Sit

Und nebenbei hat sie auch noch ihre Kenntnis zur "Charme-Offensive" des Irans geleugnet. Dumm, da sowohl der Schweizer Botschafter als auch zuletzt Lawrence Wilkenson, rechte Hand Powells, damit rauskamen.

Text:

Rice: 'We're Not Planning to Attack Iran'

Associated Press
Thursday, February 8, 2007

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice disputed claims Wednesday that the Bush administration bungled a diplomatic overture from Iran that offered a broad dialogue with the United States after nearly a quarter-century of enmity.

Rice told Congress she does not remember seeing the 2003 Iranian proposal, which suggested Iran was ready to discuss its disputed nuclear program, support for militant groups that the United States labels terrorists and the acceptance of Israel.

"We had people who said the Iranians went to talk to you, lots of people who said the Iranians want to talk to you," Rice said during an exchange with Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla.

"But I think I would have noticed if the Iranians had said, 'We're ready to recognize Israel,'" Rice said. "I just don't remember ever seeing any such thing."

The document, faxed to the State Department in the early days of the U.S.-led war in Iraq, proposed direct talks, perhaps in Paris. Iraq was at the top of the proposed agenda, with Tehran proposing "active Iranian support for Iraqi stabilization."

The text of the document has been provided to news organizations, including The Associated Press.

"You did not see that supposed fax?" Wexler asked Rice.

"I just have to tell you that perhaps somebody saw something of the like, but I can tell you I would have noticed if the Iranians had offered to recognize Israel," she replied.

The administration dismissed the proposal, which has since become a touchstone for criticism that the Bush administration muffed a chance to avert Iran's rush toward nuclear proficiency that could produce a bomb.

Rice was asked about such criticism from a former National Security Council aide, Flynt Leverett.

"I don't know what Flynt Leverett's talking about, quite frankly," Rice said. "Maybe I should ask him when he came to me and said, 'We have a proposal from Iran and we really ought to take it.'"

Leverett had left the NSC by the time the fax arrived, but he said in an interview that he knows the document was sent to the NSC. It also went to Rice's predecessor as secretary of state, Colin Powell, former officials have said.

Leverett said he has never discussed with Rice whether she saw it.

"This administration, out of some combination of ideological blindness and incompetence, couldn't be bothered to explore whether this opportunity was as serious as it looked on paper," Leverett said Wednesday.

Critics also say that engagement in 2003 might have blunted Iranian influence in Iraq. Shiite militias and death squads, some with ties to Iran, are blamed for much of the sectarian violence in Iraq.

In June 2006, Rice had indicated that she was familiar with the proposal. She was asked about the offer during an interview with National Public Radio, and she appeared to provide the first official confirmation that it existed.

"What the Iranians wanted earlier was to be one-on-one with the United States so that this could be about the United States and Iran," Rice said then. She contrasted that with the current U.S. stance, in which the United States has offered to join European-led talks with Iran over its nuclear program if Iran meets preconditions. Iran has refused.

The Bush administration has resisted suggestions, including from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, that is should engage Iran to try to improve security in next-door Iraq. Lawmakers challenged that position Wednesday and about the administration's current stepped-up rhetoric and seeming provocation of Iraq.


***

BBC: Cheney Rejected Iran's 'Help'

Washington 'snubbed Iran offer'

Iran offered the US a package of concessions in 2003, but it was rejected, a senior former US official has told the BBC's Newsnight programme. Tehran proposed ending support for Lebanese and Palestinian militant groups and helping to stabilise Iraq following the US-led invasion.

Offers, including making its nuclear programme more transparent, were conditional on the US ending hostility.

But Vice-President Dick Cheney's office rejected the plan, the official said.

Newsnight has uncovered an extraordinary letter written after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 where Tehran offers to withdraw military backing for Hamas and Hezbollah as well as give open access to their nuclear facilities in return for Western action in disbanding the The People's Mujahadeen - known as the PMOI . Tim Whewell investigates this organistaion and whether they may be used as a bargaining chip in negotiations between Iran and Washington.

01/17/09 Jeremy Paxman - BBC - NewsNight - Report begins 1 Minute and 37 seconds into video

http://www.informationclearinghouse...rticle16221.htm

***

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0118/p99s01-duts.html

***

Diese Frau lügt, wenn sie den Mund aufmacht. Die erste Schwarze in solch Amt und Würden und dann das.

__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin

Sit

sagt mal, kommt nur mir das merkwürdig vor oder passiert hier irgendetwas komisches?

Innerhalb einer Woche werden von US-Medien

-die saudische Verbindung von Al-Hazmi und Al-Midhar http://www.911blogger.com/node/5994
-die israelische Spionage und die 5 tanzenden Israelis http://www.911blogger.com/node/6074
http://www.911blogger.com/node/6062
sowie die Geschichte von Daniel Pearl http://www.911blogger.com/node/6075


durchs Dorf getrieben.

Für uns alles "old news", trotzdem, natürlich gut, dass die US-Medien endlich ihre Starre ablegen.


Carl Camerons FOX report on youtube:

Part 1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=41U0dUwY...related&search=

Part 2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ewVnfnVj...related&search=

Part 3
http://youtube.com/watch?v=2exAbLOQ...related&search=

Part 4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Jo0hx-nb...related&search=

If anyone hasn't seen the FOX report referenced on Democracy NOW!

On ICH:

http://www.informationclearinghouse...article7545.htm



Alle Artikel dazu von Killtown

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/1...lis-on-911.html

Video aus Israel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcON2XbFR3I

Mossad next door to Atta

http://iraq-info.1accesshost.com/schrom.html

Thread Loose Change, ABC News

http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_C...?showtopic=7598

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html

Large FBI list of terror suspects pdf with Suter on it: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/CI-08-02.pdf

Forward-Artikel:

Spy Rumors Fly on Gusts of Truth
Americans Probing Reports of Israeli Espionage
Despite angry denials by Israel and its American supporters, reports that Israel was conducting spying activities in the United
States may have a grain of truth, the Forward has learned.[...]

According to one former high-ranking American intelligence official, who asked not to be named, the FBI came to the conclusion at
the end of its investigation that the five Israelis arrested in New Jersey last September (Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Oded Ellner,
Omer Marmari and Yaron Shmuel) were conducting a Mossad surveillance mission and that their employer, Urban Moving Systems of
Weehawken, N.J., served as a front.[...]

In addition to their strange behavior and their Middle Eastern looks, the suspicions were compounded when a box cutter and $4,000 in
cash were found in the van. Moreover, one man carried two passports and another had fresh pictures of the men standing with the
smoldering wreckage of the World Trade Center in the background.[...]

On December 7, a New Jersey judge ruled that the state could seize the goods remaining inside the warehouse. The state also has a
lawsuit pending against Urban Moving Systems and its owner, Dominik Otto Suter, an Israeli citizen. The FBI questioned Mr. Suter
once. However, he left the country afterward and went back to Israel before further questioning. Mr. Suter declined through his
lawyer to be interviewed for this article.[...] Charlene Eban, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Washington, and Don Nelson, a Justice
Department spokesman, said they had no knowledge of an Israeli spying operation.

"If we found evidence of unauthorized intelligence operations, that would be classified material," added Jim Margolin, a spokesman
for the FBI in New York. Forward, February, 2002

__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin

Sit

***



***


Wie auch Eggert meint: Irans Führung ist ein "Evil Set-up", brought by NeoCons & Co.

Ist es wirklich so weit hergeholt? Was war denn nun mit den Geheimverhandlungen bez. des "October Surprise"? War es wirklich Ahmadineschad auf dem Entführer-Foto? Was hat die SS Poet in den Iran geliefert? Warum hat man das Boland-Amendment mißachtet und dem Iran hintenrum mit Waffen versorgt? (Iran-Contra?)
So macht die Geschichte Sinn: Erst stürzt man mit OP Ajax den gewählten Präsidenten, dann errichtet man eine Familien-Dynastie, als diese nicht "böse" genug war, bringt man eine iranische Revolution in Gang und greift gleichzeitig den Iran mittels Irak an- und beliefert dennoch auch den Iran. Schöner, inszenierter Krieg, beide Seiten unter Kontrolle!

Es würde so sehr in "IHR" Schema passen!

__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin

Sit

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

Ahmadinedschad ist ein Vertreter der jüngeren Aktivisten der Revolution gegen den Schah vor einem Vierteljahrhundert. Er war direkt an der Entführung amerikanischer Geiseln im Iran beteiligt, obwohl das genaue Ausmaß seiner Beteiligung umstritten bleibt.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/co...y/rubin5/German


***



http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=52932

***



http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast...iran.president/


***

The Iran hostage crisis was a diplomatic crisis that lasted from November 4, 1979, through January 20, 1981. The situation involved members of the "Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line," student proxies of the new Islamic regime, who held 63 diplomats and three additional U.S. citizens hostage inside the American Diplomatic Mission in Tehran, Iran.

The captors released several captives, but 52 hostages remained until the conclusion of the crisis. [1] During the crisis the United States attempted a rescue operation, Operation Eagle Claw. The operation failed and resulted in the deaths of eight American soldiers.

Some historians argue that the crisis was one of the primary reasons for U.S. President Jimmy Carter's loss in the U.S. Presidential Election of 1980.[2].

The crisis reached its conclusion with the signing of the Algiers Accords. On January 20, 1981, the hostages were formally released into U.S. custody after having spent 444 days in captivity. The release took place just minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president.


The October Surprise Conspiracy was an alleged plot that claimed representatives of the 1980 Ronald Reagan presidential campaign had conspired with Islamic Republic of Iran to delay the release of 52 Americans held hostage in Tehran until after the 1980 U.S. Presidential election. In exchange for their cooperation, the United States would supply weapons to Iran as well as unfreeze Iran's monetary assets being held by the US government.

Jimmy Carter had been attempting to deal with the Iran hostage crisis and the hostile regime of the Ayatollah Khomeini for nearly a year. Those who assert that a deal was made allege that certain Republicans with CIA connections, including George H. W. Bush, arranged to have the hostages held through October, until Reagan could defeat Carter in early November, and then be released, thereby preventing an “October surprise” from the Carter administration in which the hostages would be released shortly before the election. The hostages were released the day of Reagan's inauguration, twenty minutes after his inaugural address.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octobe...rise_conspiracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis


***

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boland_Amendment

***

Die Iran - Contra Affäre

Beschreibung: Die Iran - Contra Affäre. In Persien regierte ab 1963 der letzte Shah von Persien, Reza Pahlavi, der in seiner Politik westlich orientiert war...

Autor: Klaus Koschatzky


Der geschichtliche Hintergrund:

Der Kalte Krieg--Nach dem zweiten Weltkrieg bildeten sich zwei militärische und politische Großmächte. Auf der einen Seite die Sowjet Union mit ihren Satellitenstaaten wie zum Beispiel Jugoslawien, die damalige Tschechoslowakei, Ungarn usw. (der sogenannte Ostblock), auf der anderen Seite stand der Westen mit den Vereinigten Staaten als politischem Kern. Beide Großmächte hatten enormes Waffen -und Menschenpotential und versuchten ihren Einflußbereich soweit wie möglich auszudehnen.



In Persien regierte ab 1963 der letzte Shah von Persien, Reza Pahlavi, der in seiner Politik westlich orientiert war. Der sich immer mehr in Opposition befindliche Klerus unter Führung des in Paris im Exil lebenden Ayatollah Khomeini, bekam durch diese nicht von allen Persern getragene Politik immer mehr Unterstützung in der Heimat. Der Shah mußte unter diesem Druck der Opposition in die Vereinigten Staaten flüchten. 1979 kehrte Khomeini aus dem Exil in Frankreich wieder nach Persien zurück und stürzte den damaligen Diktator. In diesem Zusammenhang wurde die amerikanische Botschaft in Teheran (Hauptstadt Persiens) von Khomeinis Anhängern zwei Jahre lang belagert. Neben anderen Maßnahmen die Geiseln zu befreien hat auch die
US Regierung unter Präsident Carter Waffenangebote an Techeran gemacht um die Botschaft in Teheran frei zu bekommen (Oktober 1980). Die Republikaner beschuldigten Carter daraufhin die Geiseln freikaufen zu wollen, da die US Präsidentschaftswahlen kurz bevorstanden. Es gab Gerüchte, daß die Republikaner ihrerseits versuchten, die Geiseln bis nach den Wahlen in Gefangenschaft zu lassen, damit Reagan Präsident werde.



Ungefähr zur gleichen Zeit kamen in Nicaragua die Sandinistas zur Macht, nachdem sie das vorherige Somoza Regime im Laufe eines Bürgerkriegs gestürzt hatten. Die Sandinistas versuchten die wirtschaftlich schlechte Situation Nicaraguas aufzubessern und wurden anfangs von den Vereinigten Staaten unterstützt, doch nachdem die U.S. Regierung begriff, daß sie es mit einer sehr links orientierten Organisation zu tun hatten, brachen sie ihre wirtschaftlichen Kontakte 1981 ab und begannen die Anti-Sandinista Guerillas, die sogenannten Contras zu unterstützen. 1982 schlossen die Sandinistas einen Hilfspakt mit der damaligen Sowjetunion, was die Amerikaner beunruhigte.



1986 flog die sogenannte Iran-Contra Affäre auf, in der das NSC (National Security Council) und das CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) amerikanische Waffen an den Iran verkauften als gerade der Iran-Irak Krieg stattfand. Als ein angeblich neutrales Land hätten die USA gar keine Waffen senden dürfen. Den Erlös ($30 Mio.) ließen sie den Contra Rebellen zukommen. Vorerst wurden die
Waffen an die Iraner auf Vorschlag der Israelis verkauft um die Beziehung zwischen Iran und USA zu bessern und auch um amerikanische Geiseln aus dem Libanon zu befreien, außerdem wollte man die Politik des Iran wieder in westliche Richtung lenken.



Obwohl US Präsident Ronald Reagan dagegen war, stellte der US Congress ein Gesetz namens Boland Amendment auf, das jegliche Hilfe für die Contras seitens einer US Staatsbehörde verbietet (von Dezember 83-September 85). Das Boland Amendment deckte das NSC jedoch nicht ab und so konnte es die Staatsverwaltung Reagans umgehen. National Security Advisers Robert McFarlane und John Poindexter konnten durch das NSC noch einiges an Geld aufbringen, dieses Unternehmen wurde von Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North überwacht. North und McFarlane waren es auch, die Waffen in den Iran brachten trotz des US Waffen Embargos.



Die Rolle des CIA:

Der damalige CIA Director William Casey unterstützte Reagan und seine Contra Politik, allerdings mußten die Contralieferungen geheim bleiben. Casey beauftragte Oliver North und Richard Secord zum Waffenschmuggel und zur weiteren Unterstützung der Contras. Außerdem wurden durch die Hilfe des CIA Drogen von Latein Amerika in die USA geschmuggelt und erhielten für das Liefern von Waffen und finanzieller Unterstützung Kokain (drugs-for-guns arrangement). Die Fluggesellschaft die man dafür benutzte wurde Southern Air Transport (S.A.T.) genannt. Für die Abwicklung dieses Deals verwendete man stets Landebahnen in Costa Rica, nahe der nördlichen Grenze zu Nicaragua, die nicht kontrolliert wurden (veraltete Radargeräte etc.). Auch Honduras und Guatemala wurden in die Unterstützung der Contras durch die USA miteingebunden. Honduras stellte den Contras Stützpunkte zur Verfügung um von dort aus gegen die Sandinistas vorgehen zu können. Honduras hat auch unter dem Einfluß des CIA die illegal gelieferten Waffen reingewaschen und an die Contras weitergegeben. Als im Oktober 1986 ein Flugzeug des CIA nach Nicaragua fliegen wollte um die üblichen Geschäfte abzuwickeln, wurde es von Soldaten der Nicaragua Regierung abgeschossen. Der einzige überlebende, Eugene Hasenfus, wurde gefangen genommen und gestand im Auftrag der CIA gehandelt zu haben.



Ungefähr zur selben Zeit, im November 1986, berichtete eine libanesische Zeitung etwas von Waffengeschäften zwischen den USA und dem Iran. Daraufhin mußte die Staatsverwaltung unter Reagan die Lieferungen einstellen. Noch im gleichen Monat kündigte Poindexter, North wurde entlassen. Staatsanwalt Lawrence E. Walsh wurde beauftragt, die Affäre zu untersuchen, der dann auch Klage gegen die meisten Hauptakteure erhob.



Die Untersuchungen ergaben, daß sowohl Präsident Reagan als auch Vize Präsident George Bush vom Waffenhandel mit dem Iran wußten. Auch CIA Director William Casey, Lt. Col. Oliver North und die National Security Advisers Robert McFarlane und John Poindexter wußten davon.

North beauftragte Carl Channell und Richard Miller, von reichen Amerikanern Millionen einzutreiben mit Hilfe eines illegalen Steuerfreiheitsprogrammes. Dieses Geld wurde in Schweizer Bankkonten von Richard Secord und Albert Hakim gewaschen (über $47 Mio., Lake Resources Inc.). Außerdem versuchten die Amerikaner Taiwan, Südkorea und Saudi Arabien für die Unterstützung der Contras zu gewinnen.

Reagan wollte ursprünglich das Weiterleiten der Gelder an Nicaragua zulassen obwohl es illegal war, Poindexter brachte die Geschäfte in Gange, im Glauben daß keinerlei Gesetz verletzt wurde. Auch North behauptete, er habe nichts von einer Gesetzeswidrigkeit gewußt.

Nach dem Abschuß des CIA Flugzeuges leugneten CIA Mitglieder Clair George, Alan Fiers ,Jr., und Duane Clarridge einen Zusammenhang mit Contra Unterstützungen.



Channell und Miller bekannten sich schuldig, Steuerbetrug betrieben zu haben, McFarlane wurde verurteilt wegen Zurückhaltens von Informationen, Poindexter wurde schuldig befunden sowohl für Meineid als auch für Zerstörung von Beweismitteln, genauso wie North.

CIA Director William Casey konnte aufgrund eines Gehirntumors nicht einvernommen werden.

Insgesamt wurden 14 Personen angeklagt, elf davon wurden verurteilt, zwei wurden begnadigt, eine Anklage wurde fallengelassen.

Trotz aller Untersuchungen konnte nie bewiesen werden, daß sowohl Ronald Reagan als auch George Bush in diese Affäre involviert waren.

Als Bush Präsident wurde, begnadigte er alle Verurteilten.



Läßt man diesen Skandal Revue passieren, so stellt sich die Frage wie weit ein Staat in der Wahrung seiner eigenen Sicherheitsinteressen gehen darf. An diesem Beispiel sieht man, daß versucht wurde durch die Unterstützung der Contras in Nicaragua den Einfluß der Kommunisten auszuschalten, um dem damaligen Feind UdSSR nicht die Möglichkeit militärischer Basen zu geben. Obwohl man dafür Verständnis aufbringen kann, war die Vorgangsweise sehr fragwürdig, da einerseits die Eigenständigkeit eines Staates mißachtet wurde und andererseits auch eigene Gesetze nicht eingehalten und umgangen wurden. Auch die
Vorgangsweise Jimmy Carters mit den Waffenlieferungen an den Iran, um die Geiseln freizukaufen, scheint insofern wert diskutiert zu werden, als vor dem Hintergrund der Wahlen sich widersprüchliche Äußerungen finden, die einerseits behaupten, daß der Zweck nicht in erster Linie humanitär war, sondern wahltaktische Gründe hatte. Genauso fragwürdig sind auch Aussagen der Republikaner, denen die Freilassung der Geiseln vor den Wahlen ungelegen war.
Meiner Meinung nach hätten die Amerikaner früher handeln, und nicht zur Wahrung ihrer eigenen Interessen die eigenen Gesetze mißachten sollen.



Quellen:

http://parascope.com/articles/0297/walshdoc.htm

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/walsh/part_iihtm

http://www.webcom.com/pinknoiz/covert/icsummary.html

http://library.thinkquest.org/17749/lrevolution.html

http://www.englisch.schule.de/state...ject/actors.htm

**********************************************************

http://www.iran-affaere.de/

***




***

„…aber er war unser Schurke“

Die USA und Saddam Husseins Irak verbinden durchaus wechselhafte Beziehungen. Eine Chronik von Manfred Berg

Als die US-Botschafterin in Bagdad, April Glaspie, am 25. Juli 1990 die Mitteilung erhält, Staatspräsident Saddam Hussein wünsche sie umgehend zu sprechen, ist ihr gleich klar, dass es nicht um einen diplomatischen Routinetermin geht. Seit Wochen hat der Diktator massive Drohungen gegen das Nachbarland Kuwait ausgestoßen. Der nach dem Krieg mit dem Iran heillos verschuldete Irak wirft den Kuwaitis vor, die von der Opec festgesetzten Öl-Fördermengen zu überschreiten, so den Preis in den Keller zu treiben und damit der irakischen Wirtschaft schweren Schaden zuzufügen. Schlimmer noch, Kuwait hätte irakisches Öl aus den umstrittenen Ölfeldern von Rumaila im Grenzgebiet zwischen beiden Ländern abgepumpt und den Irak um mindestens 2,5 Milliarden Dollar bestohlen. Ohnehin betrachtet Bagdad das erst 1961 von Großbritannien in die Unabhängigkeit entlassene Scheichtum als künstliches Gebilde, das historisch zum Irak gehöre.

Doch obwohl die Iraker nach Erkenntnissen des amerikanischen Militärs seit Mitte Juli 100000 Soldaten an der Grenze zu Kuwait zusammengezogen haben, hält sich die US-Regierung bedeckt. Noch am Vortag hat die Sprecherin des Außenministeriums auf die Frage, wie Amerika im Falle einer Invasion reagieren werde, mit der ausweichenden Floskel geantwortet, die USA hätten kein Verteidigungsabkommen mit Kuwait, aber ein Interesse an der Sicherheit ihrer „Freunde in der Golfregion“. Nun bestellt Saddam die Botschafterin ein, um Klarheit über die Haltung Washingtons zu erhalten.

Der Sturz des Schahs verändert das Koordinatensystem der USA

Glaspie muss sich bittere Klagen des Diktators anhören. Vor allem wirft er Amerika vor, es bestärke die reichen Araber in ihrer widerspenstigen Haltung gegenüber den vitalen Interessen des irakischen Volkes. Die Diplomatin konzediert, man verstehe sehr wohl die Geldnöte des Irak. Und dann fällt ein möglicherweise folgenschwerer Satz. „Wir haben keine Meinung zu innerarabischen Konflikten wie Ihren Grenzstreitigkeiten mit Kuwait.“ Der Staatspräsident gibt sich ebenfalls konziliant und versichert, vorerst werde man nichts gegen Kuwait unternehmen. Die Botschafterin ist hoch zufrieden. Saddam, meldet sie dem State Department, wünsche bessere Beziehungen mit den USA und sei ernsthaft um eine friedliche Lösung der Kuwaitkrise bemüht. Eine Woche später, am 2. August 1990, besetzen irakische Truppen das Scheichtum, das kurz darauf zur „19. Provinz des Irak“ erklärt wird.

Schon bald nachdem Einzelheiten über das Gespräch zwischen April Glaspie und Saddam Hussein an die Öffentlichkeit gedrungen waren, machten die amerikanischen Medien die Botschafterin zum Sündenbock für das Versagen der US-Diplomatie: Ihre unbedachten Plaudereien hätten dem Diktator freie Bahn signalisiert. Tatsächlich aber hatte die erfahrene Mittelostexpertin nur völlig korrekt die offizielle Position ihrer Regierung wiedergegeben. Und noch drei Tage vor der irakischen Invasion erhielt die Botschafterin von Präsident George Bush die Anweisung, Saddam mitzuteilen, die USA lehnten eine gewaltsame Lösung der Krise ab, doch sei Washington unverändert an besseren Beziehungen zum Irak interessiert. Später ließen übrigens die Iraker durchblicken, Glaspies Bemerkungen hätten keinerlei Einfluss auf Bagdad gehabt.

Auch der neue starke Mann, Saddam Hussein, war kaum nach dem Geschmack der USA. Obwohl er formal erst 1979 das Amt des Staatspräsidenten übernahm, hatte Saddam nach der Machtergreifung der Baath-Partei ebenso zielstrebig wie brutal alle Rivalen aus dem Wege geräumt. Saddams Vision, seinen Staat zur arabischen Führungsmacht zu machen, widersprach diametral dem amerikanischen Interesse an der Sicherung der westlichen Ölversorgung und dem Schutz Israels. Solange jedoch der Iran unter Schah Reza Pahlevi als prowestliche Ordnungsmacht am Golf die wachsende wirtschaftliche und militärische Kraft des Irak ausbalancierte, war die von Saddam ausgehende Gefahr kalkulierbar.

Mit dem Sturz des Schahs änderte sich auf einen Schlag das regionale Koordinatensystem der Amerikaner. Plötzlich erschien nicht mehr der säkulare Panarabismus Saddams als die größte Gefahr für die eigenen Interessen, sondern Khomeinis islamische Revolution, die um jeden Preis eingedämmt werden sollte. Ein Angebot der US-Regierung unter Jimmy Carter zur Verbesserung der Beziehungen schlug der Irak jedoch zunächst aus. Aber auch Saddam sah sich bald gezwungen, seine Haltung zu ändern, denn sein dreister Plan, dem durch Revolutionswirren geschwächten Iran in einem Blitzkrieg die Ölprovinz Khusistan zu entreißen, erwies sich als grandioser Fehler: Nach einigen Anfangserfolgen wendete sich das Blatt, und die Armee des Iraks geriet zunehmend in Bedrängnis.

Seit April 1981 trafen sich wieder US-Diplomaten mit ihren Kollegen aus Bagdad. Ende 1983 reiste der heutige Verteidigungsminister Donald Rumsfeld als Sondergesandter von Präsident Ronald Reagan zu Saddam, um die Wiederaufnahme der diplomatischen Beziehungen vorzubereiten. Weitere Besuche folgten. Über den Charakter dieser Beziehungen machte man sich allerdings wenig Illusionen. „Wir waren nicht naiv“, meinte später Geoffrey Kemp, Mittelostexperte der Regierung Reagan, und paraphrasierte eine wohlvertraute Maxime amerikanischer Machtpolitik: „Wir wussten, dass Saddam ein Schurke war, aber er war unser Schurke.“

Die Hilfe, die man dem „Schurken“ in den folgenden Jahren zukommen ließ, war allerdings beachtlich und trug entscheidend dazu bei, dass der Irak 1988 nach acht langen Kriegsjahren einen günstigen Frieden mit dem Iran schließen konnte. Die Amerikaner begannen, Bagdad mit wichtigen Geheimdienstinformationen zu füttern, ohne dafür entsprechende Gegenleistungen zu erhalten. Im März 1982 wurde der Irak wider besseres Wissen von der Liste der Terrorfinanziers gestrichen und der Weg für umfangreiche Handelsbeziehungen frei gemacht. Daran änderte sich auch nichts, als Bagdad drei Jahre später dem Terroristen Abul Abbas Asyl gewährte, den die USA für die Entführung des Kreuzfahrtschiffes Achille Lauro und die Ermordung eines amerikanischen Passagiers im Oktober 1985 verantwortlich machten.

http://www.zeit.de/2002/46/A-Irak

__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin

Sit

January 24, 2007 -- A WMR reader has provided us with a photo of the SS Poet, the U.S. ship that allegedly shipped arms and spare parts to Iran in a deal negotiated by George H. W. Bush to keep the American hostages incarcerated until after the 1980 presidential election. After departing Philadelphia in late October 1980, the Poet disappeared en route to Port Said, Egypt and was possibly sunk along with its crew after delivering its cargo to the Iranians.



The SS Poet: George H. W. Bush knows about the fate of this ship but he's more concerned about conspiracy theorists questioning the Warren Report. He should be worried about both.

***

Kleiner Faktenabgleich für das Rumpelstielzchen im Daily Talk.

__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin

Sit

Robert Parry ist der Frage nachgegangen...


In my work on the Iran-Contra scandal, I had obtained a classified summary of testimony by a mid-level State Department official, David Satterfield, who saw the early arms shipments as a continuation of Israeli policy toward Iran.

“Satterfield believed that Israel maintained a persistent military relationship with Iran, based on the Israeli assumption that Iran was a non-Arab state which always constituted a potential ally in the Middle East,” the summary read. “There was evidence that Israel resumed providing arms to Iran in 1980.”

Over the years, senior Israeli officials claimed that those early shipments had the discreet blessing of top Reagan-Bush officials.

In May 1982, Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon told the Washington Post that U.S. officials had approved the Iranian arms transfers. “We said that notwithstanding the tyranny of Khomeini, which we all hate, we have to leave a small window open to this country, a tiny small bridge to this country,” Sharon said.

A decade later, in 1993, I took part in an interview with former Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir in Tel Aviv during which he said he had read Gary Sick’s 1991 book, October Surprise, which made the case for believing that the Republicans had intervened in the 1980 hostage negotiations to disrupt Jimmy Carter’s reelection.

With the topic raised, one interviewer asked, “What do you think? Was there an October Surprise?”

“Of course, it was,” Shamir responded without hesitation. “It was.” Later in the interview when pressed for details, Shamir seemed to regret his candor and tried to backpedal somewhat on his answer.




http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0610/S00479.htm


The evidence so far contains no air-tight proof offered by credible witnesses. Sick can quote 15 sources, for example, who report an October meeting in Paris between members of the Reagan staff and high-level Iranian and Israeli representatives, when the deal was allegedly finalized. Five of the sources say that George Bush was present. These rumor-mongers, however, tend to be shady international gun-runner types. Some of their names pop up again, ominously, five years later in the Iran-Contra story. Whether that makes them more or less believable is for you to judge.

http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archiv...=vn381octobered

The Maclean-Henderson conversation provided important corroboration for the claims by the intelligence operatives, including Israeli intelligence officer Ari Ben-Menashe who said he saw Bush attend a final round of meetings with Iranians in Paris.

Ben-Menashe said he was in Paris as part of a six-member Israeli delegation that was coordinating the arms deliveries to Iran. He said the key meeting had occurred at the Ritz Hotel in Paris.

In his memoirs, Profits of War, Ben-Menashe said he recognized several Americans, including Republican congressional aide Robert McFarlane and CIA officers Robert Gates, Donald Gregg and George Cave. Then, Ben-Menashe said, Iranian cleric Mehdi Karrubi arrived and walked into a conference room.

“A few minutes later George Bush, with the wispy-haired William Casey in front of him, stepped out of the elevator. He smiled, said hello to everyone, and, like Karrubi, hurried into the conference room,” Ben-Menashe wrote.

Ben-Menashe said the Paris meetings served to finalize a previously outlined agreement calling for release of the 52 hostages in exchange for $52 million, guarantees of arms sales for Iran, and unfreezing of Iranian monies in U.S. banks. The timing, however, was changed, he said, to coincide with Reagan’s expected Inauguration on Jan. 20, 1981.

Ben-Menashe, who repeated his allegations under oath in a congressional deposition, received support from several sources, including pilot Heinrich Rupp, who said he flew Casey – then Reagan’s campaign director – from Washington’s National Airport to Paris on a flight that left very late on a rainy night in mid-October.

Rupp said that after arriving at LeBourget airport outside Paris, he saw a man resembling Bush on the tarmac. The night of Oct. 18 indeed was rainy in the Washington area. Also, sign-in sheets at the Reagan-Bush headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, placed Casey within a five-minute drive of National Airport late that evening.



There were other bits and pieces of corroboration about the Paris meetings. As early as 1987, Iran’s ex-President Bani-Sadr had made similar claims about a Paris meeting between Republicans and Iranians. A French arms dealer, Nicholas Ignatiew, told me in 1990 that he had checked with his government contacts and was told that Republicans did meet with Iranians in Paris in mid-October 1980.

A well-connected French investigative reporter Claude Angeli said his sources inside the French secret service confirmed that the service provided “cover” for a meeting between Republicans and Iranians in France on the weekend of Oct. 18-19, 1980. German journalist Martin Kilian had received a similar account from a top aide to the fiercely anti-communist chief of French intelligence, Alexandre deMarenches.

Later, deMarenches’s biographer, David Andelman, told congressional investigators under oath that deMarenches admitted that he had helped the Reagan-Bush campaign arrange meetings with Iranians about the hostage issue in the summer and fall of 1980, with one meeting held in Paris in October.

Andelman said deMarenches ordered that the secret meetings be kept out of his biography because the story could otherwise damage the reputation of his friends, Casey and Bush. “I don’t want to hurt my friend, George Bush,” Andelman recalled deMarenches saying as Bush was seeking re-election in 1992.

Gates, McFarlane, Gregg and Cave all denied participating in the meeting, though some alibis proved shaky and others were never examined at all.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/092006.html

Robert Parrys gesammelte Werke:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/092106a.html

***

Wahrscheinlichkeit für Szenario "Iran Built Up"-Evil steigt auf 78%.

__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin

Sit

On September 22, 1980, Saddam invaded Iran, based on false reports he had received on Iranian weakness, believing that he could topple Khomeini in a breeze. These reports were given to Saddam by Iran's enemies, mainly Saudi Arabia, the US, Jordan's King Hussein (who opened his port of Aqaba to Iraqi war supplies), and Iranians in exile still loyal to the Shah. The official reason for war was to reclaim the Shat al-Arab waterway, which Iraq had given to the Shah in 1975. Asad was enraged by the war, considering it the wrong war, with the wrong enemy, at the wrong time.

Israel, however, supported it greatly, claiming that one way or another, this war would destroy a traditional enemy of Tel Aviv, either Khomeini's Iran or Saddam's Iraq. Gulf states, fearing Iran's growing influence, eagerly supported Saddam with money and arms, and so did the US. Asad argued that the war would exhaust both Iraq and Iran, benefiting nobody but Israel. He also worried, according to his biographer Patrick Seale, that Iran would be defeated by Saddam's strong army. He did not want to be cornered by two triumphant enemies: a victorious Saddam on one front and a victorious Israel on the other.


http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HG12Ak01.html

__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin

Sit

"What we had not predicted was that a 78 year old man, an Ayatollah who had spent 14 years in exile, could forge together these forces and turn all of these volcanos into one immense volcano, into a national and real revolution." -- Stansfield Turner, Director of the CIA.

As the day begins in the US, Carter is in Camp David with his Secretary of State, Cyrus Vance. Upon hearing the news of the previous night (US time) in Iran, he orders an emergency meeting of the crisis committee. In this meeting Warren Christopher, undersecretary of state, head of the CIA, deputies of the defense secretary and some other military personnel are present.

The discussion is over choosing one of three solutions proposed in writing by Brzezinski, asking Iranian military leaders to either

1. Reach a compromise with Bazargan instead of Bakhtiar, or
2. Declare their neutrality in the transfer of power,
3. Initiate a coup.

Brzezinski is in favor of option (3), not knowing that all is finished in Iran.

Brzezinski manages to convince White House aide Captain Gary Sick to report back to him if the Iranian army is ready for a coup or not, after Sick talks on the phone with head of the military mission in Tehran, and General Huyser in Washington.

Brzezinski is ready to obtain Carter's green light for a coup, against the advice of Vance and the department of state. He already has Carter's tacit approval, having contacted him in Camp David's chapel, where Carter had gone for prayers minutes before.

The group in the US department of defense, who have now prepared the text of a telex giving permission for a coup, are trying to contact the military mission in Tehran, but nobody is answering the phone. Only once, an unknown person answers the phone, in Persian. They decide to seek's Sullivan's advice.

Sullivan, worried about security for the embassy, has finally managed to talk to a member of the Revolution Council and is trying to convince him to send a group to save the lives of US officers in the military mission. A voice interrupts his conversation: "Mr. Ambassador, urgent call, White House".

Sullivan can only hear that somebody is telling him "Mr. Brzezinski would like to ask the head of the military mission, through you, whether the Iranian army can initiate a coup!".

Sullivan who is trying to maintain his calm reports that the lives of US officers in the mission are now in danger and their building has been occupied.

Minutes later he is on the phone with Dr. Ebrahim Yazdi, when he is interrupted again by a White House call. The veteran American diplomat finally looses his patience and yells at the phone: "Tell Mr. Brzezinski to cut it out -- I don't know how to say this in Polish!".

In Tehran the only people ready to hear Brzezinski's proposal are those in General Badrei's office in Lavizan. Badrei, along with Naji, Biglari, and two majors, are analyzing details of a coup whose plans have been ready for some time now. Now Badrei reports to the group that the High Command's communique and departure of Bakhtiar and Gharabaghi will work to their advantage. They have to regain contact with provincial commanders. Their attempts in contacting Rahimi are unsuccessful, however they manage to locate Khosrodad. Badrei calls on him to come to Tehran immediately. Khosrodad, who has taken refuge in Army Aviation Command HQ in Shiraz, boards a helicopter for Tehran, not paying attention why two other officers have volunteered to come with him on board.

Members of the US military mission and some senior High Command officers who had taken refuge with them in the mission building, are finally rescued with the arrival of representatives of Dr. Yazdi and Ayatollah Beheshti. When the news of their rescue reaches Sullivan, he breaths a sigh of relief and starts preparing a report on that day to convey to the White House situation room.

At the White House, Brzezinski is finally able to hear Huyser's viewpoint on the possibility of a coup: "only with direct support of the US military". Brzezinski asks him if he is ready to lead the coup and go to Iran. Huyser's answer is calculated: "Yes, with some conditions: I need unlimited funds at my disposal; 10-12 US generals are to be handpicked and must accompany me; I need 10,000 elite US servicemen; and full authority and comprehensive national support."

http://www.iranian.com/History/Feb98/Revolution/


***

Bisherige Bilanz: Hatte man die iranische Revolution unter Kontrolle? Es schaut nicht so aus. Wer waren dann aber die Hintermänner des October Surprise?

Man hatte immer alle möglichen Optionen, immerhin war 1979 auch das Jahr, in dem man die Mudjahedeen-Falle für die UdSSR baute.
(Problem-Reaction-Solution)
Darunter kann auch das "Iran-Evil-Built-up" fallen. Nur: bisher sieht es so aus, als ob man damals die Auswirkungen unterschätzt hatte, die von Khomeni ausgingen.
Die Option 3 zeigt ganz deutlich, dass man seitens der USA auch einen Militärputsch offen unterstützt hätte.

__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin

Sit

More Ground Zero Heroes On The Record: Building 7 Was Deliberately Brought Down
Testimony of multiple rescue personnel that they were told Building 7 was going to be imploded means FEMA, NIST, Silverstein Properties and federal government all lied, revelations demand immediate grand jury inquiry into insurance fraud, vindicates call for new independent 9/11 investigation

Paul Joseph Watson & Alex Jones
Prison Planet
Friday, February 9, 2007

Two more ground zero emergency rescue personnel are on the record as stating they were told Building 7 was going to be brought down on 9/11 hours before its symmetrical implosion, completely contradicting the official explanation of accidental collapse.

The new revelations provoke urgent questions about how a building was rigged with explosives within hours when such a process normally takes weeks or months and why the decision was taken to demolish the building amidst the chaos of the situation on that day.

Yesterday we reported on the testimony of an anonymous EMT named Mike who told Loose Change producer Dylan Avery that hundreds of emergency rescue personnel were told over bullhorns that Building 7, a 47 story skyscraper adjacent the twin towers that was not hit by a plane yet imploded symmetrically later in the afternoon on 9/11, was about to be "pulled" and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.

Shortly after this article was released we uncovered more astounding testimony of ground zero rescue workers who are fully public and on the record in repeating the same claims, that Building 7 was brought down deliberately and that its collapse was not accidental as the government claims.

Indira Singh was a volunteer civilian Emergency Medical Technician at the World Trade Center on September 11th. She was a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management. Singh was responsible for setting up triage sites for the seriously injured and walking wounded. These sites were closed down and consolidated one by one as the day wore on. Appearing on the Pacifica show Guns and Butter, Singh describes her experience to host Bonnie Faulkner. Click here to listen with commentary by Alex Jones.

SINGH: "After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke - it is entirely possible - I do believe that they brought Building 7 down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it was unstable because of the collateral damage. That I don't know I can't attest to the validity of that all I can attest to is that by noon or one o'clock they told us we need to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down."

HOST: "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?"

SINGH: "The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don't know."

As is discussed elsewhere in this article, the feasibility and logic of bringing the building down on 9/11 is up for debate, but what is not debatable is the fact that Silverstein Properties, NIST, FEMA and the federal government have all knowingly lied in claiming in official reports that the building came down solely as a result of damage from the towers and that the collapse of the building was not aided by means of intentionally placed explosives.

The following video from CNN clearly shows firefighters and police telling the public to get back because Building 7 was about to come down and in the words of the cameraman was about to "blow up."

Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden traveled to ground zero completely of his own accord and spent the next four days searching through the rubble and nearby buildings for survivors.

On September 9 2006, McPadden told an audience at the Community Church in New York City how while he was stationed in a Red Cross operations center, he was told that Building 7 was going to be brought down. Click here for the audio.

McPADDEN: "They said you know you've got to stay behind this line because they're thinking about taking this building down, they're not sure if it's stable or not, so they were holding a line off because they had knowledge that something was gonna happen. Well, they pushed us back a little bit....a couple of minutes later they started coming down....people started coming back out to the street, I watched five New York City buses jam packed with people wanting to do search and rescue head down there towards Building 7 - people walk out into the middle of the street to see these people off, like bon voyage and right then Building 7 came down."

McPadden then describes the scene as a "stampede" as people ran over each other in their attempts to flee.

The testimony of these individuals meshes with others in confirming that Building 7 was deliberately brought down on the day of 9/11, a fact that eviscerates official investigations into Building 7 as nothing more than part of an orchestrated cover-up.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building's collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an unforeseen accidental event.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's, interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day!
Click here to subscribe!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A cursory insight into professional building demolition tells us that experts are required to spend weeks and months planning the demolition of any building, ensuring that the explosives are placed in exactly the right spots, that the collapse will not impact surrounding buildings, and that a myriad of sufficient safety procedures are followed.

To imagine that demolition experts could rig such a huge building amidst the chaos of the day, unsure of whether further attacks were coming, in a matter of hours and bring the building down neatly in its own footprint without afflicting major damage to adjacent buildings is beyond belief.

Even if one entertains the notion that this is within the realm of possibility, the fact is that the federal government, FEMA and NIST and Silverstein Properties are all knowingly lying in claiming that the building collapsed by accident as a result of burning debris from the twin towers.

Now it is established that they lied about Building 7, how can we trust their often changing explanations of the collapse of the twin towers, especially considering the dozens and dozens of eyewitnesses who have gone on the record to report the fact that explosives were seen and heard on all levels of both towers, including underground?

We are being asked to put our faith in either the federal government, who deliberately lied about 9/11 in the very days after the attack in telling emergency workers and firemen that the toxic air was safe to breathe, or the emergency workers and other rescue heroes who risked their lives and are still suffering the consequences of their actions.

This testimony demands an immediate grand jury inquiry into both monolithic insurance fraud, potential manslaughter, and a complete re-appraisal and re-investigation into everything else that happened on 9/11 in an effort to discover what else the government lied about concerning the events of that day and its aftermath.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/article...broughtdown.htm


Mit "Pull it" Warnungs-Video!

__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin

Sit

Noch ein Video:

There are bombs in the building!

Secondary Device!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=W53wdu8IGlE

__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin

Sit

"They said you know you've got to stay behind this line because they're thinking about taking this building down, they're not sure if it's stable or not, so they were holding a line off because they had knowledge that something was gonna happen. Well, they pushed us back a little bit....a couple of minutes later they started coming down....people started coming back out to the street, I watched five New York City buses jam packed with people wanting to do search and rescue head down there towards Building 7 - people walk out into the middle of the street to see these people off, like bon voyage and right then Building 7 came down."

Sep 20, 2006
Pacifica Radio's Guns & Butter
New York Stories: 9/11 First Responders
Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden

http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?page=3

__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin

Sit

Gates: Iranian Weaponry Found In Iraq
Defense Secretary Says Serial Numbers, Markings "Pretty Good" Evidence Of Iran's Role


(CBS/AP) Serial numbers and markings on explosives used in Iraq provide "pretty good" evidence that Iranians are providing either weapons or technology for militants there, Defense Secretary Robert Gates asserted Friday.

Gates' comments made official the Iran weapons connection first reported by CBS News at the end of January, when officials told national security correspondent David Martin that serial numbers on parts used to make advanced explosive devices, powerful enough to breach the armor on an American tank, had been traced directly back to Iran.

The officials also told Martin rocket-propelled grenade launchers and assault rifles found in Iraq had Iranian factory markings.

Offering some of the first public details of evidence the military has collected, Gates said, "I think there's some serial numbers, there may be some markings on some of the projectile fragments that we found," that point to Iran.

At the same time, however, he said he was somewhat surprised that recent raids by coalition and Iraqi forces in Iraq swept up some Iranians.

Just last week, Gates said that U.S. military officers in Baghdad were planning to brief reporters on what is known about Iranian involvement in Iraq but that he and other senior administration officials had intervened to delay the briefing in order to assure that the information provided was accurate.

Speaking to reporters at a defense ministers' conference in Seville, Spain, Gates said Friday, "I don't think there was surprise that the Iranians were actually involved, I think there was surprise we actually picked up some."

He and other U.S. officials have said for some time that Iranians, and possibly the government of Iran, have been providing weapons technology, and possibly some explosives to Iraqi insurgents.

But, Bernie Kaussler, an associate fellow at the University of St. Andrews' Institute for Iranian Studies, tells CBSNews.com that he's not convinced top Iranian officials are involved in weapons smuggling.

"There are so many players in Iranian politics, many times the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. That might well be the case," he explains. "It is possible that there are a few hotheads supplying weapons and support without the central government knowing."

The improvised explosive devices (IEDs) have been a leading killer of U.S. forces in Iraq, where more than 3,000 servicemen and women have died in the nearly four-year-old war.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has denied his government is supporting Iraq's militias with money or weapons.

The IEDs have been a leading killer of U.S. forces in Iraq, where more than 3,000 servicemen and women have died in the nearly four-year-old war.

Gates, who is attending his first NATO defense ministers meeting, said Iran is "very much involved in providing either the technology or the weapons themselves for these explosively formed projectiles. Now they don't represent a big percentage of the IED attacks but they're extremely lethal."

Gates said the raids combined with the movement of an additional U.S. aircraft carrier into the Persian Gulf have created a stir, but said the Bush administration has no intention of attacking Iran.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007...in2452519.shtml

__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin

Sit

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...800846851144110


George H. W. Bush said to the late Sarah McClendon the Grand Dam of the Washington Press Corp in June of 1992. “Sarah if the people ever find out what we have done to them, they will chase us down the streets and lynch us”.


"We've been offered a unique opportunity and we must not let this moment pass."

— George W. Bush - State Of The Union Address - January 29th, 2002

__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin

Sit

An explosion of disbelief - fresh doubts over 9/11
09.02.07


A new film alleges the U.S. staged the 9/11 disaster to justify the Iraq war

The official story of what happened on 9/11 never fails to shock. Four American airliners are hijacked by Osama Bin Laden's terrorists in an attack on the heart of the Western world on September 11, 2001.

Two are deliberately flown into New York's famous Twin Towers, which collapse. A third rams into the United States defence headquarters at the Pentagon, in Washington D.C.

The last goes down in rural Pennsylvania, 150 miles north of the capital, after a tussle between the hijackers and some of the passengers onboard, whose bravery was recently portrayed in a Hollywood film, United 93.

Nearly 3,000 ordinary, decent Americans die in the attacks, provoking the U.S. President George W. Bush to mount a global war on terror, which leads to the invasion of Iraq, with Britain in tow.

Or that's how the official story goes.

Yet today, more than five years on, this accepted version of what happened on 9/11 is being challenged by a 90-minute internet movie made for £1,500 on a cheap laptop by three young American men. The film is so popular that up to 100 million viewers have watched what is being dubbed the first internet blockbuster.

The movie was shown on television to 50 million people in 12 countries on the fifth anniversary of 9/11 last autumn. More than 100,000 DVDs have been sold and another 50,000 have been given away. In Britain, 491,000 people have clicked on to Google Video to watch it on their computers.

Called Loose Change, the film is a blitz of statistics, photographs pinched from the web, eyewitness accounts and expert testimony, all set to hip-hop music. And it is dramatically changing the way people think about 9/11.

A recent poll by the respected New York Times revealed that three out of four Americans now suspect the U.S. government of not telling the truth about 9/11. This proportion has shot up from a year ago, when half the population said they did not believe the official story of an Al Qaeda attack.

The video claims the Bush administration was, at the very least, criminally negligent in allowing the terrorist attacks to take place. It also makes the startling claim that the U.S. government might have been directly responsible for 9/11 and is now orchestrating a cover-up.

Unsurprisingly, the film's allegations have been denied, even roundly condemned, by White House sources and U.S. intelligence services.

Only this week, the letters page of the Guardian newspaper was full of discourse about Loose Change, which was made by a trio of twentysomethings, including a failed film school student and a disillusioned ex-soldier.

Indeed, the movie's assertions are being explored by a number of commentators in America and Britain - including the former Labour Cabinet Minister Michael Meacher - who are questioning the official account of 9/11.

Mr Meacher, who last year proposed holding a screening of Loose Change at the House of Commons (he later changed his mind), has said of 9/11: "Never in modern history has an event of such cataclysmic significance been shrouded in such mystery. Some of the key facts remain unexplained on any plausible basis."

These words were written in a foreword for Professor David Ray Griffin's bestselling book, The New Pearl Harbour (a pointed reference to the conspiracy theory that President Roosevelt allowed the Japanese to assault the U.S. fleet in 1941, in order to force America into World War II).

Griffin, now nearing retirement, is emeritus professor at the Claremont School of Theology in California and a respected philosopher. While Loose Change is capturing the interest of internet devotees, Professor Griffin's equally contentious theories are receiving standing ovations in book clubs across the U.S.

Together, the book and the movie have raised the question: could the attack be a carbon copy of Operation Northwoods, an aborted plan by President Kennedy to stage terror attacks in America and blame them on Communist Cuba as a pretext for a U.S. invasion to overthrow Fidel Castro?

In other words, on a fateful September morning in 2001, did America fabricate an outrage against civilians to fool the world and provide a pretext for war on Al Qaeda and Iraq?

This, and other deeply disturbing questions, are now being furiously debated on both sides of the Atlantic.

Why were no military aircraft scrambled in time to head off the attacks? Was the collapse of the Twin Towers caused by a careful use of explosives? How could a rookie pilot - as one of the terrorists was - fly a Boeing 757 aircraft so precisely into the Pentagon? And who made millions of dollars by accurately betting that shares in United and American Airlines, owners of the four doomed aircraft, were going to fall on 9/11 as they duly did?

An extremely high volume of bets on the price of shares dropping were placed on these two airline companies, and only these two. In the three days prior to the catastrophe, trade in their shares went up 1,200 per cent.

Initially, like most people in America, Professor Griffin dismissed claims the attacks could have been an inside job.

It was only a year later, when he was writing a special chapter on American imperialism and 9/11 for his latest academic tome, that the professor was sent a 'timeline' on the day's events based entirely on newspaper and television accounts. It was then that he changed his mind.

And one of the most puzzling anomalies that he studied was that none of the hijacked planes was intercepted by fighter jets, even though there was plenty of time to do so and it would have been standard emergency procedure in response to a suspected terrorist attack.

Indeed, it is mandatory procedure in the U.S. if there is any suspicion of an air hijack. In the nine months before 9/11, the procedure had been implemented 67 times in America.

Readers of The New Pearl Harbour and viewers of Loose Change are reminded that it was 7.59am when American Airlines Flight 11 left Boston. Fifteen minutes later, at 8.14am, radio contact between the pilot and air traffic control stopped suddenly, providing the first indication that the plane might have been hijacked.

Flight 11 should have been immediately intercepted by fighter pilots sent up from the nearby McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. They could have made the journey to the World Trade Centre in three minutes.

But, surprisingly, F-15 fighter jets were instead ordered out of an airbase 180 miles away at Cape Cod. They appear to have flown so slowly - at 700mph, instead of their top speed of 1,850mph - that they did not arrive in time to stop the second attack, on the South Tower of the World Trade Centre. They were 11 minutes too late.

And this is not the only worrying question. Incredibly, the attack on the Pentagon was not prevented either. The defence headquarters was hit by the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 at 9.38am. But fighter jets from Andrews Air Force Base, just ten miles from Washington, weren't scrambled to intercept it.

Instead, jets were ordered from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, 100 miles away. By the time they arrived, Flight 77 had already hit the Pentagon.

So what of the fall of the Twin Towers?

The official version is that the buildings collapsed because their steel columns were melted by the heat from the fuel fires of the two crashed planes.

It is a mantra that has been repeated in White House briefings, official inquiries into 9/11, leaks by the American intelligence services and almost every TV documentary on the attack in the U.S. and Britain.

But, according to the allegations of Loose Change (which are endorsed by Professor Griffin), the science does not stand up. Steel does not begin to melt until it reaches around 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit, but open fires of jet fuel - such as those in the Twin Towers inferno - cannot rise above 1,700 degrees.

Professor Griffin and the makers of Loose Change are convinced the Twin Towers were deliberately blown up.

The film shows clip after clip of the towers coming down in one fell swoop to loud and distinct booms. Were they the sound of detonators being set off?

And the Pentagon attack? The hotly disputed theory of the film and Professor Griffin is that a passenger plane never hit the building at all.

The terrorist pilot, Hani Hanjour, was so slow to learn the fundamentals at flight school that his tutors reported him to the authorities for his incompetence five times.

How could he have guided the huge aircraft in such a complex manoeuvre into the building? And if he did, what happened to the aircraft?

The Loose Change narrator says: "The official explanation is that the intense heat from the jet fuel vapourised the entire plane. Indeed, from the pictures, it seems there was no discernible trace of a fully loaded Boeing 757 at the crash scene.

"But if the fire was hot enough to incinerate a jumbo jet, then how could investigators identify 184 out of 189 dead people found at the defence headquarters?"

Intriguingly, the narrator adds: "The only visible damage to the outer wall of the Pentagon is a single hole no more than 16ft in diameter. But a Boeing 757 is 155ft long, 44ft high, has a 124ft wingspan and weighs almost 100 tons.

"Are we supposed to believe that it disappeared into this hole without leaving any wreckage on the outside? Why is there no damage from the wings or the vertical stabiliser or the engines which would have slammed into the building?

"Remember how big the engines were," the film adds persuasively.

"If six tons of steel and titanium banged into the Pentagon at 530mph, they would bury themselves inside the building, leaving two very distinct imprints. And yet the only damage to the outer wall is this single hole."

And what of the Boeing's 40ft high tail? "Did it obligingly duck before entering the building?" asks Professor Griffin.

So if a commercial aircraft did not hit the building, what did? The wildest of all the theories in Professor Griffin's writings - echoed in Loose Change - is that the Pentagon was attacked by a military missile of some kind. Certainly, several onlookers quoted in the film claim that they saw a tiny aircraft piercing the defence HQ.

Another witness says it made a shrill noise, quite unlike a giant passenger plane.

So if it wasn't hijacked and flown by a terrorist into the Pentagon, what happened to Flight 77, last heard of on its way to Ohio?

No one knows. But one thing is sure, asserts Professor Griffin. Dick Cheney, the U.S. vice- President, and Condoleezza Rice, at the time President Bush's national security adviser, were in the White House bunker as the drama unfolded.

They, and their advisers, knew a hijacked aircraft was heading towards Washington. The obvious target was the White House, not the Pentagon. Yet Cheney and Rice were never evacuated from the White House. Did someone in high places already know that they were safe and that it was the Pentagon that was going to be the target?

Of course, no account of 9/11 by the conspiracy lobby is complete without a minute-by-minute observation of President Bush's behaviour.

He was hundreds of miles away in Florida, about to read a book to primary school children when the worst terrorist attack of the modern age happened.

The President reportedly showed little reaction when an aide told him that the first plane had crashed into the Twin Towers. Why not?

He, apparently, told the school's principal: "A commercial plane has hit the World Trade Centre, but we're going ahead with the reading thing anyway."

Then President Bush, who is also the commander-in-chief of the American military, settled down to recite My Pet Goat to a group of seven-year-olds.

He was interrupted a few minutes later by a whispered message in his ear from an aide that a second aircraft had hit the Twin Towers.

The President's face, captured by photographers at the school, remained completely passive. He showed no sign of emotion.

Now it must have been obvious a terrorist maelstrom was being unleashed on his country. But three days later, back in the American capital, he was a different man. By now he was certain that Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda henchmen were to blame.

Surrounded by the Christian evangelist preacher Billy Graham, a cardinal, a rabbi and an imam, the President delivered a sermon in America's national cathedral in Washington.

The words he uttered are recounted by both Professor Griffin and the makers of Loose Change.

President Bush announced: "Our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks waged against us by stealth, deceit and murder and rid the world of evil."

The scene had been swiftly set for the West's war on terror.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...+911/article.do

__________________
"Viele Wirtschaftswissenschaftler glauben an ihre Theorien, wie andere Menschen an ihre Religion glauben." John Mauldin