and entirely reasonable scholars and observers of world events cannot agree about, or at least express sincere uncertainty concerning, the facts? Continue reading

Common Disaster Motif

What do the following pieces of history have in common other than many dead bodies?  The Breivik  island retreat shooting in Norway 2011, the sinking of the Estonia in the Baltic Sea in 1994, the 7/7 bombings in the Tube in London in 2005, the explosive downing of TWA Flight 800 in 1996, and the terrorist attacks of 9/11/2001?  Continue reading

Conclusion of Gallop v. Cheney + Affidavit of Evidence

This is probably a little here-and-there theft from the book which has made its way to the publisher.  If it ever escapes from there, this can act as advertising.  The book details my charge into the valley of death in pursuit of 9/11 Truth.  I survived, but Mother Truth has not done so well.  A kind of natural period having been placed at the end of the sentence with the Supreme Court’s denial of our Petition for Certiorari, it seems an apt moment to sum up, for anyone who cares. Continue reading

GLADIO AND NEW YORK TIMES–UTTER FAILURE OR TOTAL SUCCESS

Gladio.  Does anybody know what Gladio is, or was, or still is?  I certainly didn’t until I was unceremoniously tossed into the snake pit of the attacks of 9/11.  Them vipers bite deep, but while you are trying to cope/survive/conquer, you learn a few things.  Operation Gladio is/was a NATO/CIA/MI6 effort to be ready when the Russians invaded Europe.  It was a “stay behind” secret army, complete with training and caches of equipment that would be useful for the unorthodox warfare that would be necessary against a Soviet occupying force.
Continue reading

O’Reilly and the Kennedy Assassination

People Magazine has its value.  Where else would I find just the blurb I was looking for that informed me that Bill O’Reilly’s book about the assassination of JFK would have been a waste of time reading.  According to the magazine O’Reilly could find no hard data of conspiracy.  Now the phrase “hard data” can have a range of meanings.  I have no idea what precisely he is trying to convey, but it is difficult to get around the essential notion that he is happy to be a “comfort to the family”, as he put it, by giving the impression that Lee Harvey Oswald, the official story’s “lone nut”, is all that the country needed to be concerned with. Continue reading