brief summary of Democrat complicity.
It shall be noted loudly that the set-up for 9-11 did precede the Bush admin, and that the elements within BILL CLINTON's admin (at some level, probably Bill himself) also actively worked to hamstring investigations of "al-Qaida", the money trail, etc., long after al-Qaida was declared an enemy, long after the Kenya and Nairobi bombings were allowed to go ahead, even after the Marines were blown up on the USS Cole, (and that investigation was thwarted too).
I blame Clinton because for one --- it's true -- and two --- bleating trained-seal "pseudo-conservatives" cannot hear you criticize George W. Bush unless you say "Bill Clinton".So "Bill Clinton" "Bill Clinton" "Bill Clinton": Complicit in 9-11. Satisfied? (and not like the Road to 911 story of incompetence and lax attitude excuse, I'm talking 'complicit', along with the Bush admin)
Al Gore, the Origins of a Hypocrite from the liberal Counterpunch.
Gore established himself early on as "safe" from the point of view of the Pentagon and the national security complex. Safety meant never straying off the reservation on such issues as America's right to intervene anywhere it chooses.
At a time when many Democrats wanted to restrict the CIA's ability to undertake covert actions, Gore said he wouldn't "hesitate to overthrow a government with covert actions", a posture he ratified with his approval of the CIA's secret war in Afghanistan. This, the largest covert operation in the Agency's history, ultimately saddled Afghanistan with the Taliban fundamentalists, destroyers of cities, stoners of women, harborers of Bin Laden and overseers of that country's rise in status to the eminence of world's largest exporter of opium and heroin to the United States and Europe.
Try this too: John
Kerry, head of Senate
Insider or disconnected? You decide. "John Kerry" "John
Kerry" "John Kerry".
details on (above)
Staunch Dems of course make him a hero over it.
LESSON: If you might be in trouble, make sure the investigator/prosecutor has "got your back", is an ally.
The Bank of Credit and Commerce International was described as "not really a bank" but an Intelligence outfit like the "CIA plus capital flows/international drug trade/arms/terror money-laundering operation". It was reportedly founded by Richard Helms of the CIA, NOT Pakistan ... which would make sense that Pakistan couldn't swing this alone.
Kerry seemed to be acting as a Democratic "spin-control" operative, protecting Dem heavyweight Clark Clifford, plus protecting Poppy Bush, Ollie North, and dozens of related associates from more serious charges criminal charges, like TREASON? That appears to be the case. Motivations in Mena/Iran-Contra
One viewpoint is Kerry et. al. held back on exposing BCCI earlier during Iran-Contra, until after all "important" players got their money out, and then the damage control prosecution was safe. Schoenman says Kerry fired his top BCCI investigator just days before receiving a large donation from Clark Clifford, long-term Democratic operative.
In trying to cut Kerry a little (undeserved) slack, Kerry HAD to be at minimum a "team player" to even BE in that politics game. Also, this crowd successfully offed JFK for stuff that did not involve criminal prosecution for treason ... so this was potentially very dangerous to Kerry's longevity, if you want to assume he wasn't a team player from the get-go. MORE on mixed page 3
JOHN KERRY NEVER MENTIONED DURING HIS CAMPAIGN THAT HE ONCE INVESTIGATED and sought to PROSECUTE members of BUSH'S CABINET FOR HIGH LEVEL TREASON INVOLVING an AL-QAEDA terrorist money-laundering operation.
SINCE ONLY TINY SECTOR OF HISTORY-and-POLICY WONKS already UNDERSTOOD WHAT BCCI WAS ABOUT (I myself only learned during and after the campaign), DIDN'T JOHN KERRY DO AMERICA A GREAT DISSERVICE BY NOT EXPLAINING the BCCI and AL-QAEDA link, WHEN HE HAD EVERYONE'S ATTENTION?
WOULDN'T IT HAVE INCREASED HIS CHANCES IMMENSELY IF VOTERS LEARNED THAT THE CURRENT WHITE HOUSE WAS DEEPLY IN BED WITH AL-QAEDA'S TERRORIST BANK??
More on Kerry 2004 below
Quiz on the candidates
defenders of Lord
Bush (hilarious video)
refuse to look at forensic and
circumstantial evidence, and evaluate it's merit, but instead leap to
insults and knee-jerk defenses, as
is their strange
religion, Bush is the cult
leader, and every critic a blasphemer.
point out with a
childish mentality that "Clinton screwed
up too" by "failing" (failing??)
to go after Osama,
the Satanic monster. (Now Bush says he's not interested in
finding Osama either.)
BEST BOOK ON TERRORISM, Osamagate
Bill Clinton's complicity in "Osamagate", working with Al-Qaida in Kosovo, backing the Muslim Kosovo Liberation Army was the topic of a Congressional report in 1997 by the Republican Party Committee.
documented (but not publicly revealed) by Republican Party Committee Kosovo report
EDIT: WARNING: This account of the KLA being a Muslim terrorist group is disputed here. Green Left - Chossudovsky's frame-up of the KLA The author claims rather that the KLA is a small, libertation movement without a lot of resources which happened to also use some money from some so-called terrorist funding sources who gave them support. Less complicit than the CIA itself, in other words, but a legit defense against Milosevic and Serbian aggression, US violence and imperialist interests notwithstanding. This viewpoint was previously echoed by a personal friend, union activist, who is personally familiar with the situation in the Balkans and visited there.
Regardless, the remainder, about US collaboration with various Al-Qaeda forces seems relevant, in whatever context. Such collaboration was reported by the Macedonian Prime Minister.
The report never led to impeachment ... instead Republicans and the corp-controlled media went after the Whitewater and Monica smokescreens. Bombing Yugoslavia was not a wag-the-dog to cover up Monica. The fake "Monica scandal" covered up Clinton's war crimes and atrocities.
So something is wrong. Either the Republican report is TRUE, or the Republican report is completely false.
In any case, Top Republicans told a disappointed Schippers that Clinton would keep his job, i.e. that the impeachment was to be kept to a politically damaging show trial.
we were to
Bush at his word about "those who support terrorists", Bill Clinton should
be in Guantanimo for supporting terrorists. Or course Bush protected his family
friend Luis Posada, an anti-Castro Cuban terrorist who shot a passenger
plane full of Cuban students out of the sky. So Bush should place
himself in Guantanimo.
Instead Bill Clinton is golfing with W's daddy, and having dinner with his mom. Shouldn't we warn them?
EDIT: I would more accurately state that the Pentagon and CIA, consistently, under several administrations, continued their support for Radical Islam for destabilization purposes, begun under Jimmy Carter.
Ah, but then the Bush admin was supporting Al-Qaida-based terrorists in Macedonia in 2001, as was Poppy in 1980's. According to "The Washington Times," "The Canberra Times," (Australia) "The Charleston Gazette," and numerous other publications, Osama Bin Laden and co. were directly involved in pro-American "terrorist" organizations in Bosnia, Kosovo, (KLA) and Macedonia -right up until the summer of 2001 ... de-stabilization.
EVERYTHING MORALLY WRONG WITH IRAQ WAR WAS WRONG WITH BOMBING THE BALKANS, and there are many parallel lies and fraudulent justifications. Regardless who was more to blame, the Serbian aggression or Kosovars trying to break away, the US-NATO action of bombing civilians and civilian infrastructure on both sides, moves designed to break the country, and to force it into the hands of the IMF's austerity measures and World Bank edicts, was NOT in any way an act of justice or mercy.
DETAILS ON Clinton's War (by me, GG)
including real and fake conservative outcry
BUT, The Pentagon and CIA was collaborating directly with Al Qaeda barely a few weeks before 9/11 ... and beyond 2001 in Chechnya.
One would, therefore, expect that the CIA were fully informed on the activities and whereabouts of their "intelligence assets". - Michel Chossudovsky
these are probably THE two most important geopolitical articles on the whole topic:
also this duplicity (from "Israel" on Page-1):
While President Clinton was trying to broker an elusive peace between Israelis and Palestinians, the FBI was secretly funneling money to suspected Hamas figures, run out of the FBI's Phoenix office in cooperation with Israeli intelligence and approved by Attorney General Janet Reno.
Kerry HELPING Bush 43 win
John Kerry never mentioned one time in his campaign that the guys he prosecuted for treason (essentially) once worked for Bush 41, and now Bush 43 has put them back into positions of power and responsibility. If Kerry really prosecuted them -- and he was really trying to be president -- why didn't he point this out?
Few understood BCCI at the time. I didn't. But if Kerry had said "I once prosecuted the American branch of the Bank of Al-Qaeda as hard as I could. Poppy Bush pardoned some of them criminals, and now Junior put them back in the charge", I think people would get that now!
John Kerry could have also responded to the Swift Boat arguments by pointing out the information in the new (non-Kerry) documentary Sir, No Sir which catalogued the mayhem as Vietnam Veterans flocked to FTA (Fuck the Army) conventions/shows featuring Jane Fonda on stage supporting the many dissident troops, and US soldiers began refusing orders to fight in Vietnam, fragging their officers, and finally the Air Force began refusing to fly.
Kerry, as a mere spokesperson for the Winter Soldier conferences did not 'accuse' soldiers of atrocities, but instead he cited soldiers themselves testifying about atrocities they participated in or watched, and the guilt they shared over that. This is not an uncommon story. The same stories of guilt and shame are emerging from the Iraq War. Young men can be trained to be killers, and to obey orders, but it's difficult to live with, for most people.
But Kerry never clarified to his critics that he actually stood WITH the TROOPS, a whole lot of dissident troops, AGAINST the out-of-touch politicians and generals. Politicians like Kissinger who referred to soldiers as "stupid animals".
My suspicion is that John Kerry, a member of Skull and Bones at Yale (also Bush's fraternity) from where high-level CIA agents are routinely hand-picked, rather than being a real "Jane Fonda" dissident who stood with the working class, was actually employed freelance at some point by CIA to infiltrate the potentially-volatile Winter Soldier Movement. At Dewey Canyon III, a protest in DC, several veterans threatened that the next hill they would charge would be the Capitol steps. A half-million angry men, recently trained to kill and trained to die for a cause, is more dangerous than angry civilian peace activists. Kerry's task would be to manage and neutralize severe violence by first reporting it to his handlers and then channeling the percolating hostility into Congressional hearings where Senators and Congressmen could listen to testimony by Kerry and others ... so they would feel heard. This would buy the government time, and would create the appearance of a justification at high level to implement withdrawal.
There's many other honest proven meaty and substantial criticisms about Bush which Kerry FAILED to mention, holding back all the time.
"I think Bush's re-election took the steam out of the anti-war movement," said New York activist Michael Letwin.
Which is precisely what Kerry's pied piper, alternative candidacy pretence was intended to achieve. The Kerry presidential bid co-opted anti-war sentiment; diverted resistance from anti-war protest to pro-Kerry canvassing; and then disenchanted the opposition to the war when their 'hero" fell without substantially challenging the "stolen election."
Diverting raw activism into election processes and other pointless political 'busywork' has long been considered a tactic of control.
The election wasn't really stolen. It's not theft if you hand your DVD player to a thief and fail to report anything to the police. That harsh reality is only recently dawning on Kerry's more stalwart supporters. We deserve better than "anyone-but-Bush".
continued from link above: However, voting for Kerry was rewarding in some ways. The sheer size of Kerry's winning margin had the U.S. establishment pulling out all the stops to conceal the actual outcome of the election. And the resulting hoopla forced the election fraud issue onto the floors of the U.S. Houses of Congress and into the political awareness of millions of anti-establishment voters.
Although a majority of the left wing were indeed disillusioned (as planned by the U.S. elite), a very significant minority were disillusioned in a different way. They lost any remaining illusions they had about the false political choices offered by the mainstream parties.
In truth, the establishment runs all major political movements in the USA. From the Republicans to Nader. From the Democrats and Greens to the gun-totin' patriots. It's the best democracy money can buy, USA-style.
John Kerry's lasting legacy in American politics will be as the willing enabler of the destruction of Fallujah (a city 300,000 had called home) and the slaughter of around 6,000 mostly civillian inhabitants. Kerry's slick electoral Hari-Kari created the opening. The U.S. military drove through the gap, while a numbed and PsyOp'ed U.S. and world population flailed around trying to understand what had just happened.