Saturday, October 27, 2007
Jones chronicles the history of the global elite's bloody rise to power and reveals how they have funded dictators and financed the bloodiest wars—creating order out of chaos to pave the way for the first true world empire.
* Watch as Jones and his team track the elusive Bilderberg Group to Ottawa and Istanbul to document their secret summits, allowing you to witness global kingpins setting the world's agenda and instigating World War III.
* Learn about the formation of the North America transportation control grid, which will end U.S. sovereignty forever.
* Discover how the practitioners of the pseudo-science eugenics have taken control of governments worldwide as a means to carry out depopulation.
* View the progress of the coming collapse of the United States and the formation of the North American Union.
Never before has a documentary assembled all the pieces of the globalists' dark agenda. Endgame's compelling look at past atrocities committed by those attempting to steer the future delivers information that the controlling media has meticulously censored for over 60 years. It fully reveals the elite's program to dominate the earth and carry out the wicked plan in all of human history.
Endgame is not conspiracy theory, it is documented fact in the elite's own words .
Sunday, October 21, 2007
The Air Force’s Friday report on the August 29-30 nuclear weapons incident which saw six armed cruise missiles flown across the continental US in launch position on a B-52H bomber leaves all the big questions unanswered, attempting to shuck the whole thing off as an “unacceptable mistake.”
To be sure, Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne and Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations Maj. Gen. Richard Newton, said that after a six-week investigation, five officers, including Col. Bruce Emig, commander of the Fifth Bomb Group at Minot AFB in North Dakota, where the flight originated, have been relieved of duty, and 65 other Air Force personnel were also removed from their duties, and both Barksdale and Minot were decertified for their strategic nuclear responsibilities. But that’s still pretty small beer for an incident so serious it’s never happened before in half a century of nuclear weapons handling.
There are, at this point, no court martials being contemplated, and nobody’s been discharged from the military.
Put simply, six 150-kiloton warheads were improperly attached to six Advanced Cruise Missiles, all loaded onto a wing launch pod, and then mounted on the wing of a B-52 H Stratofortress at Minot, along with six similar missiles with dummy warheads, which were loaded onto a launch pod on the plane’s other wing, an all 12 were improperly and illegally flown across the country to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana.
The Air Force, following its “investigation,” is saying the same thing it said before the investigation: it was all a big “mistake”—the result of “widespread disregard for the rules” regarding handling of nuclear weapons.
A few guys at Minot “inexplicably” screwed up and loaded the nukes and then there were a chain of mistakes because no one else treated the nuclear-tipped missiles as if they were armed with nuclear weapons.
The trouble with this theory, or story line if you will, is that while nobody at Minot, supposedly, noticed what was happening—even though ground crew workers spent eight hours laboring to get the pod with the six nuke-tipped missiles mounted on the plane’s wing. This despite the warheads are clearly visible and identifiable by the silver coating they exhibit when viewed through a little window in each nosecone cover, and because there are red coverings on the nuke nosecones—once the plane got to Barksdale, the ground crew there, which had no reason on earth to suspect it was looking at nuclear warheads, spotted them immediately upon going to the plane.
They had no reason to expect nukes because for 40 years it has been illegal for the military to carry nuclear weapons on bombers over US territory, and indeed since 1991, it has been illegal to even load nuclear weapons on a plane, period, even for training purposes on the ground.
How can it be that Air Force ground crew people at Barksdale could spot the nukes in a flash while nobody at Minot—not the workers who mounted the warheads on the missiles in the heavily guarded bunker, not the guards who are supposed to guard those weapons with their lives and prevent any unauthorized removal from the bunkers, not the ground crew that loaded them onto the plan, and not the pilot and crew of the bomber, who are supposed to check every missile before they take off—noticed they were nuclear warheads? (The weapons went unnoticed for 10 hours in Barksdale, but that’s only because no groundcrew visited the plane for that long, but when they did go to it, they reportedly spotted the nukes right off the bat.)
The Air Force, at a press conference announcing the results of its investigation, didn’t answer this question. It appears they reporters at the session didn’t ask it either.
Certainly the AP reporter didn’t ask it, because if she had, she would surely have included the Air Force’s answer, or it’s non-answer, in her story.
Nobody, apparently, asked the Air Force either about six mysterious violent deaths of Air Force personnel from Minot and Barksdale, and from a mysterious Air Force Special Commando Group, all of which occurred in the days and weeks immediately before, during and after the incident. Two of those deaths—of the Special Commando Group officer and of a Minot weapons guard—were reportedly “suicides.”
In an article in the current issue of American Conservative magazine, currently on newsstands, I report that incredibly, no federal investigators from the Pentagon or the federal government even bothered to contact the police investigators or medical examiners who investigated those six deaths—an remarkable failure of due diligence, given the seriousness of this incident.
One retired Navy officer who contacted me during my investigation, who worked in electronic warfare, told me it would be simply impossible for those weapons to have been moved out of the storage bunker. He claims to know for a certainty that all nuclear weapons in the US arsenal are equipped with high-tech tags (“like they have at WalMart and Kmart only better”) that would instantly trigger alarms when the weapons are moved, unless they were deliberately disarmed.
So what we have is pretty clearly a cover-up here.
A cover-up of what though?
Here we’re into speculation.
One thing we need to keep in mind is that Barksdale AFB, on its website, advertises itself proudly as the base that prepares B-52s for duty in the Middle East Theater.
Another thing we need to keep in mind is that Vice President Dick Cheney is trying hard to gin up a war against Iran, against the better judgment of top military leaders and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
And a third thing to remember is that these particular six warheads, called M80-1 warheads, are able to be adjusted to have a power of anywhere from 150 kilotons down to just 5 kilotons—a so-called “tactical” size.
Perfect for a tactical strike on an Iranian nuclear processing or research site, or for a “false flag” type attack that could be blamed on a fledgling nuclear power…like Iran.
Of course this is all speculation.
What we do know is that for 36 hours, six nuclear warheads went missing. Nobody at the Pentagon in authority knew they were gone or where they were. And when they were discovered, the initial Pentagon response was to cover it all up. The only reason we know about this incident is that three Air Force officers became whistle-blowers and contacted a reporter at Military Times, a private newspaper trusted by and popular with the rank-and-file military.
And what we know is that this couldn’t have been what the Air Force, six weeks and one “investigation” late, is calling a “mistake.”
Saturday, October 20, 2007
And definitely finally, here’s the recruitment video for the “Don’t Worry, Be Happy” crowd on Wall Street ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKK61P76WX4 )
"Seven countries in five years"
Wesley Clark's new memoir casts more light on the Bush administration's secret strategies for regime change in
By Joe Conason
10/12/07 "Salon" -- - While the Bush White House promotes the possibility of armed conflict with Iran, a tantalizing passage in Wesley Clark's new memoir suggests that another war is part of a long-planned Department of Defense strategy that anticipated "regime change" by force in no fewer than seven Mideast states. Critics of the war have often voiced suspicions of such imperial schemes, but this is the first time that a high-ranking former military officer has claimed to know that such plans existed.
The existence of that classified memo would certainly cast more dubious light not only on the original decision to invade Iraq because of Saddam Hussein's weapons and ambitions but on the current efforts to justify and even instigate military action against Iran.
In "A Time to Lead: For Duty, Honor and Country," published by Palgrave Macmillan last month, the former four-star general recalls two visits to the Pentagon following the terrorist attacks of September 2001. On the first visit, less than two weeks after Sept. 11, he writes, a "senior general" told him, "We're going to attack
Six weeks later, Clark returned to
"'Oh, it's worse than that,' he said, holding up a memo on his desk. 'Here's the paper from the Office of the Secretary of Defense [then Donald Rumsfeld] outlining the strategy. We're going to take out seven countries in five years.' And he named them, starting with
While Clark doesn't name the other four countries, he has mentioned in televised interviews that the hit list included
During the Blitzer interview,
Clark's book also describes a telling encounter nearly a decade earlier with neoconservative eminence Paul Wolfowitz, the former deputy secretary of defense under Rumsfeld who resigned under a cloud of scandal from the World Bank last spring. In May 1991, according to
"We screwed up and left Saddam Hussein in power. The president [then George H.W. Bush] believes he'll be overthrown by his own people, but I rather doubt it," he quotes Wolfowitz lamenting. "But we did learn one thing that's very important. With the end of the Cold War, we can now use our military with impunity. The Soviets won't come in to block us. And we've got five, maybe 10, years to clean up these old Soviet surrogate regimes like Iraq and Syria before the next superpower emerges to challenge us ... We could have a little more time, but no one really knows."
More than a decade and a half later, the neoconservative obsession with regime change persists and flourishes in the upper reaches of the Bush administration, where Vice President Dick Cheney is reportedly pressing for action against
Perhaps it is time for the appropriate Senate and House committees to start asking harder questions about this administration's secret strategies for the
Joe Conason writes a weekly column for Salon and the
Copyright ©2007 Salon Media Group
Monday, October 15, 2007
"Look at these lighters, man, I haven't seen these for a long time, really a long time. S---, I lost mine or it was stolen, difficult to remember, but I do remember the inscription I had on it: `I Love Hoa,' was on one side, she was my girl for a while, and on the other it said: `Water? Don't Drink the Stuff — Fish F--- In It You Know.' I wonder where that damn Zippo is now."
Le Loi Street. Saigon. 1992. Bradford Edwards meets a Vietnam vet named Dan. Wide-brimmed brush hat. Burly build. "He just smelled like a vet," Edwards recalls. "He was in that age range, and he had a safari outfit on. He just looked like a vet."
The street vendors on Le Loi had piled their tables high with artifacts. Dog tags. Watches. Goggles. "Just all sorts of stuff," says Edwards. "Anything that they thought tourists might be interested in. Everything that they could get their hands on.
"Inevitably on these tables were stacks of Zippos," Edwards continues. "Literally three, four, five vertical stacks of Zippos."
Edwards is an American artist who spends more than half the year in Hanoi. Until he met Dan, he hadn't given much thought to the Zippo, the standard-issue, chrome-plated, brass lighter that GIs could buy at the PX for $1.80.
He hadn't considered that tens of thousands of Zippos would have been left behind in a country which, in 1992, appeared right out of The Twilight Zone with, as Edwards says, "almost no Western references to anything post 1975."
He had no reason to be aware that within the Zippo archive one could find the occasional counter-culture Zippo.
"Most of the Zippos that I found – this is after 10 years of collecting them seriously – most of them are uncarved. The ones that are carved are mostly with straight military emblems. And then you have the group of what I call alternative-sensibility Zippos ...What I was interested in were the black humour, the alternative, the disgruntled, discontented Zippos."
Many of them say F--- You.
Or spout Black Power slogans, or are stamped with the peace sign – "Why Me?" – or feature Snoopy cursing the Red Baron and a pregnant Lucy cursing, "Goddam You Charlie Brown."
Uncle Sam points beneath a peace sign saying not, "I want you" but "I screwed you." God, of course, grows His own. "Ours is not to do or die, ours is to smoke and stay high."
"I looked at a lot of lighters," says Edwards. "100,000 at least. And I just started culling the best of the best. I have about 300."
At first, Edwards wanted to source as many Zippos as he could for his mixed-media artwork, "portraits of Zippos," he calls them.
But the historical and cultural significance of the lighters has now led to a book: Vietnam Zippos: American Soldiers' Engravings and Stories 1965-1973. "Vietnam Zippos became the ideal protest vehicle," writes author Sherry Buchanan in the book's foreword. "They escaped the brass's attention more easily than Afros, Buddhist swastika medallions, Tibetan prayer beads and the Make Love Not War slogans on helmets that incurred the disapproval of the powers that be."
Edwards deconstructs his favourite. On one side is an acid-etched image of the ace of spades – the death dealer's card – and "No Quarter," as in, no mercy. The words Chu Lai are imprinted alongside the etched emblem. Chu Lai was a marine air base about 80 kilometres south of Da Nang, and the Zippo's owner was a member of Coastal Division 16.
"Here's what I think happened," says Edwards. "Zippo did a lot of acid etching." (The Zippo Manufacturing Co. has been customizing Zippos almost since its creation in the thirties.) "That lighter was probably passed out to everyone in that unit."
The flip side is hand-stamped in stout capital letters: "You Can Surf Later."
"That was just so cool," says Edwards of his discovery. "He stamped those letters into that lighter. That's a home-made one, and that's rare."
What could be the story behind the lighter? "This guy, whoever he was, was on a riverboat. You've got to remember the riverboat was one of the most dangerous duties. You're a sitting duck. You're just getting shot at à la Apocalypse Now. So here's this guy on a riverboat and he's lighting a joint or a cigarette or whatever he's doing. An opium pipe. Who knows?"
And he's a surfer, no less, an undoubtedly small sub-culture of GIs.
In Vietnam Zippos, Sherry Buchanan writes of the China Beach Surf Club and the alleged daylight ceasefire deals between the North Vietnamese and the wave-riders. The image came alive for cinema goers via Apocalypse's Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore: "If I say it's safe to surf this beach, Captain, then it's safe to surf this beach."
"It's just too good," says Edwards of this favourite totem of his. "You can surf later. In other words, you can surf after this is all over. I've just got to get through this. I've got to `get short,' which means little time left. I've got to get off this boat and I can surf later."
Half a dozen years ago, at a barbecue in Santa Barbara, Edwards ran into Sam Bottoms, who played the acid tripping surfer dude Lance in Apocalypse. "To have gotten one of the few surfer Zippos in the war and from one of the few to actually get on a boat and then to meet `Lance' and then to tie into this pop culture circle. It's the most amazing coincidence of my life thus far."
Vietnam-Era Zippo Lighters As Works Of Art
SANTA BARBARA, Calif., Oct 20, 2007
(CBS) In one Santa Barbara gallery, the portraits bring back memories for Vietnam vet Hap Desimone. But they're not portraits of soldiers, they're portraits of Zippo lighters.
CBS News correspondent John Blackstone asked him if it seems strange to see the lighters depicted as art.
"No," he says. "It doesn't seem strange at all."
In Vietnam, every soldier, it seemed, had a Zippo.
"I carried one," Desimone says. "I had it engraved."
With the engravings Zippos became the one place soldiers could express themselves.
"A lot of these sentiments I heard before, 'We're the unwilling led by the unqualified doing the unnecessary for the ungrateful'," he says. "It rings a bell."
Zippos by the thousands were left behind in Vietnam. Fifteen years ago artist Bradford Edwards began collecting them at Vietnamese flea markets.
"Here's an interesting one," Edwards says, "a broken peace sign on a bracelet."
In a new book chronicling his work, Edwards explains that each Zippo tells a story - the disgruntled soldier, the lonely soldier, the bored soldier. Edwards became captivated by the engraved Zippos and began recreating them in his own art: larger than life portraits in metal, in stone, in lacquer and mother of pearl.
"When they're done in this artistic fashion, I think they celebrate and extol the virtues and highlight the carving," Edwards says.
Just the sound of a Zippo opening is iconic, and Zippos sparked controversy in one of the most famous images from Vietnam.
After Morley Safer reported in August 1965 that a village was lit on fire with lighters, the Zippo became an image of a war going the wrong way. But to Edwards the Zippos are not about the big issues, but about the individual soldier.
"You had people who were discontent people who wanted to express heartfelt emotions," he says. "And here was a small canvas."
"They look like a collection of tombstones," Edwards says. "And they maybe the last thing some of these guys had to say."
While some of the soldiers may never have made it home, now their Zippos are here illuminating the past.
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Dick Cheney & Vigilant Shield: Will a Missing Nuke from the B-52 Incident be used in a Simulated Terrorist Attack?
By Michael Salla
From October 15 to 19, 2007, a set of military and civil exercises will be held in Oregon, Arizona and Guam. The exercises, TOPOFF 4 and Vigilant Shield 08, are designed to test official responses to the detonation of radiological dispersal devices on U.S. territory. The exercises will be overseen by Vice President Dick Cheney who will travel specifically to Portland to coordinate all Federal departments and agencies responses to the simulated attacks. This has led to a number of civilian groups expressing alarm that TOPOFF and Vigilant Shield might be used as a cover for False Flag operations that replicate what occurred during the 911 attacks . On September 11, 2001, Dick Cheney was overseeing a series of simulated terrorist attacks involving hijacked airplanes hitting buildings that was called “Vigilant Guardian”. Vigilant Guardian was run simultaneously with NORAD training exercises called Vigilant Warrior and Northern Vigilance that altogether involved as many as eleven hijacked airplanes. This created much confusion and led to stand down orders for the US Air Force that was unsure if the 911 attacks were part of the simulated exercises or real attacks. This confusion accounted for the long delays between initial reports of hijacked planes being used in ‘terrorist’ attacks, and Air Force intercept missions being launched using the few planes not involved in the Northern Vigilance exercise.
What makes TOPOFF 4 and Vigilant Shield especially concerning is that they follow upon an incident involving five (later revised up to six) nuclear cruise missiles found on a B-52 sitting on a tarmac at Barksdale Air Force Base on August 30. The Air Force has launched an official inquiry and so far has announced to the public that the B-52 incident was nothing more than an unusually high number of errors. A Washington Post article on September 23 summarized the main arguments for this explanation which has effectively put to an end any further investigations by mainstream media sources. In contrast, a number of researchers have argued that the B-52 incident could not have occurred without very senior officials giving orders, and others refusing to comply with such orders. According to Wayne Madsen a number of Air Force personnel refused to allow the nuclear armed B-52 to fly in a covert mission to Iran outside the normal chain of military command. Madsen describes the nature of the internal conflict over the B-52 incident: “Command and control breakdowns involving U.S. nuclear weapons are unprecedented, except for that fact that the U.S. military is now waging an internal war against neo-cons who are embedded in the U.S. government and military chain of command who are intent on using nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive war with Iran.”
Madsen is alluding here to the most plausible explanation for the source of orders leading to the B-52 incident. The orders emanated from the office of the Vice President, and in particular Dick Cheney himself. Cheney’s orders were opposed all the way up the Department of Defense hierarchy including Admiral William Fallon, Commander of Central Command, and Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates. This is supported by a recent report in the Telegraph newspaper that Gates has become the chief opponent to Dick Cheney’s plans to commit the U.S. to another war against Iran and is encouraging military officers to be more candid in their assessments of a new conflict.
What makes the B-52 incident even more disturbing is that six nuclear cruise missiles left Minot Air Force Base, and the initial Military Times report on September 5 reported that five nuclear warheads were discovered at Barksdale Air Force Base. This was subsequently revised by the Military Times to six in an updated story five days later on September 10. How could the Air Force mix up how many nuclear weapons were initially involved in the incident? The most plausible explanation is that there had been a discrepancy in the number of nuclear weapons that had left Minot and what had been later discovered at Barksdale? The nuclear armed B-52 had been sitting on the tarmac in an unsecured military environment for up to 10 hours before its nuclear payload was discovered. This offered plenty of time for the removal of one of the nuclear weapons. Such an event had to be covered up for national security purposes which is why the Military Times revised its initial report. The possibility of a missing nuclear weapon is augmented by an unprecedented official standown by the Air Force on September 14 where all planes were grounded allegedly to review Standard Operating Procedures. Was the Air Force really conducting an emergency inventory to locate any missing nuclear weapons?
This raises the disturbing possibility that not only was the B-52 ordered to participate in a covert mission to attack Iran outside the regular chain of military command, but that one of its nuclear weapons was secretly siphoned off for another covert mission. If Dick Cheney did give the order for the nuclear weapons to be loaded on to the B-52, it is highly likely that he is aware of the location and potential use of the missing nuclear missile. A number of serious questions therefore need to be asked about the appropriateness of Cheney being in charge of TOPOFF 4 and Vigilant Shield. This is even more urgent if there is a missing nuclear warhead that was taken from the B-52 for a yet undisclosed mission. Could this mission be related to the TOPOFF and Vigilant Shield exercises?
In a Presidential Statement released on May 21, 2001, President Bush gave Vice President Cheney the power to coordinate national efforts in response to terrorist attacks: “I have asked Vice President Cheney to oversee the development of a coordinated national effort so that we may do the very best possible job of protecting our people from catastrophic harm.” An “Office of National Preparedness” was created to implement the “national effort overseen by Vice President Cheney” and would “coordinate all Federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies.” Effectively, this means that during TOPOFF 4 and Vigilant Shield, VP Cheney will be responsible for all efforts to respond to weapons of mass destruction. He will have the power of override any Department of Defense objections to activities concerning “consequence management” of nuclear weapons. If there was a missing nuclear weapon from the B-52 incident, then TOPOFF and Vigilant Shield could provide the cover for its use.
The possible use of the B-52 missing nuclear weapon could trigger the martial law scenario found in National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD) 51 after the declaration of a “Catastrophic Emergency.” NSPD 51 defines a “Catastrophic Emergency” as “any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.” Once declaring such an emergency, President Bush or his successors according to Continuity of Government provisions, can take over all governmental functions at local, state and national levels, as well as private sector activities, to ensure the U.S. emerges from the emergency with an "enduring constitutional government."
So far, the Air Force inquiry is classified and information on a possible missing nuclear weapon has not been disclosed. It is unlikely that much information will be disclosed to the public for national security reasons. The only U.S. Congressman calling for an official public inquiry into the B-52 incident is Dennis Kucinich. As long as the role of Dick Cheney in the B-52 incident is not investigated and the missing nuclear weapon is not located, Cheney should be removed from any position of authority in coordinating civil and military responses to any simulated terrorist attack. Such exercises provide him the opportunity and authority to secretly approve the covert use of a nuclear device that can be used to trigger a declaration of a “Catastrophic Emergency.” U.S. National Security is not served by Dick Cheney having a prominent role in leading TOPOFF 4, Vigilant Shield and any future simulated terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction.
Authors Website: www.exopolitics.org
Authors Bio: Dr. Michael Salla is an internationally recognized scholar in international politics, conflict resolution, US foreign policy and the new field of 'exopolitics'. He is author/editor of five books; and held academic appointments in the School of International Service& the Center for Global Peace, American University, Washington DC (1996-2004); the Department of Political Science, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia (1994-96); and the Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University, Washington D.C., (2002). He has a Ph.D in Government from the University of Queensland, Australia, and an M.A. in Philosophy from the University of Melbourne, Australia. He has conducted research and fieldwork in the ethnic conflicts in East Timor, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Sri Lanka, and organized peacemaking initiatives involving mid to high level participants from these conflicts.
TOPOFF 4 and Vigilant Shield 08: a view from the "feverish fringe"
By Warren Pease
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Oct 8, 2007, 01:02
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." --George W. Bush, Aug. 5, 2004, in a rare moment of unscripted candor.
Mass media is fond of creating labels and lumping people of certain philosophical or political persuasions into groups of designated societal misfits, all carrying some pejorative nickname intended to clearly define the borders between "them" and "us."
This helps the citizenry distinguish between the members of certain marginalized -- and therefore untrustworthy -- groups who take a somewhat jaundiced view of the actions and motivations of authoritarian institutions, and the great American mainstream that can always be counted upon to internalize and recite the most preposterous nonsense as long as it carries the official stamp of institutional authority and mass media approval.
A recent case in point: a group based in Portland called the Oregon Truth Alliance aired their concerns and objections regarding a series of upcoming anti-terrorism/national security drills scheduled to take place in their city this month. They were rewarded for their efforts in an October 2 editorial in The Oregonian, the local daily, that snickered:
It's hard to know what's scarier: the idea of responding to a terrorist attack in Portland or the idea that the government is using a drill as a pretext to seize power, declare martial law and, possibly, attack Iran. The average Portlander doesn't give much thought to either notion, but a feverish fringe sees a disaster drill as evidence of a future police state . . .
At issue is a series of simulations scheduled to begin October 15 in Portland (as well as in Phoenix and Guam) that has caused much concern among locals, ranging far beyond the "feverish fringe" of activists, a convenient "them" to which The Oregonian would prefer to attribute exclusive ownership of such imbecilic notions.
But surprise, surprise. The mainstream is waking up and it's not particularly fond of what it's seeing. Thanks to occasional peeks behind the curtain that reveal unprecedented levels of corruption, insatiable lust for oil and power and disdain for the Constitution, the lines are blurring between "us" and "them" on many issues involving the conduct of the Bush administration.
These days, particularly in this bluest of blue cities, many people of varying political viewpoints are united in their concerns over possibly nefarious government-sponsored exercises and maneuvers, particularly when they're taking place in their own backyards.
Fears and objections notwithstanding, though, Portlanders are being asked to welcome thousands of armed strangers -- from the DHS, FBI, DoD and other federal security agencies, NGOs, National Guard, local law enforcement -- as they gather to enact a week's worth of anti-terrorism drills called TOPOFF 4 and Operation Vigilant Shield 08.
TOPOFF 4 (short for "top officials") is an exercise that simulates (we hope) the detonation of a "dirty bomb" near Portland's Steel Bridge. Vigilant Shield 08 simulates (we hope) imposition of martial law to control the civilian population in the aftermath of the radiological event.
Well, why not? Somebody's got to be the target. Putting random chance aside, there are several good reasons why Portland was chosen to host this year's main anti-terrorist event. We're told Portland's mayor and Oregon's governor actually requested that Portland be included in the exercises. I'm assuming those requests were made with one arm pinned behind their backs by an ex-pro wrestler turned spook who keeps raising the wrist just a tiny bit more.
In any case, the feds graciously honored the request and here they come, the honchos of the national security apparatus.
So why is Portland on the short list for a simulated nuclear terrorist attack on a major American city that may just "go live?" First, it's reachable by water, which preserves the old "suitcase nuke delivered by boat to a harbor near you" scenario we've all heard for years. Second, it's among the bluest of American coastal cities and, while San Francisco must present a tempting target, it's home to several major banks, insurance companies and other GOP infrastructure favorites. Third, LA and Seattle, a couple more anti-GOP cities with bull's-eyes on their civic centers, are too strategic to what's left of the economy. And fourth, Portland's kind of . . . disposable.
It's particularly anti-Bush/Cheney. It's politically left of just about any other major US city. Portland detests the Bush administration (and there's a near-riot to prove it every time one of these hacks tries to sneak into town for a fundraiser). There are no really serious corporations headquartered here (Intel has a large facility, but it's mostly engineers who could eventually be replaced by a new wave of H-1B visa holders). Shipping is vital to this part of the northwest all the way down the Columbia towards Idaho, so a hit in or around the port -- like the one depicted in the map just below -- would truly punish the city commercially.
And to top it off, people in Portland don't seem to respond with the appropriate levels of hysteria to things like Islamic radicals, phony wars on terror, color-coded alerts or the predictive rumblings of Chertoff's gut. They're more inclined to be concerned about the US shift from democratic republic to national security state, environmental abuse sanctioned and exacerbated by the Bush administration, the vanishing Constitution, massive corruption and profiteering both within the administration and among their favorite cronies -- and other stuff nobody's supposed to notice.
So, is Portland the scene of the "next 9/11?" This map depicts ground zero, the immediate kill zone, the less lethal surrounding areas and the projected path of the radiation plume. This is from a report called "The Day After: Action Following a Nuclear Blast in a U.S. City" authored by a think tank at Harvard called the Belfer Center and released in May of this year. Interestingly, Portland is only identifiable by street names and knowledge of local geography. Two similar blast area maps from the same source are clearly labeled "Washington, D.C."
Don�t worry, be happy
Compounding the ambient nervousness is the pattern of government-sponsored drills "going live," meaning that real events occur simultaneously with the scripted scenarios and mirror them to such a precise degree that coincidence theory is rendered laughable. As a result, complicity at the highest decision-making levels of government becomes a viable, and sometimes inevitable, conclusion. For these reasons, TOPOFF 4 and Vigilant Shield 08 have set the alarm bells ringing in the Portland metro area, and not just among the feverish fringe. Recent history teaches us that, despite the protestations of those who believe in artificial synchronicity, there are reasons to question the purity of the US government's motives.
On the morning of 9/11/01, US northeastern air defenses were crippled by a Cheney-Rumsfeld production that combined at least four exercise scenarios -- Vigilant Warrior, Vigilant Guardian, Northern Guardian and Northern Vigilance -- and which, per script, diverted to northern Canada or Alaska many of the NORAD fighter jets that would have been scrambled per standard operating procedure in the event of a suspected hijacking. And the few planes left out of the exercise were not airborne until 80 minutes after the first hijacking alert -- about 70 minutes longer than normal.
As part of the exercises, false radar blips showed up on air traffic controllers' screens that masked the flight patterns of the four hijacked jets and led controllers to believe that as many as 22 planes had been hijacked. Per standard procedure, various regional air traffic control centers notified the FAA, which passed on the alerts to NORAD, which couldn't respond because they hadn't enough fighters available to handle that many hijackings. Because of the ongoing drills, they didn't even know which blips represented actual threats.
Also noteworthy is a fifth exercise taking place at the same time, this one conceived by the National Reconnaissance Office (the NRO operates the US network of spy satellites) and carried out by CIA operatives. This exercise was designed to test emergency response capabilities in the event that an off-course plane crashed into one of the NRO's four office towers.
According to an Associated Press wire service story:
Agency chiefs came up with the scenario to test employees' ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art Haubold. To simulate the damage from the plane, some stairwells and exits were to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate the building.
"It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility," Haubold said. "As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise."
Believers in cosmic synchronicity apparently see no reason why these events should call into question the official story. Nor do they see why this series of unlikely coincidences should invalidate repeated official denials of 9/11 foreknowledge from the administration.
Here's one delivered to the 9/11 Commission on May 16, 2002 by then National Security Advisor Condi Rice, who actually said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." There are no reports that she was immediately struck by lightening, nor that the esteemed commissioners collapsed in an amorphous heap of manic hilarity.
Of course not. Only feverish fringe types would view such denials with suspicion, considering that intelligence services from at least a dozen countries warned US officials of an impending attack involving the use of hijacked airliners as missiles. The FBI was on top of the story, too. At least, several field agents were. But their warnings got spiked by higher-level administrators and disappeared into the thin air of a glorious blue sky in early September.
A little C-4 with your morning tea?
In addition to the ties between simulations and real events on 9/11/01, a similarly eerie set of "coincidences" occurred in London on 7/7/05. A British firm called Visor Consultants that calls itself a crisis management advisory organization was running a series of exercises on behalf of an unnamed client testing London's capacity to respond to a terrorist attack on its transportation system. The scenario involved detonating bombs at three preselected underground tube stations, as well as on a double-decker London bus.
At about 8:50 that morning, just as the exercise was beginning, three bombs went off within 50 seconds of each other at those same three stations, duplicating the specifics of the drill to an inexplicable level of accuracy. For added excitement, the bus that was blown up in the scenario was, in fact, blown up in London at 9:57 that morning. Fifty-six people, including the four alleged bombers, died in the blasts. About 800 others were injured.
This is a tough one to hang on the patsies because those very same suspects couldn't have been where they had to be to commit these atrocities. It seems they were caught by a security camera at Luton Station at 7:22 that morning. London police claim the bombers then rode the 7:40 train to King's Cross, where they were photographed again. But according to the actual train timetable, the 7:40 train was cancelled that day and even had it not been cancelled, it would not have arrived in time for the men to be photographed at King's Cross at 8:26.
There are other inexplicable "coincidences" the official story either ignores or brushes aside. Surveillance cameras in nearly all the bombed subways and the bus were conveniently turned off or out of order. Witnesses and physical evidence indicate that the bombs were not placed in backpacks by "terrorists" but actually attached underneath the trains, indicating a level of access to the train cars unavailable to outsiders. Bruce Lait, an injured witness said, �The metal was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train.�
Following the 9/11 scenario of removing first responders from the area, 1,500 officers from London�s Metropolitan Police, including many anti-terrorist specialists, were away in Gleneagles, Scotland as part of a force of 12,000 created to police the 2005 G-8 Summit.
These events left even the predictable cadre of coincidence acolytes scrambling for comforting rationales in support of the official story -- which centered on those four Muslim suspects carrying bombs in backpacks and identified as Al Qaeda members -- that Downing Street peddled to UK and international media.
The blogosphere tells us that one anonymous statistician calculated the likelihood of the litany of 7/7/05 variables lining up to create this marvelous bit of synchronicity at one in 3,715,592,613,265,750,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 -- a figure repeated uncritically as fact on any number of websites and blogs, although a source is never identified.
Other statisticians, perhaps a bit more phobic about commas and zeroes, have set the figure as low as one in 3.8 million. Obviously all such figures are open to conjecture and can be manipulated to raise or lower odds against by adding or subtracting variables. But even the lowest odds against coincidence, one in 3.8 million, are far beyond anything reasonable people would bet a nickel on. They suggest a magnitude of improbability that the coincidence crowd must struggle against in making their case for what is, at last analysis, statistically impossible.
A few minor details and outcomes that 9/11/01 and 7/7/05 share: Both events helped rescue failing administrations from irrelevance and political oblivion. Both created rationales to attack a sovereign nation (or, in the case of the UK, excuse its continued presence there) later proven to be neither complicit in these "terrorist" events nor a threat to the region, much less to the US or UK.
Both provided excuses for the right-wing government of the United States and its allies in Great Britain to curtail or eliminate centuries of legal protections against all forms of governmental intrusion into the private lives of citizens. In the US, everything became fair game -- from domestic surveillance to warrantless searches and seizures to imprisonment without charges or right to legal counsel to the establishment of "free speech zones" to keep the rabble away from the targets of their protests. In the UK, similar surveillance measures were adopted under the tired mantra of "fighting the war on terror."
And both events spawned a wave of unprecedented military spending that kept armaments manufacturers and petrochemical concerns -- as well as their benefactors in government -- rolling in multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts and nearly drowning in a sea of windfall profits.
Anti-terrorism exercises, the Iran problem and marketing 101
Which brings us back to the events scheduled to begin in a week here in Portland. There's a wealth of information available from mainstream sources that warn us of innocent-sounding government simulations and their occasional tendencies to morph into the exact events the exercises are supposed to help prevent.
As noted above, when these simulations "go live," the distinction between the exercise and real events blurs, confusing first responders and local authorities and undermining their ability to make quick decisions or mount an appropriate response. "Going live" also makes it easy to identify and blame the "patsies," those unlucky souls and their alleged backers who have been selected to bear the brunt of national outrage.
It's just classic marketing: identify the problem and sell the solution. In this case, the problem is said to stem from Iran's emerging threat as a nuclear power, and the solution reverberating through official Washington is another preemptive strike by the US, this time including the criminal and arguably insane use of "tactical" nukes against the allegedly hardened targets that house the sinister facilities that comprise Iran's alleged nuclear weapons program.
But that's not the administration's actual problem. Their real problem is how to sell that attack to a war-weary nation. Advocating attacks against Bush's "axis of evil" bogeymen has become an increasingly unpopular position with the public but remains a vital element in the neocon vision of "full-spectrum dominance" by the US in the Middle East, as articulated in the infamous PNAC report, called "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century." Their secondary problem is how to deal with anticipated acts of civil disobedience and possible mass violence that may erupt upon news of such an attack.
The solution? An exercise that "goes live" involving actual detonation of a dirty bomb in a major American city, instantly blamed on Iranian radical Islamists, resulting in a "counterstrike" on Iran and imposition of martial law at home. All this is done, of course, for the sole purpose of protecting the citizenry from evil dissenters who will poison their minds by opposing war against Iran, no matter the volume of manufactured evidence against some previously unknown group of Iranian fanatics. And yet, there's that pesky paper trail.
Imposing martial law for dummies
The rationales and blueprints for implementation of martial law are already on the books. Reasoning that the USAPATRIOT Act(s) and the Military Commissions Act weren't quite repressive enough, on May 9, 2007, Bush issued a document entitled "National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51" and "Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20." This directive outlines the federal government's plan for maintaining continuity in the face of a "catastrophic emergency."
The document defines a �catastrophic emergency� as �any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function.� Well, that certainly narrows things down.
If any of these events occurs, Bush grants himself the power to lead the entire federal government, not merely the executive branch. And, recognizing his veneration of constitutional law, he graciously gives himself sole responsibility �for ensuring constitutional government.�
Translated into our native tongue, NSPD 51/HSPD-20 would impose martial law under the authority of the White House and the DHS. It would suspend constitutional government under the provisions of Continuity in Government (COG).
Since 2003, following the invasion of Iraq, Homeland Security (DHS) has contemplated time and again the possibility of a so-called code red alert "scenario" -- using a potential or possible Al Qaeda terrorist attack on American soil -- as a pretext for implementing martial law.
And why would such extreme crowd control measures be necessary? Simply put, people have just about had it with the Bush administration. The outrages keep on coming. Impeachable offenses keep piling up. The economy's nearly ruined, joblessness has hit the middle class and the dollar is worth about a third less than it was just seven years ago.
The latest figures report that our liberating presence in Iraq has murdered more than a million civilians and created about 5 million refugees. US troop fatalities in Iraq stand at 3,813 as of this writing, with tens of thousands more severely maimed and thrown into a new battlefield in the underfunded, overextended VA health care system.
Elsewhere in the Middle East, Iran is the next jewel in the PNAC's crown, while Syria is in line for an oratorical upgrade in Bush's demonization campaign. Domestic repression is edging its way toward the golden age of Stalinism. Given current levels of discontent among the populace and the potential to further inflame that discontent in a variety of ways, it would be weird indeed if the administration didn't have a plan to deal with the millions of malcontents who would view a bombing campaign against Iran -- possibly involving first-strike use of nuclear weapons -- as the absolute last straw.
Cheney goes nuk-u-lur?
All this and we recently learned that Caporegime Cheney may have just become the world's newest nuclear power as the result of a bizarre episode involving the unprecedented removal and transfer of six nuclear-tipped cruise missiles from Minot AB in North Dakota to Barksdale AB in Louisiana -- the main staging base for B-52s bound for the Middle East.
These aren't just normal nukes either, if such a thing as a normal nuke exists. The AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missile only accepts a W80-3 variable-yield nuclear warhead that can be set to deliver blasts ranging from 5 kilotons to 150 kilotons. Just the ticket for turning an anti-terrorism drill involving detonation of a low-yield "suitcase nuke" into a real-life event.
Dial it down to minimum blast yield, explode it somewhere away from the main commercial areas, annihilate a few blocks of rustbelt-like industrial property, let local winds confine the radiation plume to a few areas where property values are low and the inhabitants aren't predominantly white and let the games begin.
Just to make things even more entertaining, one of these missiles seems to be missing. Reports from several sources say either five or six of them left Minot on August 30 on pylons attached to the B-52's wing hard-points -- or, to put it simply, in firing position (which is in itself an extremely grave violation of protocols regarding shipment of nuclear warheads).
Some reports say six arrived at Barksdale, other sources say only five. It's difficult to chase this point down because Google has apparently spent a good deal of time and effort eliminating links to web pages that put the missile count at five. Six is the official story, all warheads accounted for, everything under control, and Google is going to pitch in and purge URLs in the interests of national security.
But whether it's five or six, it's acknowledged by Air Force personnel that the nukes remained unsecured on the B-52 for at least 10 hours, parked in a relatively isolated area at Barksdale. If somebody in a position of serious authority wanted to steal a nuclear warhead, this is one way to go about it. And that still leaves a few "bunker-busters" for use against Iran.
Be sure to read these comments from current and ex-Air Force personnel regarding the sheer impossibility of any of these events occurring by mistake, much less the gross violations of nuclear custody, security and handling protocols by at least a dozen highly trained airmen who are constantly evaluated for the mental toughness and physical strength required to perform their duties. And yet, as ridiculous as the "multiple simultaneous mistakes" scenario seems, that's exactly what the Air Force and the US government so desperately want you to believe.
False flags over Portland?
At its most basic, a false flag op means pretending to be the enemy and carrying out strikes against one's own country, then blaming them on designated individuals or groups officially despised by the government. These "patsies" then become the embodiments of a state or sub-state group (such as Al Qaeda) against which the US wants to manufacture a case for military aggression. At its most obvious, a false flag op looks just like 9/11/01 or 7/7/05 -- and possibly 10/15/07.
Given a passing familiarity with even a few of the elements outlined above, many Portlanders are taking this one very seriously indeed -- members of the feverish fringe and the solid center alike. It doesn't take much imagination to ascribe malevolent motives to activities this administration claims are good for us.
All the pieces will be in place. The top officials in town. The Iranian problem presumably still unresolved. The usual alphabet soup of security agencies represented. The majority of the citizenry rendered fully docile by the reporting and editorial pablum of mass media narcotics purveyors like The Oregonian.
Then there's this interesting viewpoint from one who should know: "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 . . . it�s a very real threat." Dick Cheney, April 15, 2007.
Coincidentally, as some would say, Cheney will be in Portland on October 16. To survey the damage? To push the button? To dine at Jakes? We don't know, and he's not talking.
Additional information sourcesComments? Email the author at email@example.com and have a virtual conversation with an actual member of the feverish fringe.
Copyright © 1998-2007 Online Journal
Email Online Journal Editor