Joined: Mar 04, 2003
Posts: 2127
Location: upstate NY
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 8:32 am Post subject:
I don't watch crappy videos. I will answer them if you write them out. here is a novel idea, write out one and wait till I or someone else responds.
_________________ The following was written by IAM1, thus proving his um... little problem.
"Billy Graham is a known and exposed satanist and SRA predator! " IAM1
http://www.theblackvault.com/ftopict-65454.html
I don't watch crappy videos. I will answer them if you write them out. here is a novel idea, write out one and wait till I or someone else responds.
dvdudummy, you won't answer or respond to the simple question(s) in the video because then you'd have to think and incriminate yourself, in addition to admitting you've made another big boo boo!
I don't watch crappy videos. I will answer them if you write them out. here is a novel idea, write out one and wait till I or someone else responds.
With some people it is okay that the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights have been undermined since the beginning, as warned by the founders.
With some people it is okay that the bankers have had control since just after the signing of the Constitution as warned by the founders on day one.
With some people, it is okay that our media was taken over and under the control of the CIA and CFR controlled globalists as was warned by the founders would occur if we did not pay attention.
Iconoclastic1 said the following on your History Channel post:
Surely you jest.
Namecalling is the "dis-infoman" forte.
In order to see the big picture you have to travel back in time to the founding of this nation.
Despite the hard work of the founders the US Constitution was immediately being dismantled by the monied aristocracy. Thomas Jefferson warned of the danger of allowing the bankers to control the money as well as what would happen if the media ever came under their control. Unfortunately, it did. You are out of your mind if you think otherwise as it it has been going on for years.
In 1933 War hero Major General S.M. Butler wrote a book titled [b]"War is a Racket"[/b] which neatly explained the Military ndustrial Complex and the elitists that already profiteered by the use of your relatives as cannon fodder to enrich a few. YOUR life means NOTHNG to these people. THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU!
Let's proceed to the "think tank" known as the PNAC. Founded in 1998 by the likes of "Dick" Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld, and populated by the likes of Paul Wolfowitz. Jeb Bush, Phillip Zelikow, Dov Zakheim, Richard Perle, William Kristol, John Bolton and many other "neo-cons" ths group (that later inhabited the White House, in my opinion through the 2000 election coup and Cheney's long time connections within the Supreme Court) wrote a dossier in 2000 titled, "Rebuilding Americas Defenses" which mapped out plans for the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Syria. This document also planned, (prior to any attack on 9-11) a strategy for usurping the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (where all our military bases in the region are runnng parallel) as well as the Caspian Sea oil and gas treasure trove to, in the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book become the "sole global power" or American hegemonyThe Grand Chessboard .
Though George W. Bush has been labeled "inept" he has gotten EVERYTHING he has wanted from two Congress's including the current "Democratic" one since the attacks of 9-11. How convenient and "coincidental."
I am fascinated with those that believe in the "ineptitude" theory and reason that the government screws everything up. I agree that the government DOES screw up repeatedly, but I am not talking about the government per se, but rather a small faction from within with a mapped out strategy and control over our entire system of government to a point where they flagrantly violate the U.S. Constitution and get away with it.
Those of you that think that this Hstory Channel "hit piece" actually answers anything are mindless automotons that have lost all ability to reason based on the facts. You have been handed another "9-11 Commission Report" filled with more holes than a pin cushion and accepted it as true.
Please answer me this. Aside from the governments constant changing of the story to fit their version, and depite the fact that they LIED about the air quality in NY and all Iraq related intel has been proven to be fabricated lies, how do you account for the so called "annonymous" put options placed on United and American Airlines prior to 9-11, the fact that the millions won by those puts were never collected by this so called anonymous invester, the fact that this was not investigated by our mainstream media and the IMPOSSIBILITY of trading anonymously in the markets altogether in the first place?
I won't even go into WTC 7 yet.
You are cannon fodder, nothing more to those that are in control globally. Their handpicked puppets (Obama and McCain) are just smoke and mirrors to let you think you have a say. YOU DON'T!
"All the worlds a stage and you are the [unwitting]
audience"
I think that this sums up nicely just how duped people are that believe the "official" story just because the government told them so. These are the same people that are profiteering from all the munitions sales, the "war on terror," the "war on drugs," and a host of other fabrications as well.
Gee dude, do ya really think that trusting those in power is the logical thing to do? If you do, then that speaks volumes about your ability to reason.
I always look at it from an investigative point of view, as would any true investigator, and ask myself one question:
WHO GAINED?
I think that is pretty clear and it surely is NOT Osama bin Laden!
“Always question authority—and the
higher the authority, the harsher the questions!”
I don't watch crappy videos. I will answer them if you write them out. here is a novel idea, write out one and wait till I or someone else responds.
With some people it is okay that the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights have been undermined since the beginning, as warned by the founders.
With some people it is okay that the bankers have had control since just after the signing of the Constitution as warned by the founders on day one.
With some people, it is okay that our media was taken over and under the control of the CIA and CFR controlled globalists as was warned by the founders would occur if we did not pay attention.
Iconoclastic1 said the following on your History Channel post:
Surely you jest.
Namecalling is the "dis-infoman" forte.
In order to see the big picture you have to travel back in time to the founding of this nation.
Despite the hard work of the founders the US Constitution was immediately being dismantled by the monied aristocracy. Thomas Jefferson warned of the danger of allowing the bankers to control the money as well as what would happen if the media ever came under their control. Unfortunately, it did. You are out of your mind if you think otherwise as it it has been going on for years.
In 1933 War hero Major General S.M. Butler wrote a book titled [b]"War is a Racket"[/b] which neatly explained the Military ndustrial Complex and the elitists that already profiteered by the use of your relatives as cannon fodder to enrich a few. YOUR life means NOTHNG to these people. THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT YOU!
Let's proceed to the "think tank" known as the PNAC. Founded in 1998 by the likes of "Dick" Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld, and populated by the likes of Paul Wolfowitz. Jeb Bush, Phillip Zelikow, Dov Zakheim, Richard Perle, William Kristol, John Bolton and many other "neo-cons" ths group (that later inhabited the White House, in my opinion through the 2000 election coup and Cheney's long time connections within the Supreme Court) wrote a dossier in 2000 titled, "Rebuilding Americas Defenses" which mapped out plans for the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and Syria. This document also planned, (prior to any attack on 9-11) a strategy for usurping the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline (where all our military bases in the region are runnng parallel) as well as the Caspian Sea oil and gas treasure trove to, in the words of Zbigniew Brzezinski in his book become the "sole global power" or American hegemonyThe Grand Chessboard .
Though George W. Bush has been labeled "inept" he has gotten EVERYTHING he has wanted from two Congress's including the current "Democratic" one since the attacks of 9-11. How convenient and "coincidental."
I am fascinated with those that believe in the "ineptitude" theory and reason that the government screws everything up. I agree that the government DOES screw up repeatedly, but I am not talking about the government per se, but rather a small faction from within with a mapped out strategy and control over our entire system of government to a point where they flagrantly violate the U.S. Constitution and get away with it.
Those of you that think that this Hstory Channel "hit piece" actually answers anything are mindless automotons that have lost all ability to reason based on the facts. You have been handed another "9-11 Commission Report" filled with more holes than a pin cushion and accepted it as true.
Please answer me this. Aside from the governments constant changing of the story to fit their version, and depite the fact that they LIED about the air quality in NY and all Iraq related intel has been proven to be fabricated lies, how do you account for the so called "annonymous" put options placed on United and American Airlines prior to 9-11, the fact that the millions won by those puts were never collected by this so called anonymous invester, the fact that this was not investigated by our mainstream media and the IMPOSSIBILITY of trading anonymously in the markets altogether in the first place?
I won't even go into WTC 7 yet.
You are cannon fodder, nothing more to those that are in control globally. Their handpicked puppets (Obama and McCain) are just smoke and mirrors to let you think you have a say. YOU DON'T!
"All the worlds a stage and you are the [unwitting]
audience"
I think that this sums up nicely just how duped people are that believe the "official" story just because the government told them so. These are the same people that are profiteering from all the munitions sales, the "war on terror," the "war on drugs," and a host of other fabrications as well.
Gee dude, do ya really think that trusting those in power is the logical thing to do? If you do, then that speaks volumes about your ability to reason.
I always look at it from an investigative point of view, as would any true investigator, and ask myself one question:
WHO GAINED?
I think that is pretty clear and it surely is NOT Osama bin Laden!
“Always question authority—and the
higher the authority, the harsher the questions!”
Hi YuvbinDuped!
I like that quote! I, and others here, surely appreciate your good thought provoking questions! But, good luck in getting any kind of rational response from dvdud. I've been attempting to reason with this person, as well as others have too, but all we ever get is lies, name calling, irrationality, idiocy, etc. You've presented some good ideas here and I thank you for that. Keep challenging dvd to produce answers to your questions, etc., because that usually shuts him/her up real quick!
Joined: Mar 04, 2003
Posts: 2127
Location: upstate NY
Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:40 am Post subject:
As anyone can see from the psychotic ramblings of Alpo1, the lies are all firmly in his posts. Hell, he'll even try to edit his posts when busted lying.
Anyway, since truthers are so bad at finding rational explanations for their claims, here is a page to get you started on the road to the original meaning of the word truth:
http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html
Keep up the bad work alpo1.
_________________ The following was written by IAM1, thus proving his um... little problem.
"Billy Graham is a known and exposed satanist and SRA predator! " IAM1
http://www.theblackvault.com/ftopict-65454.html
As anyone can see from the psychotic ramblings of Alpo1, the lies are all firmly in his posts. Hell, he'll even try to edit his posts when busted lying.
Anyway, since truthers are so bad at finding rational explanations for their claims, here is a page to get you started on the road to the original meaning of the word truth:
http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html
Keep up the bad work alpo1.
To dvdudummy, again, and typical, YOU won't answer YuvbinDuped's question(s). What's the matter dvdudummy, too difficult for you?? I've NEVER been busted lying but, you have several times . And it's so typical of you to try and swap the focus off of yourself and your irrational behaviors and attempt to place that focus on others, which is a typical immature ploy used by disinformationists . Do your own work and at least try to answer the questions. Or will that take away from your disinformation that you spread all over the internet sites that expose, and threaten to expose, the establishments propaganda??? You are truly pathetic and it's disgusting how you stupidly and weakly attempt to defend your irrational pablum position.
Regarding "9/11 myths" site/link:
Here's what anyone with a brain will discover by checking a few claims on that stupid "biased debunk" site you posted. Whatever you believe or think about 9/11, the spreading of false claims helps NO ONE! - Except for those lacking any supportive faith in their belief systems. And no one should do what dvdud does or recommends, which is trusting a site just because it tells him/her whatever they want to believe. Not only is this a case of biased false trust and is highly irrational, it also gives lazy idiots the pablum they seek to avoid doing any of their own independent investigative work. In essence, it makes them even more pitifully weaker than they already are to begin with! The TRUTH always deserves nothing less than the examination of both sides of an argument, and/or, claim(s), and it takes thorough unbiased investigating to get to the truth! dvdud...you do none of those things and that is why you are so messed up, extremely irrational, idiotic and deranged! Nevertheless, you are a source of entertainment for those of us who enjoy watching someone (as dishonest and lazy as you are) attempt to recover from repeated bungles, lies, false statements, sheer idiocy and extremely weak disinformation! The laugh and the joke is on YOU dvdudumdum Lay off the dog food dvdudummy, it makes you so much uglier as each day passes!
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security." -Benjamin Franklin
THE GOVERNMENT NEEDED A CRISIS TO CONVINCE THE PEOPLE TO WILLINGLY GIVE UP THEIR LIBERTY IN EXCHANGE FOR SAFETY. NOW THE PAINFUL FACTS ARE IN.
THE DARK FORCES OF GLOBAL GOVERNMENT ARE FUNDING, TRAINING AND PROTECTING TERRORIST NETWORKS WORLDWIDE. 911 THE ROAD TO TYRANNY DOCUMENTS THE RUTHLESS HISTORY OF GOVERNMENTS ORCHESTRATING TERRORIST ATTACKS AGAINST THEIR OWN PEOPLE TO SCARE THEM INTO TOTAL SUBMISSION.
IN THIS BRUTAL EXPOSE YOU WILL WITNESS THE BIRTH OF A GLOBAL POLICE STATE THAT SURPASSES ORWELL'S NIGHTMARISH VISION. IT'S ALL HERE: THE HISTORY OF GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED TERRORISM, THE MODERN IMPLEMENTATION OF FEAR-BASED CONTROL AND, MOST FRIGHTENING OF ALL, THE NEW WORLD ORDER'S FUTURE PLANS. THIS IS ONE FILM YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO IGNORE. THE FUTURE OF FREE PEOPLE EVERYWHERE IS AT STAKE.
THE ROAD TO TYRANNY EXPOSES:
*HOW DOZENS OF FBI AND DEFENSE INTELLIGENCE AGENTS WERE THREATENED WITH ARREST BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IF THEY GOT IN THE WAY OF AL-QAEDA OPERATIONS
*HOW THE CIA TRAINED, FUNDED AND PROTECTED BIN LADEN
*THAT IMPEACHMENT LAWYER DAVID SCHIPPERS WARNED CONGRESS AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OF THE IMPENDING TERRORISTS ATTACKS . (THE FILM INCLUDES AN EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH SCHIPPERS ON THE ALEX JONES SHOW JUST 2 WEEKS AFTER THE ATTACKS. SCHIPPERS HAS SINCE BEEN THREATENED WITH ARREST IF HE CONTINUES TO SPEAK OUT, AND IS BEGGING THE MEDIA AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO GET THIS STORY OUT)
*HOW THE BLOODTHIRSTY GLOBALISTS ARE USING THE TERRORIST ATTACKS TO SCARE THE POPULATION INTO ACCEPTING HIGH-TECH SLAVERY AND A NEW WORLD ORDER POLICE STATE
* HOW THE RECENTLY DECLASSIFIED TOP-SECRET NORTHWOODS DOCUMENT WRITTEN BY THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF LAID OUT PLANS TO BOMB WASHINGTON AND TO HIJACK AIRPLANES AS A PRETEXT FOR WAR
*BILL CLINTON'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE OKLAHOMA CITY BOMBING AND HOW IT WAS CARRIED OUT BY INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES TO BE BLAMED ON THE RIGHT-WING
*HOW THE FBI ORDERED THEIR INFORMANTS TO COOK THE BOMB AND TRAIN THE DRIVERS IN THE FIRST WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACK IN 1993
*WHY THE USA PATRIOT ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UN-AMERICAN
*WHY THE GOVERNMENT LEAVES OUR BORDERS WIDE-OPEN BUT TELLS US TO GIVE UP OUR LIBERTIES FOR SECURITY AND THAT MORE TERRORIST ATTACKS ARE IMMINENT
*FBI TRAINING MANUALS THAT ARE BEING GIVEN TO POLICE DEPARTMENTS THAT STATE THAT CHRISTIANS, GUN OWNERS, AND "THOSE WHO MAKE FREQUENT REFERENCES TO THE US CONSTITUTION" ARE TERRORISTS
*THE UNFOLDING CASHLESS SOCIETY BIOMETRIC CONTROL-GRID
* AND MUCH, MUCH MORE...
.....THIS IS ONE VIDEO/FILM YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO IGNORE. THE FUTURE OF FREE PEOPLE EVERYWHERE IS AT STAKE. WATCH HERE:
Though few Americans realize it, Cheney and Rumsfeld worked through the 1980s and 1990s on emergency nuclear-response plans which allegedly suspended the American constitution and also Congress.[1] (Through these decades Rumsfeld was CEO of a major pharmaceutical firm, and in the later 1990s Cheney was CEO of Halliburton; but their private status did not deter them from continuing to exercise a supra-constitutional planning power conferred on them by Ronald Reagan.)
Even fewer Americans know that these rules, originally dealing with a nuclear attack on America, were extended by Reagan Executive Order 12656 to cover “any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency, that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States.”[2] And few Americans realize that at least some of these rules, known technically as Continuity of Government or COG rules, were invoked before 10:00 AM on September 11, 2001.[3]
As he did in 2007, President Bush has again, on August 28, 2008, continued for another year the national emergency first officially proclaimed on September 14, 2001, along with “the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency:”
Notice: Continuation of the National Emergency with Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks
Consistent with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect to the terrorist attacks at the World Trade Center, New York, New York, the Pentagon, and aboard United Airlines flight 93, and the continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on the United States.
Because the terrorist threat continues, the national emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the powers and authorities adopted to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond September 14, 2008. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an additional year the national emergency I declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the terrorist threat.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.
GEORGE W. BUSH
THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 28, 2008.[4]
Once again appropriate personnel in Congress should learn and review what those “powers and authorities” are, since almost certainly they include COG (Continuity of Government) rules. In 2007 National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD 51), issued by the White House, also extended for one year the emergency proclaimed in 2001; and it empowered the President to personally ensure "continuity of government."[5]
NSPD 51 also contained "classified Continuity Annexes" to "be protected from unauthorized disclosure." Congressman DeFazio twice requested to see these Annexes, the second time in a letter cosigned by House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Christopher Carney. The White House denied these requests, claiming that the congressmen lacked the requisite clearances. But as I wrote earlier this year,
"Congress has a right to be concerned about Continuity of Government (COG) plans refined by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld over the past quarter century….The story, ignored by the mainstream press, involved more than the usual tussle between the legislative and executive branches of the U.S. Government. What was at stake was a contest between Congress's constitutional powers of oversight, and a set of policy plans that could be used to suspend or modify the constitution."[6]
Oliver North, who worked on COG planning with Rumsfeld and Cheney in the 1980s, was asked in the Iran-Contra Hearings about his work on an emergency plan “that would suspend the American constitution.” Democratic Senator Inouye, who was presiding, pounded his gavel and interjected that this was a “highly sensitive and classified matter,” not to be dealt with in an open hearing.[7] Congress has never discussed COG plans publicly since that time.
According to Wikipedia, “The National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601-1651) is a United States federal law passed in 1976 to stop open-ended states of national emergency and formalize Congressional checks and balances on Presidential emergency powers. The act sets a limit of two years on states of national emergency. It also imposes certain "procedural formalities" on the President when invoking such powers, and provides a means for Congress to countermand a Presidential declaration of emergency and associated use of emergency powers (emphasis added).
Bush’s denial of the Homeland Security’s right to review the COG plans in the classified Appendices of NSPD-51 should have been seen as a constitutional crisis -- a line in the sand for Congress to assert its constitutional rights and duties. Now, one year later, I understand (although I cannot corroborate it from the Internet) that Congressman Kucinich has introduced or will introduce a bill for Congress, under the terms of the National Emergencies Act, to countermand the presidentially proclaimed national emergency. This is an important move, but it should not obviate the need for Congress to review rules which allegedly restrict its own powers under the constitution.
Between now and November the American electorate have an opportunity to present this demand to everyone running for office: that they will insist on vigorous congressional action to expose and dispose of these secret COG rules -- rules that allegedly suspend the American constitution.
Notes
[1] "One of the awkward questions we faced was whether to reconstitute Congress after a nuclear attack. It was decided that no, it would be easier to operate without them," said one of the COG planners in the 1980s, who spoke to James Mann (The Rise of the Vulcans, 141-42). James Bamford reported the same remark in his book Pretext for War (p. 74).
(Gellman and Schmidt, “Shadow Government Is at Work in Secret,” March 1, 2002) later claimed, incorrectly, that Executive Order 12656 dealt only with “a nuclear attack.”
[3]
Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2007), 228; citing 9/11Commission Report, 38, 326; Richard A. Clarke, Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terrorism (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2004), 8.
[7]
Scott, Road to 9/11, 9, 23, 184. The New York Times published a complete transcript of the interchange on July 14, 1987, but did not mention it in its news story about North’s testimony.
Keith Olbermann Razzes McCain, Giuliani and the RNC & Apologizes For Their Tactless Graphic 9/11 Video Tribute
9/2008
A visibly upset Keith Olbermann apologized to viewers Thursday night for the graphic 9/11 tribute played in the lead-up to John McCain's acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention.
Olbermann said of the video:
"If at this late date, any television network had, of its own accord, shown that much video tape and that much graphic video tape of 9/11...it, we, would be rightly eviscerated at all quarters, perhaps by the Republican Party itself, for exploiting the memories of the dead, and perhaps even for trying to evoke that pain again. If you reacted to that video tape the way I did, I apologize. It is a subject of great pain, for many of us still, and it was probably not appropriate to be shown." [Especially in relation to and for McCain's Campaign!]
Jesse Ventura Voices 9/11 Truth At Rally For The Republic
Former Governor hints at presidential run in 2012: “We can take our country back, it can be done”
September 3, 2008
Paul Watson
During an impassioned speech in which he called for a revolution to take back the country, former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura voiced 9/11 truth to the 10,000 in attendance and the millions watching on C-Span and You Tube at the Rally For The Republic yesterday.
Ventura also strongly hinted that he is considering running for the presidency in 2012.
“I’m going to move on to another subject that a lot of people don’t want to discuss today,” he said, “I know when I discuss it, it’s amazing, I get attacked! And that’s something called 9/11!”
The crowd cheered and applauded as Ventura made numerous salient points about the FBI’s failure to list 9/11 on Bin Laden’s rap sheet and the DOJ’s failure to charge him.
“They charged him when he blew up our embassy in ‘98, why the biggest terrorist attack in history have they failed to officially charge him for? Why have they not convened a grand jury, presented their evidence and got an indictment?” asked Ventura. “When the FBI was pressed as to why 9/11 wasn’t included, their response was - we don’t have enough evidence.”
“Why did we have a President who stonewalled any investigation into 9/11 for two years?,” added the former Governor, as portions of the crowd chanted, “9/11 was an inside job.”
Ventura slammed the media for slavishly devoting a whole month of coverage to the death of Anna Nicole Smith, labeling it a sign of “the dumbing down of America.”
He also expressed his support for the Second Amendment and reminded people that the founding fathers didn’t write it into the Constitution so people could hunt, but that the right to bear arms was about the right of the people to overthrow a corrupt government.
Ventura also talked about his success as a third party candidate and encouraged people to vote locally for independent candidates to beak the Republican-Democrat stranglehold.
“So it can be done - don’t ever allow anyone to tell you that it can’t be done, it can be done!” Ventura exclaimed.
Ventura continued the discussion about 9/11 backstage when reporters asked him about his comments. Ventura called for a new independent investigation to be conducted without a conclusion having already been pre-determined, as was the case with the government-mandated inquiries.
Ventura concluded his speech by saying, “We can take our country back, it can be done, but it’s not gonna happen with talk - it’s gonna happen with action. I wrote the book Don’t Start The Revolution Without Me - well I’m here….let’s get the revolution going!” he concluded to rapturous applause, adding that if the country showed him it was possible, he would consider running in 2012, vowing, “we’ll give them a race they’ll never forget!”
Watch Jesse Ventura’s full speech below in three parts:
Seven years after the attacks of 9/11, a global awakening has taken place, the likes of which the world has never seen. As the corporate-controlled media dwindles into extinction, a new breed of journalists and activists has emerged. Click here at link below to watch 9/11 Chronicles Part One: Truth Rising online in high quality now!
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) says he won't cease his efforts to hold the president and his administration accountable for their alleged abuses of power just because George W. Bush will be returning to his Texas ranch come January.
Kucinich says he wants Congress to create a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" to examine what really went on within the Bush White House in the aftermath of 9/11 and the lead up to the Iraq war. He says only an independent body with truth-seeking as its goal -- rather than "fake political unity" -- can repair divisions that have emerged in an increasingly polarized nation. [See article below regarding "Truth and Reconciliation Commission"]
During a brief press conference on Capitol Hill Wednesday, and in an interview with RAW STORY afterward, Kucinich said he would introduce legislation to create a commission before Congress finishes its current session at the end of this month. He said his proposal would be modeled on Truth and Reconciliation Commissions that followed periods of upheaval in other countries, such as the end of Apartheid in South Africa or to consider genocide in Rwanda.
He said the Bush administration's transgressions rose to the level of other countries that have seen the need for Truth and Reconciliation Commissions.
"We've seen a dramatic erosion of our civil liberties and disruption of cherished constitutional provisions. Over a million innocent Iraqis have been killed. There's an attempt to grab the national resources of Iraq," he said, referring to attempts to exploit the country's oil reserves.
"So actually, this kind of a process would lend itself to a spirit which all Americans are looking for. ... 'How do we reunite our nation?'" he continued. "But you can't do it just through some fake political unity. The only way you can do it is to seek the truth, and we haven't really done that."
Kucinich said the commission he would propose should have the ability to subpoena testimony and documents and also retain the ability to recommend prosecution of any possible crimes it uncovers. Like Truth and Reconciliation Commissions of the past, though, it also should be able to grant blanket amnesty to anyone who agreed to provide a full accounting of their actions while in the White House. He said the work of previous bodies like the Iraq Study Group and 9/11 Commission also would be examined by his new commission.
Congress and congressional committees already have many of the powers Kucinich described, such as the ability to subpoena witnesses, compel testimony through the threat of prosecution and grant amnesty. The problem is it's been hesitant in exercising them. (Before Kucinich arrived at the press conference, activists lamented Congress's failure to hold Bush administration officials like Karl Rove and Harriet Miers in inherent contempt -- i.e. ordering the Capitol Police to lock them up until they agree to comply with subpoenas demanding their testimony.)
"Congress has had the opportunity to act, and it's failed to do so," Kucinich acknowledged to RAW STORY. "But Congress can still create a process where the work can be done, and that's what the Truth and Reconciliation Commission will do." [BRAVO to Kucinich and Ron Paul and all the other Senators and Congressman/women who support this proposal!]
Kucinich proposes 'Truth and Reconciliation Commission' to assess Bush administration
September 10, 2008
UPDATE: Kucinich tells RAW: Seek truth, not 'fake political unity'
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, whose move to impeach President Bush is destined to remain in stasis until the president leaves office, is shifting his attention beyond his specific allegations against Bush towards goals to repair the damage done once a new administration is in the White House.
"Before the Congress adjourns, I will bring forth a new proposal for the establishment of a National Commission on Truth and Reconciliation, which will have the power to compel testimony and gather official documents to reveal to the American people not only the underlying deception which has divided us, but in that process of truth-seeking set our nation on a path of reconciliation," Kucinich said in prepared remarks to be delivered during a Capitol Hill press conference Wednesday.
Kucinich, the Ohio Democrat and onetime presidential candidate, has been among Bush's harshest and most consistent critics. His repeated calls to impeach the president and Vice President Dick Cheney led the House Judiciary Committee to hold a Friday morning hearing on Bush's abuses of power earlier this summer.
Dozens of witnesses, including Kucinich, testified, but the hearings seemed to be more about giving Kucinich a forum than actually building a case around his impeachment resolution.
On Wednesday, Kucinich also was expected to announce that 2 million people had signed petitions supporting his impeachment drive.
RAW STORY will attend Kucinich's press conference on his Truth and Reconciliation proposal at 1 p.m. Wednesday. This story will be updated following the conference.
Kucinich: 'We went to war for the oil companies'
Nick Juliano
June 26, 2008
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, who has introduced measures to impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, said Thursday that oil executives who secretly met with the vice president in 2001 should be held criminally liable for pushing an illegal war.
"In March of 2001, when the Bush Administration began to have secret meetings with oil company executives from Exxon, Shell and BP, spreading maps of Iraq oil fields before them, the price of oil was $23.96 per barrel. Then there were 63 companies in 30 countries, other than the US, competing for oil contracts with Iraq," the Ohio Democrat said during a speech on the House floor.
"Today the price of oil is $135.59 per barrel, the US Army is occupying Iraq and the first Iraq oil contracts will go, without competitive bidding to, surprise, (among a very few others) Exxon, Shell and BP."
The New York Times reported last week that those companies, Chevron, Total and some smaller companies were set to receive no-bid contracts from Iraq's Oil Ministry. According to the paper, such deals "are unusual for the industry," and the companies prevailed over more than 40 others, including some from Russia, China and India.
In March 2001, two years before Iraq was invaded, Cheney met with top executives from Exxon Mobil Corp., Shell Oil Co., BP America Inc. and others on his infamous secret Energy Task Force.
Kucinich seemed to accuse participants in that meeting of plotting the invasion of Iraq. There's no indication that the participants discussed military action, although documents later released showed they did eye Iraq's oil fields.
The White House convinced the Supreme Court to let it keep secret the proceeding's of Cheney's task force, although the Washington Post later revealed most of its activities.
Kucinich accused the US government of forcing Iraq to privatize its oil fields, which are estimated to hold more than 100 billion barrels of oil, and keeping US troops at war to protect the oil reserves.
"Our nation's soul is stained because we went to war for the oil companies and their profits. There must be accountability not only with this Administration for its secret meetings and its open illegal warfare but also for the oil company executives who were willing participants in a criminal enterprise of illegal war, the deaths of our soldiers and innocent Iraqis and the extortion of the national resources of Iraq," he said.
"We have found the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq. It is oil," Kucinich continued. "As long as the oil companies control our government Americans will continue to pay and pay, with our lives, our fortunes our sacred honor."
Read more articles related to the 9/11 war for oil conspiracy next....................................................................................................
Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back Oil fields in the Iraqi province of Basra. Iraq produces about 2.5 million barrels of oil per day
By ANDREW E. KRAMER
Published: June 19, 2008
BAGHDAD — Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.
Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.
The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.
The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.
There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq’s Oil Ministry.
Sensitive to the appearance that they were profiting from the war and already under pressure because of record high oil prices, senior officials of two of the companies, speaking only on the condition that they not be identified, said they were helping Iraq rebuild its decrepit oil industry.
For an industry being frozen out of new ventures in the world’s dominant oil-producing countries, from Russia to Venezuela, Iraq offers a rare and prized opportunity.
While enriched by $140 per barrel oil, the oil majors are also struggling to replace their reserves as ever more of the world’s oil patch becomes off limits. Governments in countries like Bolivia and Venezuela are nationalizing their oil industries or seeking a larger share of the record profits for their national budgets. Russia and Kazakhstan have forced the major companies to renegotiate contracts.
The Iraqi government’s stated goal in inviting back the major companies is to increase oil production by half a million barrels per day by attracting modern technology and expertise to oil fields now desperately short of both. The revenue would be used for reconstruction, although the Iraqi government has had trouble spending the oil revenues it now has, in part because of bureaucratic inefficiency.
For the American government, increasing output in Iraq, as elsewhere, serves the foreign policy goal of increasing oil production globally to alleviate the exceptionally tight supply that is a cause of soaring prices.
The Iraqi Oil Ministry, through a spokesman, said the no-bid contracts were a stop-gap measure to bring modern skills into the fields while the oil law was pending in Parliament.
It said the companies had been chosen because they had been advising the ministry without charge for two years before being awarded the contracts, and because these companies had the needed technology.
A Shell spokeswoman hinted at the kind of work the companies might be engaged in. “We can confirm that we have submitted a conceptual proposal to the Iraqi authorities to minimize current and future gas flaring in the south through gas gathering and utilization,” said the spokeswoman, Marnie Funk. “The contents of the proposal are confidential.”
While small, the deals hold great promise for the companies.
“The bigger prize everybody is waiting for is development of the giant new fields,” Leila Benali, an authority on Middle East oil at Cambridge Energy Research Associates, said in a telephone interview from the firm’s Paris office. The current contracts, she said, are a “foothold” in Iraq for companies striving for these longer-term deals.
Any Western oil official who comes to Iraq would require heavy security, exposing the companies to all the same logistical nightmares that have hampered previous attempts, often undertaken at huge cost, to rebuild Iraq’s oil infrastructure.
And work in the deserts and swamps that contain much of Iraq’s oil reserves would be virtually impossible unless carried out solely by Iraqi subcontractors, who would likely be threatened by insurgents for cooperating with Western companies.
Yet at today’s oil prices, there is no shortage of companies coveting a contract in Iraq. It is not only one of the few countries where oil reserves are up for grabs, but also one of the few that is viewed within the industry as having considerable potential to rapidly increase production.
David Fyfe, a Middle East analyst at the International Energy Agency, a Paris-based group that monitors oil production for the developed countries, said he believed that Iraq’s output could increase to about 3 million barrels a day from its current 2.5 million, though it would probably take longer than the six months the Oil Ministry estimated.
Mr. Fyfe’s organization estimated that repair work on existing fields could bring Iraq’s output up to roughly four million barrels per day within several years. After new fields are tapped, Iraq is expected to reach a plateau of about six million barrels per day, Mr. Fyfe said, which could suppress current world oil prices.
The contracts, the two oil company officials said, are a continuation of work the companies had been conducting here to assist the Oil Ministry under two-year-old memorandums of understanding. The companies provided free advice and training to the Iraqis. This relationship with the ministry, said company officials and an American diplomat, was a reason the contracts were not opened to competitive bidding.
A total of 46 companies, including the leading oil companies of China, India and Russia, had memorandums of understanding with the Oil Ministry, yet were not awarded contracts.
The no-bid deals are structured as service contracts. The companies will be paid for their work, rather than offered a license to the oil deposits. As such, they do not require the passage of an oil law setting out terms for competitive bidding. The legislation has been stalled by disputes among Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish parties over revenue sharing and other conditions.
The first oil contracts for the majors in Iraq are exceptional for the oil industry.
They include a provision that could allow the companies to reap large profits at today’s prices: the ministry and companies are negotiating payment in oil rather than cash.
“These are not actually service contracts,” Ms. Benali said. “They were designed to circumvent the legislative stalemate” and bring Western companies with experience managing large projects into Iraq before the passage of the oil law.
A clause in the draft contracts would allow the companies to match bids from competing companies to retain the work once it is opened to bidding, according to the Iraq country manager for a major oil company who did not consent to be cited publicly discussing the terms.
Assem Jihad, the Oil Ministry spokesman, said the ministry chose companies it was comfortable working with under the charitable memorandum of understanding agreements, and for their technical prowess. “Because of that, they got the priority,” he said.
In all cases but one, the same company that had provided free advice to the ministry for work on a specific field was offered the technical support contract for that field, one of the companies’ officials said.
The exception is the West Qurna field in southern Iraq, outside Basra. There, the Russian company Lukoil, which claims a Hussein-era contract for the field, had been providing free training to Iraqi engineers, but a consortium of Chevron and Total, a French company, was offered the contract. A spokesman for Lukoil declined to comment.
Charles Ries, the chief economic official in the American Embassy in Baghdad, described the no-bid contracts as a bridging mechanism to bring modern technology into the fields before the oil law was passed, and as an extension of the earlier work without charge.
To be sure, these are not the first foreign oil contracts in Iraq, and all have proved contentious.
The Kurdistan regional government, which in many respects functions as an independent entity in northern Iraq, has concluded a number of deals. Hunt Oil Company of Dallas, for example, signed a production-sharing agreement with the regional government last fall, though its legality is questioned by the central Iraqi government. The technical support agreements, however, are the first commercial work by the major oil companies in Iraq.
The impact, experts say, could be remarkable increases in Iraqi oil output.
While the current contracts are unrelated to the companies’ previous work in Iraq, in a twist of corporate history for some of the world’s largest companies, all four oil majors that had lost their concessions in Iraq are now back.
But a spokesman for Exxon said the company’s approach to Iraq was no different from its work elsewhere.
“Consistent with our longstanding, global business strategy, ExxonMobil would pursue business opportunities as they arise in Iraq, just as we would in other countries in which we are permitted to operate,” the spokesman, Len D’Eramo, said in an e-mailed statement.
But the company is clearly aware of the history. In an interview with Newsweek last fall, the former chief executive of Exxon, Lee Raymond, praised Iraq’s potential as an oil-producing country and added that Exxon was in a position to know. “There is an enormous amount of oil in Iraq,” Mr. Raymond said. “We were part of the consortium, the four companies that were there when Saddam Hussein threw us out, and we basically had the whole country.”
James Glanz and Jad Mouawad contributed reporting from New York.
Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force
By Dana Milbank and Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 16, 2005; A01
A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.
The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which are still being debated.
In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees, the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president of Shell Oil said his company did not participate "to my knowledge," and the chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know.
Chevron was not named in the White House document, but the Government Accountability Office has found that Chevron was one of several companies that "gave detailed energy policy recommendations" to the task force. In addition, Cheney had a separate meeting with John Browne, BP's chief executive, according to a person familiar with the task force's work; that meeting is not noted in the document.
The task force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who said they were shut out of the task force discussions while corporate interests were present. The meetings were held in secret and the White House refused to release a list of participants. The task force was made up primarily of Cabinet-level officials. Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club unsuccessfully sued to obtain the records.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who posed the question about the task force, said he will ask the Justice Department today to investigate. "The White House went to great lengths to keep these meetings secret, and now oil executives may be lying to Congress about their role in the Cheney task force," Lautenberg said.
Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, declined to comment on the document. She said that the courts have upheld "the constitutional right of the president and vice president to obtain information in confidentiality."
The executives were not under oath when they testified, so they are not vulnerable to charges of perjury; committee Democrats had protested the decision by Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) not to swear in the executives. But a person can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years for making "any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation" to Congress.
Alan Huffman, who was a Conoco manager until the 2002 merger with Phillips, confirmed meeting with the task force staff. "We met in the Executive Office Building, if I remember correctly," he said.
A spokesman for ConocoPhillips said the chief executive, James J. Mulva, had been unaware that Conoco officials met with task force staff when he testified at the hearing. The spokesman said that Mulva was chief executive of Phillips in 2001 before the merger and that nobody from Phillips met with the task force.
Exxon spokesman Russ Roberts said the company stood by chief executive Lee R. Raymond's statement in the hearing. In a brief phone interview, former Exxon vice president James Rouse, the official named in the White House document, denied the meeting took place. "That must be inaccurate and I don't have any comment beyond that," said Rouse, now retired.
Ronnie Chappell, a spokesman for BP, declined to comment on the task force meetings. Darci Sinclair, a spokeswoman for Shell, said she did not know whether Shell officials met with the task force, but they often meet members of the administration. Chevron said its executives did not meet with the task force but confirmed that it sent President Bush recommendations in a letter.
The person familiar with the task force's work, who requested anonymity out of concern about retribution, said the document was based on records kept by the Secret Service of people admitted to the White House complex. This person said most meetings were with Andrew Lundquist, the task force's executive director, and Cheney aide Karen Y. Knutson.
According to the White House document, Rouse met with task force staff members on Feb. 14, 2001. On March 21, they met with Archie Dunham, who was chairman of Conoco. On April 12, according to the document, task force staff members met with Conoco official Huffman and two officials from the U.S. Oil and Gas Association, Wayne Gibbens and Alby Modiano.
On April 17, task force staff members met with Royal Dutch/Shell Group's chairman, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, Shell Oil chairman Steven Miller and two others. On March 22, staff members met with BP regional president Bob Malone, chief economist Peter Davies and company employees Graham Barr and Deb Beaubien.
Toward the end of the hearing, Lautenberg asked the five executives: "Did your company or any representatives of your companies participate in Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001?" When there was no response, Lautenberg added: "The meeting . . . "
"No," said Raymond.
"No," said Chevron Chairman David J. O'Reilly.
"We did not, no," Mulva said.
"To be honest, I don't know," said BP America chief executive Ross Pillari, who came to the job in August 2001. "I wasn't here then."
