Friday 31 August 2007

Man claims key Lockerbie evidence was faked

Another classic example of a False Flag operation. Regularly codshit commentator Trowbridge Ford has written some excellent articles on this affair.

A Swiss businessman on Monday claimed that a key piece of evidence in the Lockerbie trial was faked, following a French press report that one of his employees had lied to Scottish investigators.

Edwin Bollier, head of the Swiss-based Mebo group, told reporters that one of his employees had supplied Scottish investigators with a stolen timing device, which was then presented in the trial as having been found amidst the plane's wreckage.

Mebo makes electronic equipment for the security forces.

In fact, Mebo employee Ulrich Lumpert has now admitted that the device he handed over to Scottish investigators was one he himself had stolen from the company, rather than part of a batch delivered to Libya in the 1980s.

"The exhibits were manipulated and used to make a link between Libya and the attack," Bollier told reporters.

Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over the Scottish town of Lockerbie in December 1988, killing 270 people in what was Britain's worst terrorist atrocity.

Former Libyan intelligence officer Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al-Megrahi was convicted by a trio of Scottish judges sitting in a special court in the Netherlands in 2001 of being behind the blast, and was jailed for a total of 27 years.

Lumpert was also a witness at Megrahi's trial.

Monday's edition of Le Figaro reported that he had now gone back on his story in a sworn declaration to a Zurich court.

"I stole a prototype MST-13 timing device... Gave it without permission on June 22, 1989, to a person who was officially investigating the Lockerbie affair," Lumpert said in the new statement, Le Figaro reported.

"When I realised that the MST-13 had been used ill-advisedly, I decided to stay silent, as it could have been extremely dangerous for me," he added.

Lumpert did not explain the motives behind his actions.

Full story...

Thursday 30 August 2007

George Bush Porno Art

Look very closely at the picture and you'll see. Utterly totally fabulously brilliant. Give the man a medal and million quid!

Full story...

Robert Fisk: Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11

The questions are finally starting to hit powerful mainstream commentators like Fisk. It's taken long enough! There is a good critique of the piece located here which does a point-by-point breakdown. I must say that I would rather have Fisk raising questions that others might hear than blindly supporting the "official story", even if he doesn't get it completely straight it's quite a big leap for him to even be saying what he's saying. The "incompetance" theory is one I hear a lot, people seem to think the US government is too stoopid to organise something like this, I don't buy it, that is exactly what they want us to think! Bush may be the biggest moron on the planet but Cheney isn't, and Cheney has an overactive evil gene so I would not put it past him!

Each time I lecture abroad on the Middle East, there is always someone in the audience – just one – whom I call the "raver". Apologies here to all the men and women who come to my talks with bright and pertinent questions – often quite humbling ones for me as a journalist – and which show that they understand the Middle East tragedy a lot better than the journalists who report it. But the "raver" is real. He has turned up in corporeal form in Stockholm and in Oxford, in Sao Paulo and in Yerevan, in Cairo, in Los Angeles and, in female form, in Barcelona. No matter the country, there will always be a "raver".

His – or her – question goes like this. Why, if you believe you're a free journalist, don't you report what you really know about 9/11? Why don't you tell the truth – that the Bush administration (or the CIA or Mossad, you name it) blew up the twin towers? Why don't you reveal the secrets behind 9/11? The assumption in each case is that Fisk knows – that Fisk has an absolute concrete, copper-bottomed fact-filled desk containing final proof of what "all the world knows" (that usually is the phrase) – who destroyed the twin towers. Sometimes the "raver" is clearly distressed. One man in Cork screamed his question at me, and then – the moment I suggested that his version of the plot was a bit odd – left the hall, shouting abuse and kicking over chairs.

Usually, I have tried to tell the "truth"; that while there are unanswered questions about 9/11, I am the Middle East correspondent of The Independent, not the conspiracy correspondent; that I have quite enough real plots on my hands in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Iran, the Gulf, etc, to worry about imaginary ones in Manhattan. My final argument – a clincher, in my view – is that the Bush administration has screwed up everything – militarily, politically diplomatically – it has tried to do in the Middle East; so how on earth could it successfully bring off the international crimes against humanity in the United States on 11 September 2001?

Well, I still hold to that view. Any military which can claim – as the Americans did two days ago – that al-Qa'ida is on the run is not capable of carrying out anything on the scale of 9/11. "We disrupted al-Qa'ida, causing them to run," Colonel David Sutherland said of the preposterously code-named "Operation Lightning Hammer" in Iraq's Diyala province. "Their fear of facing our forces proves the terrorists know there is no safe haven for them." And more of the same, all of it untrue.

Within hours, al-Qa'ida attacked Baquba in battalion strength and slaughtered all the local sheikhs who had thrown in their hand with the Americans. It reminds me of Vietnam, the war which George Bush watched from the skies over Texas – which may account for why he this week mixed up the end of the Vietnam war with the genocide in a different country called Cambodia, whose population was eventually rescued by the same Vietnamese whom Mr Bush's more courageous colleagues had been fighting all along.

But – here we go. I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11. It's not just the obvious non sequiturs: where are the aircraft parts (engines, etc) from the attack on the Pentagon? Why have the officials involved in the United 93 flight (which crashed in Pennsylvania) been muzzled? Why did flight 93's debris spread over miles when it was supposed to have crashed in one piece in a field? Again, I'm not talking about the crazed "research" of David Icke's Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster – which should send any sane man back to reading the telephone directory.

I am talking about scientific issues. If it is true, for example, that kerosene burns at 820C under optimum conditions, how come the steel beams of the twin towers – whose melting point is supposed to be about 1,480C – would snap through at the same time? (They collapsed in 8.1 and 10 seconds.) What about the third tower – the so-called World Trade Centre Building 7 (or the Salmon Brothers Building) – which collapsed in 6.6 seconds in its own footprint at 5.20pm on 11 September? Why did it so neatly fall to the ground when no aircraft had hit it? The American National Institute of Standards and Technology was instructed to analyse the cause of the destruction of all three buildings. They have not yet reported on WTC 7. Two prominent American professors of mechanical engineering – very definitely not in the "raver" bracket – are now legally challenging the terms of reference of this final report on the grounds that it could be "fraudulent or deceptive".

Where Fisk Goes Wrong About 9/11
"Noooooooo, Robert Fisk. Don't go down the black hole!!!"

Full story...

Wednesday 29 August 2007

The Voice of the White House - August 26, 2007

Big Brother is watching, and I don't mean that half-wit moron you see on TV!!!

White House staff members are informed that they are not to use any AT&T, SBC or AOL system to send any messages dealing with official issues. Why is this? Because these entities report directly to government agencies, giving them, on a strictly voluntary basis, reams of information on their subscribers to include taped conversations, records of incoming and outgoing calls and, most especially any incoming or outgoing calls from outside the United States. These firms volunteered to supply governmental agencies with all of this information and, in some cases, have permitted government agents to operate freely inside their facilities.

Also, it is well known here that the search engine, Google, regularly and again, voluntarily, supplies the government identifying material on persons seeking information on subjects the government has decreed are ‘of interest.’ This includes the obvious subjects such as al-Quaeda, smart bombs, or nerve gasses but also includes any subject that might be considered anti-administration in general and anti-Bush and Cheney in specific.

Although there has been some public discussion of this volunteer spying, it is continuing even as we speak and it is known in the trade that no federal prosecutions will ensue as a result of their illegal actions. Many American businesses, such as the huge California-based Bank of America, regularly cooperate with the DHS in conducting illegal searches of their depositor’s accounts and, especially, their safe deposit boxes.

It is a common joke inside the Beltway that many DHS employees are sporting very nice gold watches as a result of these clandestine operations.

Full story...

Britain murdered 10 million people in India Holocaust and thinks the world will forget

This is the first I've heard of it, typical really. It wouldn't suprise me, the UK has the most evil ruling class in the world!

India's secret history: 'A holocaust, one where millions disappeared...'

Author says British reprisals involved the killing of 10m, spread over 10 years

A controversial new history of the Indian Mutiny, which broke out 150 years ago and is acknowledged to have been the greatest challenge to any European power in the 19th century, claims that the British pursued a murderous decade-long campaign to wipe out millions of people who dared rise up against them.

In War of Civilisations: India AD 1857, Amaresh Misra, a writer and historian based in Mumbai, argues that there was an "untold holocaust" which caused the deaths of almost 10 million people over 10 years beginning in 1857. Britain was then the world's superpower but, says Misra, came perilously close to losing its most prized possession: India.

Conventional histories have counted only 100,000 Indian soldiers who were slaughtered in savage reprisals, but none have tallied the number of rebels and civilians killed by British forces desperate to impose order, claims Misra.

The author says he was surprised to find that the "balance book of history" could not say how many Indians were killed in the aftermath of 1857. This is remarkable, he says, given that in an age of empires, nothing less than the fate of the world hung in the balance.

"It was a holocaust, one where millions disappeared. It was a necessary holocaust in the British view because they thought the only way to win was to destroy entire populations in towns and villages. It was simple and brutal. Indians who stood in their way were killed. But its scale has been kept a secret," Misra told the Guardian.

His calculations rest on three principal sources. Two are records pertaining to the number of religious resistance fighters killed - either Islamic mujahideen or Hindu warrior ascetics committed to driving out the British.

The third source involves British labour force records, which show a drop in manpower of between a fifth and a third across vast swaths of India, which as one British official records was "on account of the undisputed display of British power, necessary during those terrible and wretched days - millions of wretches seemed to have died."

There is a macabre undercurrent in much of the correspondence. In one incident Misra recounts how 2m letters lay unopened in government warehouses, which, according to civil servants, showed "the kind of vengeance our boys must have wreaked on the abject Hindoos and Mohammadens, who killed our women and children."

Misra's casualty claims have been challenged in India and Britain. "It is very difficult to assess the extent of the reprisals simply because we cannot say for sure if some of these populations did not just leave a conflict zone rather than being killed," said Shabi Ahmad, head of the 1857 project at the Indian Council of Historical Research. "It could have been migration rather than murder that depopulated areas."

Many view exaggeration rather than deceit in Misra's calculations. A British historian, Saul David, author of The Indian Mutiny, said it was valid to count the death toll but reckoned that it ran into "hundreds of thousands".

"It looks like an overestimate. There were definitely famines that cost millions of lives, which were exacerbated by British ruthlessness. You don't need these figures or talk of holocausts to hammer imperialism. It has a pretty bad track record."

Full story...

Tuesday 28 August 2007

The Quintessential 'False Flag' Operation

by Trowbridge H. Ford

Deceptive aka 'false flag' operations by real or potential combatants are almost as old as spying itself. While spying was originally intended to find out what other parties, enemies and possible ones, were doing, and planning, it wasn't long before participants in such matters were trying to fool other parties about what was happening, and who was responsible for it. Assassinations of opponents or potential competitors were almost immediately added to the mix of possible means of gaining the upper hand either at home or abroad. As human organizations became increasingly bigger, and better organized, culiminating in the formation of states of one sort or another, the opportunities for all these activities, especially 'false flag' operations, became even more desireable and effective. Their numerous bureaucracies became targets of choice to infiltrate in order to deceive a real or possible enemy of one's real aims, methods, and agents. The ideal operations, 'false flag' ones, are to make one's opponents or allies think that a third party is responsible for what you really are doing, so much so that it does your dirty work for you - whether it be taking some kind of action against them, changing their whole strategy for dealing with a problem, or simply getting rid of the biggest impediment to whatever you want.

The great trouble in researching such projects is that they are almost impossible to discover if carried out properly. It is only the failed, imaginary, and minor ones that we are sure about. The Lavon Affair - where Iraeli intelligence was discovered to be behind the bombing of an American consulate in Egypt, not Arabs, thanks to the premature explosion of one of them which permitted the capture of one of Tel Aviv's agents - certainly is a good example of a failed 'false flag' operation. Then the Trojan Horse Affair, the alleged grand daddy of all 'false flag' operations, is the leading example of imaginary ones, unless one is prepared to believe what Homer wrote in The Iliad, and Virgil in the Aeneid. It seems much more likely poetic fancy about an earthquake rather than the Trojans being the first suckers of Greeks bearing gifts.

And then there are lesser actions, like the KGB, it seems, blowing up apartments in Russia during the second Chechan War to secure Vladimir Putin's election, and now the killing of Alexander Litvineniko to secure the election of a hand-picked successor. And then there are all kinds of lesser 'false flag' claims about British Q-boat operations during the WWI against German U-boats, how the Japanese managed to instigate expanding wars in the Far East during the 1930s, and Reinhard Heydrich's dirty tricks at Poland's expense to start WWII, and Otto Skorzeny's last-dtich efforts against the Americans in the Battle of the Bulge to keep it going during its last days - what seem to be true but lack the crucial strategic component which would make them the genuine article.

Of course, when there really is a most successful 'false flag' operation in progress, its victims are hardly in a position to even recognize it, much less stop it, and do something dramatic in response for fear of the consequences. It's hard enough to get anyone to change their mind about anything, much less about a matter of national security about which they are charging madly off in the wrong direction to suit the interests of an enemy or an ally of dubious trust. And once the operation is over, the victim is hardly in a position to acknowledge it, much less react in any serious way. The failure is just too embarrassing for the injured state to admit, so it just acts as it were not in any way responsible for what happened, and goes on as if everything is okay. The only exception to this general rule is when a great power is injured by lesser ones - like when Britain, Israel, and France deceived the USA about what was happening in the Suez during the 1956 war, and what gave the USSR the excuse to reciprocate in kind when the Hungarian uprising proved to be more than Moscow had bargained for.

There is also a pervasive scepticism against such operations in the West because their whole rationale runs counter to the basic empiricism one follows in observing, and explaining what happens in the world - logical analysis. While philosphy was slowly ridding itself of ancient pretensions of a religious and mathematical nature by generally following the maxim of Occam's razor - if something in the world can be explained without asssuming some hypothetical entity of either a secular or sacred nature is somehow responsible for it, then there is no reason for using the assumption - the idea that man, as he developed more and more complicated forms of human existence, would deliberately go to the great lengths to deceive others about what was really going on was an anathema. When one attempts to explain such operations to normal people, they almost invariably give a conditioned reflex of contempt, complaining about another "conspiracy theory".

Given this seemingly irrational basis of 'false flag' operations, it was hardly surprising that the Bolsheviks, a tiny group of revolutionaries in the vast Russian empire, quickly resorted to them when it started collapsing in 1917.´The only hope they had of seizing power was that the Great Powers would so destabilize the country through demands for action, and intrusions when it didn't happen that they could fill the power vacuums which ensued. It was as if the idealism that political philosophers like Hegel had predicted for Europe after the Napoleonic Wars - what Karl Marx had completely reversed for the benefit of the urban proletariat, and Lenin had tailored to fit the capabilities of his vanguard - had been completely stood on its head again by bands of rootless revolutionaries. Stealth had replaced the dictates of reason.

In this most fluid environment, it was hardly surprising that Feliks Dzerzhinsky's craftiness soon resulted in the creation of the Cheka, the Bolsheviks' first intelligence and security agency. Its primary mission was to infiltrate all the enemies, domestic and foreign, and destroy them by any means. During the civil war, it destroyed the many conspiracies that Western governments connived against them. The most important one was the Lockhart plot, organized by the leading British diplomat in Russia, Robert Bruce Lockhart, the War Office's George Hill, Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) agent Paul Dukes, and the French counsul-general, and led by SIS agent Sidney Reilly, which planned to so infiltrate the Bolshevik leadership that it could assassinate Lenin and others. The plot was given 1,200,000 roubles - a mighty sum that rogue agents could not have cobbled together - to create so many threats against the Soviet leaders that the Cheka would be unable to counter them all.

The plot managed to kill the Cheka head in Petrograd, Trotsky's friend Moisei Uritsky, on August 17, 1918, and two weeks later Fanny Kaplan nearly killed Lenin. Reilly had given the money to Cheka agent Colonel Eduard Berzin of the Latvian Special Light Artillery Division to whom Lockhart assigned
the task of assassinating Lenin, but he used it to finance Lenin's strategic plans rather than providing for his security. This gave bitter Social Revolutionaries, especially Kaplan, the chance they needed to settle scores with the treacherous Bolsheviks who had siezed power at the expense of the Constituent Assembly that they controlled. Besides, Kaplan was hardly seen as a threat since she could barely see, as the assassination demonstrated when she only managed to hit Lenin in the jaw, and shoulder with three shots fired at almost point blank range - leading conspiracy theorists, like ín the assassination of RFK in LA a half century later, to suspect that another shooter was involved.

Dzerzhinsky responded by rounding up all the conspirators who Berzin and fellow agent Yan Buikis had identified in the 'envoys' plot', and had urged on by false claims of support with the money that the plotters had supplied - what instigated the wounded Lenin to call for a campaign of terror aka the Red Terror against the Bolsheviks' opponents, starting with Hill's whole assassination network. From 1918 until 1920, the Cheka used its new powers of summary justice to eliminate much opposition to the Bolshevics, especially among landowning class. It brought home to every individual in the area that they could suffer the same fate as the Tsar's family met in that cellar in Ekaterinburg if circumstances so required. The culmination of this whole process occurred seven years later when the OGPU, the Cheka's successor, created so successfully The Trust, ostensibly a White Russian opposition group, to infiltrate pro-monarchist émigré groups, that Reilly, who had escaped the backlash to Lenin's assassination, was persuaded to meet its leaders back in Russia, while serving in Finland, where he was executed.

While the Bolshevik consolidation of power in the Soviet Union led to a decease in the use of 'false flag' operations, though there were still aspects of them during the Great Terror when all of Stalin's opponents were branded as traitors of some sort, working for foreign powers. As for Berzin, during the Spanish civil war when he was a military intelligence advisor working for the republicans to consolidate power in the hands of the communists, he ended up sounding and acting like a Trotskyist rather than a Trust man in his dealing with Catalan anarchists and syndicalists, leading to his recall to Moscow, and his own execution. And when the Soviets again managed to expand their power during the end of WWII, they did infiltrate agents into more émigré groups, but their efforts proved unnecessary, given the presence of the Red Army and Beria's security network. Stalin never trusted his immediate subordinates enough to allow real 'false flag' operations for fear that he would be their first target.

It was only after Nikita Khrushchev consolidated power after The Boss's apparent murder that 'false flag' efforts became again real possibilities. Once Khrushchev had cut down the KGB, Red Army, and the bureaucracy to size, the Party's General Secretary thought seriously of using them to expand the communist world, especially after American intelligence agencies started exploring their use in preventing it. To head the KGB after General Ivan Serov was exposed for having stolen the Belgian crown during its Smersh clean-up of Germany after the collapse of the Nazis, he chose Alexander Shelepin, the most ambitious head of the Young Communist League, to be its new director, making the security service the closest instrument of the CPSU. Shelepin saw the post as the ideal stepping stone for becoming the chief himself.

Shelepin's plan was based upon the comings and goings of ex-Marine Lee Harvey Oswald, of all people! Oswald was an eager beaver, despite all the trashing of him after it proved necessary to make him JFK's assassin, who avidly studied Russian while in the service in California, got hooked up with the CIA's U-2 progam while stationed in Japan when it was trying to provoke some kind of showdown with the Soviets, and was "recruited from the military," former Agency finance officer James Wilcott testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978, "for the express purpose of becoming a double agent assignment to the USSR." (Quoted from Anthony Summers, The Kennedy Conspiracy, p. 129.) Victor Marchetti led Summers to believe that Oswald had been part of the Office of Naval Intelligence's program to use fake defectors, some three dozen or so, to infiltrate Soviet security services for various purposes.

By the time Oswald arrived in the Soviet Union in October 1959, Washington was still suffering from a "wave of near-hysteria" because the successful orbiting of the earth by Sputnik I two years earlier, fearing that the Soviets would have 10 ICBMs operational by then, and radarman Oswald was to determine if this were true by apparently divulging what the U-2s were capable of doing during their overflights of the USSR. Moreover, William King Harvey, its 'Executive Action' director, had apparently had Charles Siragusa aka QJ/WIN of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics recruit Oswald as a covert assassin just in case this most unlikely one - a person with no criminal record, had not worked for any US gov't agency, and was free to travel as he pleased - could work his way so into Moscow's confidence that he could bag someone like Shelepin or Nikita himself with little possiblity of blowback at the Agency's expense.

If this were the case, Harvey's known effforts to assassinate Fidel Castro by known underworld figures - Antonio de Varona, underlings of Johnny Rosselli, Santos Trafficante, and Sam Giancanna, etc. - could have been mere diversions to protect the identity of more deadly assassins, like Oswald, for more serious game as the destruction of the Cuban leader and its most shaky regime seemed just a matter of time by either some clownish murder or by an anti-Castro invasion. While still a Marine, Oswald showed most unusual interest in the Cuban revolution, writing to the Cuban Embassy, visiting its consulate in LA, and apparently meeting Cuban diplomats on several occasions - so much so that the CIA apparently created a false Cuban file on him . This was all apparently done to fool Cuban counter intelligence about who Oswald, and what his mission was. But events proved it was far better than the Agency and its allies ever expected in getting things straight, starting with Oswald's mission to Moscow.

Oswald's two and one/half years in the USSR, especially after the settlement of Gary Powers' problems, have been brushed over with surprising quickness in almost all accounts, and it seems because he so failed in his mission that Western intelligence agencies suspected that the KGB had made him into a double agent. No sooner had Oswald turned in his passport to the American Embassy in Moscow three weeks after he arrived than the Soviets started treating him as a most prized possession, giving him all he could reasonably expect in Minsk from the workers' paradise - even a pretty wife with close intelligence connections - in return for all the information he could provide about the Agency's U-2 flights. He, it seems, told the KGB how the spy plane could be shot down despite its being out of range on any Soviet anti-aircraft weapon, and the Agency arranged for this to happen before Powers left from Pakistan, having the engine 'flameout' as he reported while the plane was approaching Sverdlovsk during the May Day celebrations.

The only trouble with the ruse was that Powers survived the crash - what was not supposed to happen since the plane had self-destruct mechanisms if it either crashed or was shot down - and told his Soviet captors all about it in the hope of being exchanged after a deceptive trial - what happened
nearly two years later when he was returned to the States for the prized Soviet spy, Colonel Rudolf Abel. The shooting down of the unauthorized flight was just to give substance to the false American claims about a 'missile gap', but Powers, of course, then and later in a book, was most willing to make out that Oswald's information, especially "something of a special interest" (Quoted from Anthony Summers, The Kennedy Conspiracy, p. 174.), was responsible for the Soviets somehow shooting down the U-2. Powers then claimed that Oswald was probably observing his interrogations, and making sugggestions as to how to proceed!

Of course, if this were true, why would Oswald then have asked the American Embassy to return his passport, as he wanted to return home? Oswald would certainly have seen his status in the Soviet Union improved if he had had any serious role in the shooting down of the U-2. The Soviets, though, were not permitting him to go anywhere until the Powers affair was settled for fear that he could ruin it, once back in the States. It was while Oswald was in this limbo that he was suspected by Soviet authorities of spying for Washington, and apparently tried most feebly to commit suicide in the hope of forcing Moscow's hand about his case. It finally agreed to the Oswalds returning to Lee's home town, Fort Worth in Texas, with money Uncle Sam provided with no questions asked, as the Cuban Missile Crisis started shaping up. On June 10, 1962, the Presidium of the CPSU voted unaminously in favor of Marshal Malinovsky's Operation Anadyr, the plan to place nuclear-armed MRBMs and cruise missiles on Castro's Cuba.

Meanwhile, Shelepin's KGB learned from a NATO liaison officer within CIA that while the Soviets did not have enough nuclear missiles to destroy all its stragetic bases, the USA had the capability to destroy the Soviet ones with its bomber forces, but the window of opportunity was rapidly closing - what Powers' U-2 flight indicated preparation for, and what rendered Oswald's apparent input mere Western deceptions. There were also an uncorroborated claims from Cuba that the USA was planning to overthrow Castro's regime by an invasion. To counter these threats - what the Red Chinese were making more pointed by supporting calls for wars of national liberation throughout the Third World - Khrushchev declared that Cuba was covered by the Soviet nuclear umbrella, and started shipping modern weapons to the island bridgehead for its defense - what the CIA had helped trigger by blowing up the Belgian arms shipment on La Coubre in Havana harbor the previous March.

Still, the Soviets were having second thoughts about supporting the Cuban revolution since it was so far away, so expensive, and of such little strategic importance to Moscow. While the Soviets could hit America with its ICBMs if war broke out, it was a far more difficult matter to develop communism there, and in the surrounding Americas, especially since the Cuban leaders were so pushy about what was required. The island really only made sense as a pawn in the Cold War struggle, something to be sacrificed for something closer to home, like Berlin, if the Americans decided on some kind of showdown in the Carribbean. Moscow just had to support Castro enough for ideological purposes in order to keep up with the Red Chinese, as the most limited budget the KGB was provided for developing the area demonstrated.

In this context, the growing importance of Moscow's leading spy in the West, MI5's Peter Wright, became increasingly relevant to the solution of the Cuban problem. Thanks to his most eye-catching pursuit of alleged moles, spies, and subversives, he was seen as the manager of the necessary countermeasures to keep matters from getting worse, especially after the Bay of Pigs invasion ended up on the rocks despite the fact that the KGB had failed to supply the necessary counterintelligence to easily defeat it. What Wright had told a five-day conference at Fort Meade in 1959 about how to deal with Colonel Grivas in the solving the Cyprus problem - locate him, isolate him, and neutralize him before seeking any political settlement (Spycatcher, p. 154) - became the CIA's order of the day after Attorney General Robert Kennedy tried to stop all such efforts in October 1961 when Wright repeated the message for Harvey's benefit. (Ibid., p. 145ff.) Without Castro, the message went, there would be no Cuban revolution.

While Harvey then redoubled his efforts to kill the Cuban leader, KGB Major Anatoli Golitsyn defected to the West in order to strengthen Wright's efforts. Of course, the Center went through all the motions that it was most detrimental to its operations - stopping apparently all its current ones temporarily, and assassinations outside the Soviet bloc permanently - and openly condemned his apparent treachery, apparently even putting a price on his head. To gain credibility with his debriefers, Golitsyn did provide the names of some spies who had outlived their usefulness, and leads for identifying some of the serials in encrypted messages. "The KGB, Golitsyn insisted, would send a series of bogus defectors in an attempt to discredit him and his sensational 'revelations'." (Christopher Andrew, For The President's Eyes Only, p. 313)

Golitsyn's most important revelation was that Shelepin was engaged in another Trust aka 'false flag' operation to achieve worldwide, communist control. To achieve this result, Department D was created within the KGB's First Chief Directorate, and it was made operational, once the GRU's Colonel Popov who had helped Wright in the Berlin Tunnel operation, was exposed, and executed. According to Golitsyn before he defected, Shelepin told him that the KGB had "so many sources at its disposal" (Op. cit, p. 205) that it could effect worldwide what Dzerzhinsky had been able to achieve within the USSR. Clearly, Shelepin was alluding to persons like Labour's Harold Wilson, Sweden's Olof Palme, West Germany's Willy Brandt, and many other alleged 'false flag' operatives yet to be determined, but Golitsyn's critics, even Wright himself, stressed the bona fides of subsequent defectors, like Oleg Penkovsky and Yuri Nosenko, and of the Sino-Soviet split rather than the former.

Given this disinformation campaign, the task for Western counterintelligence was to determine who were the real agents of influence aka those waving false flags, the real defectors, the real scope and objectives of the disinformation campaign, the real leaders and regimes the KGB was seriously trying to eliminate, retain, or obtain, etc. The scene for the showdown was set when the Soviets discovered yet more plots to assassinate the three top Cuban leaders (Operation Condor) - what would trigger an invasion by its Latin American neighbors - and a CIA one to kill both Castro and astronaut Yuri Gagarin when he visited Havana after the assassins had shelled the US naval base at Guantánamo Bay from nearby Cuban territory. Shelepin responded by calling for actions in kind in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala, followed by Khrushchev ordering the construction of the Berlin Wall to stem the flood of East Germans to the West.

The culmination of this process, of course, was the Cuban Missile Crisis which was far more problematic than recent historians have made out. While Alexandr Fursenko and Timothy Naftali, for example, have claimed in their book, The Secret History of the Cuban Missile Crisis: 'One Hell of a Gamble' , it was just that from the Soviet point of view, it could have easily turned out far differently if it had not been for President Kennedy, a somewhat ambiguous player in the process up until then. Moscow was so sure that it had nothing to lose by the confrontation that Shelepin left the KGB for a seat on the Presidium so that he would be in a better position to get it to go along with whatever risks cropped up, leaving the management of the intelligence agency of his protégé Vladimir Semichastny. The question was really how JFK would react to the challenge when he fully realized who was involved, and what was at stake.

Up until then, the President had indicated that he was most desirous of keeping up with Khrushchev for thinking that he was somehow a soft touch. JFK had accepted a summit with the Soviet leader only after he had agreed to the Bay of Pigs operation (code name Zapata) going ahead - what completely ruined the only one they ever had in Vienna. Then Kennedy's criticism of the Cuban fiasco sounded to many, especially before the assistance by covert American sources was learned, like he was angry for not having done more for the invasion rather than too much. And the assassination plots against the Cuban leadership, and Operation Mongoose to destroy its infra-structure - whatever role the President had in their origin and scope - hardly seemed like policies based upon the continuance of Castro's regime. Preparing for the military option seemed like the likely result as the ships and munitions aboard them made their way across the Atlantic in Operation Anadyr.

As The Kennedy Tapes show, the President was the most inclined of all officials in the White House Cabinet Room to contain the crisis as much as possible, provided the nuclear.armed MRBMs and tactical ones were somehow taken out of Cuba. In return, the President was willing to give private assurances that the US Jupiter missiles in Turkey would be removed in due course, and that the United States would not invade Cuba - what Khrushchev claimed he had authorized the use of nuclear weapons to prevent - as long as the missiles stayed removed. Once JFK determined what was going on, and what was really at stake in the showdown on an almost hour-by-hour basis, starting on October 16th, he increasingly guided his colleagues about the likely outcome of various strategies, and what should be done. The high point in JFK's leadership occurred on the 27th when he held back his colleagues who wanted to go to war over the shooting down of a U-2 over the island, and over the continued presence of the obsolete Jupiter missiles in Turkey. The non-invasion pledge, though, would be the undoing of both JFK and Khrushchev.

The non-invasion pledge gave Khrushchev the chance to redeem Anadyr if JFK still backed down on the commitment or was killed because of it - provided that Moscow was not seen as responsible for it. It was because of these possibilities that the Presidium allowed Nikita to stay on as its General Secretary. During the Kennedys' Christmas holiday in Palm Beach, the President assured the Joint Chiefs of Staff that Castro's removal was still just a matter of time, and he acted as if it might be quite a short interval when three days later he assured 40,000 Cubans in Miami's Orange Bowl that the flag of Brigade 2506 which led the Bay of Pigs invasion would soon be returning to "a free Havana". Many of those cheering had been released from Cuban jails by ransom aid that the President had paid to the Cuban government. Castro had neither forgiven nor forgotten Nitika's withdrawal of the nuclear-armed missiles from the island without even consulting him.

As time passed, JFK's commitment to Castro's overthrow became increasingly doubted. No sooner was Operation Mongoose ended at the end of 1962 than Oswald, now relocated in Dallas with a job that the CIA's George de Mohrenschildt had arranged, was back in business as a hunter of communist leaders while posing as a rededicated Marxist. The Oswalds sent the employees of the Soviet Embassy in Washington a New Year's greeting, and Marina became pregnant again, hoping that this would induce Soviet authorities to allow them to return so that the seemingly strapped. isolated couple could take advantage of its benefits. To improve Oswald's credentials as a hitman, he purchased with unaccounted funds a revolver and a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, and apparently fired a shot which narrowly missed the retired, rabid, right-wing General Edwin Walker to prove the point - what he apparently commenorated by having Marina take his photo, holding the rifle in his right hand, communist publications in his left, and the revolver strapped at his hip.

In doing all this, Lee was following directions by American intelligence sources who were embroidering upon it. For example, the famous photo, portraying Oswald as a hunter of fascists, which de
Mohrenschildt had a copy of, had an inscription on its back in someone else's handwriting, making fun of the claim. When the car apparently used in mock assassination of General Walker was found near where Officer J. D. Tippitt was killed shortly after the JFK assassination, the photograph of it that Oswald had allegedly taken had the part where the license plate was located removed in order to prevent connecting the assassinations. Then one has to assume that Oswald sent the photograph of his being a hunter of fascists to Soviet and Cuban authorities - it was simply not intended for some family photo album.

If the communist intelligence services were not informed of the double agent's reactivation as the Kennedy administration slowly tighted the screws on the anti-Castro Cubans and their supporters in America's covert government committed to Castro's overthrow, they soon were, as Oswald wrote a letter to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC) in New York City which he had been communicating with since his return from the USSR, stating that he publicly protested in Dallas against American threats to the Cuban regime while passing out their pamphlets to passersbys. He requested more of them. Then the Oswalds moved to New Orleans where they was soon occupied in establishing a FPCC branch, and Lee was demonstrating in July on its docks against the presence
of the aircraft carrier, USS Wasp. More suspicion was aroused by the fact that its office was actually at the same address as that of Guy Bannister Associates, the ex-Bureau agent who had made the building the home of the Cuban Revolutionary Council (CRC).

By this time, Golitsyn and Wright had so fired up America's rabid anti-communists in government about the communist menace that they were beginning to think that the Kennedy administration, especially the President, was part of it too. As the so-called Soviet defector ran out of leads of suspected Soviet spies, the CIA's James Angleton and MI5's Wright gave him free access to their files to refresh his memory of the KGB's in the hope he would determine the real Moscow moles in their midst. And MI5 maintained direct contacts with Hoover and Angleton. In making the case, Soviet Naval Attache Yevgeny Ivanov helped out by bedding the necessary hookers, particularly Christine Keeler and Mariella Novotny, in the sex ring Stephen Ward ran for the Security Service - what brought about the resignation of Britain's War Secretary John Profumo, and later the Macmillan government itself - and Director Hoover amassed a new file on JFK's sexual exploits, code-named 'Bowtie'. (N. B. that he usual wordy Wright had nothing essentially to say about either the sex ring or the Dallas shooting.)

JFK had rightly compared the overly loyal Macmillan's problems with Profumo to his own, claiming:"If they shoot you down, they'll shoot us down, too." (Quoted from Curt Gentry, J. Edgar Hoover, p. 508.) This use of prostitutes by the Kennedys was far more important than the use of Judith Campbell,
Marilyn Monroe, and other Mafia-connected 'party girls' as it called into question their loyalty, not just their honesty and integrity, as the President was now calling for a re-examination of the Cold War, and how it was being conducted.

When Jack's sexual relations with East German refugee Ellen Rometsch, starting just when Golitsyn defected, and the best JFK ever had, were finally exposed in July - thanks to her gossipping about her Washington relationships - he did everything he could to see that the Bureau hushed up the scandal with the probable communist plant. Then his brother, the Attorney General, ordered the 'sexy spy' and her husband deported back to West Germany. Even so, Bobby Baker, at whose Quorum Club she had been consorting, and who had arranged the trists with the President, boasted that he had letters from her which could prove most embarrassing to the Kennedys. And if this wasn't bad enough, Hoover forced JFK to see that Martin Luther King dropped Jack O'Dell and Stanley Levison from the civil rights movement, claiming that they were following orders from the Kremlin, like former Soviet illegal Colonel Rudolf Abel.

The mere mention of Golitsyn's claims about the President's unreliability when it came to national security being apparently true - what could force his resignation if officially investigated - was good enough for his opponents in covert government, especially those in CIA who had worked so hard to eliminate Castro's Cuba, to start planning his assassination. Harvey, broken by the settlement of the Missile Crisis, and officially relegated to Rome because of his continuing Mafia associations,
immediately put together a team to rapidly hypnotize Oswald, who had just asked for new visas for his family to return to the USSR. (John Marks has described the effort in The Search for the 'Manchurian Candidate', pp. 202-3, and MKULTRA Subproject 129, Notes, p. 244.)

Langley's Angleton apparently asked the Mexico City station chief Winston Scott to find a suitable candidate, and it came up with a low-level unnamed agent who the Soviets had apparently doubled, almost assuredly Oswald, and Harvey, it seems, staged the attempt but it failed. A member of Angleton's Counterintelligence Staff who observed the test claimed that the hypnotic consultant, apparently Dr. George White, assigned to doing the task froze, but it seems much more likely that it didn't take because of Oswald's opposition to killing the President despite his desire for the money. The Agency settled for making Lee the programmed "patsy" for the assassination, while Giancana's underlyings Felix (Milwaukee Phil) Alderisio, Richard Cain, and Chuckie Nicoletti actually did it under Jack Ruby's direction..

For corroboration of Oswald playing this role, just read about what he - and others conveniently acting for him - did subsequently - see, e. g., Summers, p. 288ff. - and compare it with what Angleton's agent said about setting up a programmed "patsy" who a hypnotist "...could walk through a series of seemingly unrelated events - a visit to a store, a converseation with a mailman, picking a fight at a political rally. The subject would remember everything that happened to him and be amnesic only for the fact the hypnotist ordered him to do these things. There would be no gaping insonsistency in his life of the sort that can ruin an attempt by a hypnotist to create a second personality. The purpose of this exercise is to leave a cricumstantial trail that will make the authorities think the patsy committed a particular crime. The weakness might well be that the amnesia would not hold up under politce interrogation, but that would not matter if the police did not believe his preposterious story about being hypnotized or if he were shot resisting arrest." (Quoted from Marks, p. 204, note +.)

With this being the case, it is then essential to determine if the Cubans and Soviets knew about the plot to assassinate JFK, to blame it on Oswald at their expense, and to let it still go ahead as long as they could easily escape blame. The record shows that the CIA was well primed for Lee's famous September 1963 visit to Mexico City where he and others impersonating him made such a fuss about his immediately getting the necessary visas to go the USSR because of his connection with the FPCC - what so completely turned them off about his going to Moscow via Havana for fear that it was a provocation - while the Agency completely recorded his visits and conversations with their embassies, and duly informed the Bureau of his planned defection. Instead of determining that this was the reinforced work of a programmed "patsy", both the Warren Commission, and the House Select Committee on Assassinations were only interested in deciding what activities were done by the real Oswald, and what was done by others - what forced both sides of the conflict to change their stories when the plot went so badly awry in Dallas.

Little wonder that Win Scott anticipated Oswald's trip to the Mexican capital even before he arrived, and made the most of it when he did, thanks apparently to the help of Sylvia Duran, a Mexican woman working in the Cuban consul's office, and also apparently a CIA informant. She let Oswald run wild in the trying to achieve the impossible result of obtaining an immediate visa to travel to the island within three days, and stay there for a few weeks before moving on to the USSR. During his three attempts, Duran informed the Soviet Embassy of his intentions, and was told that Moscow was still considering the troublemaker's request for one. Duran then relayed the conversations to her Agency handler, confirming what its taps and bugs had obtained about the meetings from inside the Embassy.

In the Texas city at the same time Oswald was on his way to Mexico City, Silvia Odio was visited by three men, the leader of which, "Leopoldo", wanted her to translate letters into English, calling for businessmen to support the CRC's efforts to overthrow Castro. While she declined, two days later he called again requesting help, adding that one of the men with him when he visited was "Leon Oswald", a ex-Marine marksman who was so unstable that he could kill either the Cuban leader or JFK - who he thought should have been assassinated long ago. While she suspected some kind of plot, she never apparently expressed her concern to her lover, Carlos Lechuga, the Cuban delegate to the UN who was then consulting most secretly with US Special Adviser to the American Ambassador there, William Attwood, about establishing new relations between the two republics. It seems most suspicious that Lechuga never got round to informing Attwood about the visit by "Leon Oswald" to Ms.Odio in the last weeks that JFK had to live.

It didn't seem as if Khrushchev also had much interest either in JFK keeping alive, though he did admit that he was the best President the Soviets could hope for in the near future. While the General Secretary was hopeful about Kennedy's speech at the American University about conducting the Cold War in a more sensible fashion - what the signing of the Limited Test-Ban Treaty seemed to augur - he was still most unhappy about Kennedy's steadfastness on Berlin, as his speech about his being a Berliner demonstrated. Given the contact that a false Oswald had made with the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City when he real one was visiting the Cuban one - especially his dealings with Valeriy Kostikov, allegedly a member of the KGB's infamous Thirteenth Department, tasked with sabotage and assassinations - his failure to use the just establsihed "hot line" to warn the President of what was afoot, what it was specifically created for dealing with, indicated that he had higher priorities.

JFK sealed his fate when he refused to go along with various tests that the rogue elements in the CIA confronted him with, particularly reviving with Missile Crisis when Captain Glenn Hyde's U-2 plane was apparently shot down over Cuba in contravention to the terms of its settlement on November 20th, the President preferring to stand up to the personal challenges to his courage by former Vice President Nixon, and Texas Governor John Connally in Dallas. And the President's enemies, foreign and domestic, would have gotten their way in Cuba and Berlin by his assassination if it had not been for the wounding of the latter in the process, what led him to cry out as he was apparently dying that he had been double crossed. Fortunately, he survived, and he vowed to get those who had done so - what converted the whole conspiracy into a monumental cock-up.

Of course, the first task was to get rid of Oswald, once he had been arrested, thanks to a tip off about his whereabouts shortly after the assassination by those in the plot who were planning to take him to Cuba to implicate Castro in the killing. While Ruby tried to save the connection during the press conference regarding his arrest, correcting the District Attorney when he said that Oswald belonged to the Free Cuba Committee rather than the FPCC - just making matters worse as it threatened to make his dealings with it a matter of the greatest inquiry when the assassination was investigated - he was then forced to assassinate him to make sure that the reason for his becoming a "lone nut" was not determined, as the CIA veteran had explained for Marks about minimizing the weaknesses of using programmed "patsies". Besides, Oswald had an alibi for the shooting, as he was standing at the base of the TSBD when the President was assassinated, as the photograph of it by AP photographer James Altgens established.

Ruby's correction of the Dallas DA about Oswald's association with the FPCC forced Gilberto Lopez to flee across the border to Mexico the next day, and he was flown a few days later on a special flight which only carried himself from Mexico City to Havana. When Langley still called off investigating the Mexico City angle to the assassiantion for obvious self-serving reasons Win Scott went ballistic, writing a memorandum about the whole affair, including apparently a photograph of the real Oswald there and possibly others, which he placed in his safe. When he died, Angleton went out of his way to recover them, and the Agency still refuses to divulge their contents. "There is no justifying such suppression of the facts," Summers concluded, "and the CIA should, even now, be forced to explain itself to Congress." (p. 523.)

Khrushchev and Castro showed a similar economy with the truth when it became their turn to explain any possible involvement in the assassination. While immediately assuming that the killing would be followed by a devastating attack upon Cuba, they never explained why they thought they would be blamed, and they protested a bit too loudly about their innocence to be completely believed, given their actions. Nikita, after putting Soviet forces on maximum alert in anticipation of an American attack, refused to go to Washington for JFK's funeral, and cancelled his plans yet again to visit Castro. It seems that he was not sure that they would accept his claims, and possibly there would be difficult repercussions. Castro was too eager to make light of Oswald's association with the FPCC, and his being one of his admirers.

It was only after Jim Garrison started talking about a possible right-wing plot that the Soviets induced Yuri Nosenko to defect, so that he could clear up the remaining suspicions about Oswald, and the KGB added to the clamor about those in Dallas and New Orleans who wanted JFK killed. Angleton believed that Nosenko could be stressed enough, tortured, into admitting that the Soviets had killed the President, but he only knew about what Oswald had done for the KGB during his defection to the USSR - essentially nothing. When the Warren Commission so reported, Khrushchev was off the hook too, allowed to retire rather than face some international tribunal for the 'false flag' operation which would have changed the world if it had not been for one small oversight - the test firing of Oswald's
rifle which almost killed Connally when Richard Cain fired it at JFK from the sixth floor on the TSBD.

The Voice of the White House - August 23, 2007

By now, most Americans have learned of the very serious economic problems caused by the utter collapse of the sub-prime home mortgage business. What is not discussed are certain underlying causes which I will rectify for you. The so-called ‘dotcom’ stock collapse was a rigged venture that almost wiped out an entire legitimate industry some years back. How it worked was this way” A number of crooked stock brokers promoted certain high tech stock. They knew there was really nothing behind their choices. Once the stock was set up and destined for the board, they called a number of their wealthy friends and said, in essence, ‘I want you to buy 30,000 shares of such-and-such stock at ten and I will sell you out at twenty.’ The client, who had been this before, agreed. The result was a surge in sales and we had a ‘rocket stock.’ Eventually, when the worthless stock shot up to $80.00 a share, gravity took over and down it went, overnight. So did other deals like and, unfortunately, a lot of legitimate stock. Now, we have the same game but with different players. This time, a group of thoroughly crooked small mortgage dealers conspired with each other to rip off the major banks. They gave no-deposit mortgages to home buyers whom they knew had no credit at all. They sold them flexible rate mortgages and forgot to tell the new home owners that in a few months, their $300 a month payments would suddenly soar to $3,000. Then they sold these deliberately faked mortgages to banks and lending institutions. These, in turn, believing that when they put the rates up within the stated limits, their incomes would soar. These mortages were then put into packages by the unsuspecting banks and sold to investors. Naturally, when the banks raised the rates (as they had an absolutely legal right to do,) the poor homeowner could not make the payments, defaulted and the bank had to take over the homes that had been abandoned. People high up in Washington became aware of this (but the press was asked initially to lay off the subject) Cheney suggested to the shocked banks that they quickly sell of the “bad” mortgages to the Chinese. For some reason, Cneney hates them and is doing his very best to ruin their economy. He was the moving force behind the plan to sell Blackstone stock to the Chinese just before Blackstone went public. Naturally, when the news of the huge Chinese purchase hit the cooperative press, the stock prices went up just long enough for Cheney and his friends to make a short-term killing before Blackstone tanked. The Chinese are, deliberately, stuck with billions of dollars of stock in a fly-by-night company who is in the process of total collapse. Also, there have been runs on a bank, Nationwide, which is allied with the mortgage people who are in the process of total burn out. The public should note that the FDIC program protects all investors in any bank up to $100,000 and bank runs are not necessary or helpful. Now, you have some background on this. Don’t blame the banks, kids. They were conned and we will all pay for the game. And by now, the sleazy mortgage brokers are sunning on the beach at Tel Aviv while thinking of all their money stashed in Israeli banks.

Full story...

Friday 24 August 2007

Undercover cops tried to incite violence in Montebello: union leader

This is how the system works, they allow people to demonstrate but then infiltrate the crowd with agents provocateurs who incite violence and start throwing rocks. The cops then dive in a start tear-gassing little old ladies.

Organizers of the protests at the North American leaders' summit in Montebello, Que., say they have video that shows police disguised as masked demonstrators tried to incite violence on Monday.

About 1,200 protesters were in the small resort town near Ottawa as Prime Minister Stephen Harper met with U.S. President George W. Bush and Mexican President Felipe Calderon at a two-day summit to discuss issues under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America pact.

The video titled Stop SPP Protest — Union Leader stops provocateurs, posted on YouTube Tuesday, was shown at a news conference held Wednesday in Ottawa by protest organizers, including Dave Coles, president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union, who appears in the video.

In the footage filmed Monday afternoon, three burly men with bandanas and other covers over their faces push through protesters toward a line of riot police. One of the men has a rock in his hand.

As they move forward, Coles and other union leaders dressed in suits order the men to put the rock down and leave, accuse them of being police agents provocateurs, and try unsuccessfully to unmask them.

In the end, they squeeze behind the police line, where they are calmly handcuffed.

Full story...

Thursday 23 August 2007

How can this bloody failure be regarded as a good war?

Seamus Milne writing in the Guardian, excellent article.

Enthusiasts for the catastrophe that is the Iraq war may be hard to come by these days, but Afghanistan is another matter. The invasion and occupation that opened George Bush's war on terror are still championed by powerful voices in the occupying states as - in the words of the New York Times this week - "the good war" that can still be won. While speculation intensifies about British withdrawal from Basra, there's no such talk about a retreat from Kabul or Kandahar. On the contrary, the plan is to increase British troop numbers from the current 7,000, and ministers, commanders and officials have been hammering home the message all summer that Britain is in Afghanistan, as the foreign secretary, David Miliband, insisted, for the long haul.

"We should be thinking in terms of decades," the British ambassador, Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, declared; Brigadier John Lorimer, British commander in Helmand province, thought the military occupation might last more than Northern Ireland's 38 years; and the defence secretary, Des Browne, last week confirmed that the government had made a "long-term commitment" to stay in Afghanistan to prevent it reverting to a terrorist training ground. Even allowing for the Brown government's need for political cover if it is indeed to run down its forces in Iraq, that all amounts to a pretty clear policy of indefinite occupation - one on which it has not thought necessary to consult the British people, let alone the Afghans.

All this follows the escalation of Britain's involvement in Afghanistan last year, when Browne's predecessor, John Reid, sent thousands of extra troops to the south to "help reconstruction", hoping they would be a able to leave "without firing a single shot". Two million rounds of ammunition later, what was supposed to be a peacekeeping mission is now an all-out war against a resurgent Taliban that has become an umbrella for Pashtun nationalists, jihadists and all those determined to fight foreign occupation. British casualties have risen sharply - seven have been killed in the past month - along with those of other western forces, while the public at home is increasingly fed a media diet of Kiplingesque deeds of derring-do by "our boys" on the front line. And in a telling echo of the claims that have punctuated each phase of the Iraq disaster, Browne last week said he detected a "turning point" in the British campaign to "bring stability" to Afghanistan.

Full story...

Wednesday 22 August 2007

Layla Anwar, An Arab Woman Blues

There isn't much to say about this really except that I fear she's right and I fear humanity has lost its way. For what it's worth, I'm sorry Layla.

Layla Anwar, An Arab Woman Blues - Reflections in a sealed bottle...

I am so disgusted with everything, I don't even feel like writing.

I am disgusted with the Americans, the Brits, the French, the Germans, the Scandinavians, the Australians, the Iranians, the Arabs, the Muslims, the Christians, the Jews....( am not mentioning the Israelis because they have disgusted me long ago. It's a given)

Everything and everyone disgusts me.

I have run out of words. I don't even know which words to use anymore.
Have you ever felt that way? Not even knowing which words to use?
I can write tons of posts, would not make one single fucking difference.
But I promised someone that I will not stop writing, so here I am...

Nir Rosen, not that I terribly like Nir Rosen, but finally someone who is not an Iraqi came out and said it " Iraq is no more "
Well, hello, I have been saying it over and over and over , the sectarian shia Iranian militias and parties control everything. Along with the equally chauvinistic Israeli backed Kurdish pimps.

Imagine, one day, you come to the realization that your country, in the space of 4 years, simply does not exist anymore? Can you even envisage that?
It simply is not there anymore.

I have been way too polite. My upbringing taught me to respect guests, visitors, but you people don't know what polite is. You need to hear your own language spoken back at you.

Some American wanker, mental masturbator, produced a study not long ago. And the study shows that :

"The majority of Iraqis want a secular government today."

What the fuck is all that about? We had a secular government you bunch of assholes.
We had a country with a secular government that your academics "entre autre" managed to destroy.

Remember the son of a bitch Chomsky with his poor shia being oppressed?
Remember your equally fucked up anti-war movement?
Remember all those other wankers on blogosphere and the web, posting article after article after article on poor Iran being bombed back to the stone age?
Remember these, oh so well meaning "orientalists" who visited Iraq once and suddenly know it all and use Iraqi plight and suffering to defend Iran?
Even Palestinian bloggers were not exempt of that mental masturbation, the masturbation of the politically correct.

Well guess what, you fuckers, I don't have a country anymore!

Are you pleased with yourselves now ? What a great job you have done! Bunch of criminals.

YOU are as responsible as the american army and the american government in the slaughter of innocent Iraqis and the total destruction of their country in the space of 4 fucking years. Just 4 years, you bastards.

You, the academics, the writers, the journalists, the anti- war shit, the political scientists of my ass, the anal-ysts...
All of you are responsible today. All of you.
All of you have the blood of 1 million Iraqis on your hands and all of you have a country in ruins on your conscience.

But you have no fucking conscience, you bunch of paid, sell out bastards. Those of you who sold it to Iran and those who sold it to Israel, and who sold it to America and England.

You are the "intellectual" whores of this world. You are the PROSTITUTES.
I spit on you and on your academic achievements and on your publications and on your press, on your prints and on your books...

I swear even hookers have more integrity than you.

So the "totalitarian " regime is gone. So the "dictatorship" is gone but you motherfuckers, tell me what happened to tyranny?

How come every single Iraqi I know, shia, sunni, martian, felt much freer under the "dictatorship" than under your fucking democracy? How come?

How come every single Iraqi I know, was free to go to work, earn a living, teach, read, dance, eat, drink, get married, walk in the streets, go to the movies, go to a restaurant, go for a drive, go shopping, paint, sing, listen to music, dress the way s/he likes, go to a hairdresser...the banal stuff that you do daily.

How come under the "totalitarian" regime every single Iraqi was free to do that and today...
And today crossing the street means a possible silencing.
Silence through death in your fucking democracy Iranian - American style.

To hell with you and your democracy and democracies.
To hell with your internet, web, blogs, media, books, newspapers, magazines...
To hell with every single thing I learnt in your universities, in your schools, in your institutions...

To hell with all of you . You sickening, despicable lot.

Full story...

Dirty Tricks, Malicious Lies & Journalistic Fraud

I haven't watched the show in question and probably won't because, well frankly, what's the point? I normally have a lot of time for Alex Jones and chums but this article is a mere polemic against the history channel's recent 9/11 hit-piece. What I want to know is why these guys and the producers of Loose Change give any corporate shills the chance to make them look bad? How they could have gone into this interview thinking it would be any different to the hit-piece in popular mechanics is beyond me, regardless of what the producer may have said! OF COURSE IT WAS GOING TO BE A FRAME-UP AL - THEY ARE ALL LYING BASTARDS!!!!!! What the hell were you expecting? That a tool of zionist war propaganda and governmenmt lies would suddenly act completely out of character and become honest and report the facts? Pull the other one, it's got bells on! I wish these guys would stop appearing on these mainstream shows. They are always made to look like intellectually challenged crazy-people when that is very far from the truth. I respect Alex and his crew, as well as the Loose Change guys but I think they should stick to making their own films and tell mainstream media to go and jump off a bridge. Don't legitimise the system and delegitimise yourselves by allowing the mainstream media whores to shag you up the arse on cable television!

The History Channel 9/11 special that aired last night was by far the worst hit piece we have ever witnessed, a completely savage, dishonest and deceptive abomination, replete with dirty tricks, malicious lies and a level of journalistic fraud that goes way beyond simple bias.

Bradley Davis, the producer of the show, is a paid liar and a hit piece specialist who deceives people by gaining their confidence and then attacking them behind their back.

He is famous for the smear job documentary on Michael Jackson and makes a career out of conning people and then stabbing them in the back. His tongue is so smooth, that even the Loose Change crew were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on his impartiality before last night's hit piece was aired, with Davis having tricked them into believing he was a friend.

Before filming began, Alex Jones asked Davis point blank if the documentary was going to be a hit piece, which Davis denied. After we brought attention to the History Channel's blurb on their website, which clearly characterized the show as a hit piece, Davis panicked and promised to alter the promo, calling it a "misrepresentation," as well as re-edit the entire program to make it more balanced. The promo temporarily disappeared from the website and the broadcast of the show was put back by a week.

During the course of this second exchange, Davis again promised Jones that the show was not going to be a hit piece and was very upset that we had discovered he was behind the NBC hit piece on Jackson - seemingly frightened that his cover might be blown and his next victim would be alerted to his scheming tricks. He was terrified and kept repeating that he didn't want to be quoted on anything he said.

Just like Popular Mechanics swore that their straw man smear job wouldn't be a hit piece, Davis engaged in journalistic fraud and complete dishonesty by lying directly to Alex Jones' face in claiming the documentary was to be neutral just so he could secure the interview.

Just like William Randolph Hearst, the progenitor of the term "yellow journalism," Davis will go down in history as a liar and a fraud.

The show itself was deliberately crafted, edited, shot and manipulated to portray the 9/11 truth movement in a completely negative light, while exalting the so-called experts to almost God-like status.

Full story...

Tuesday 21 August 2007

The Voice of the White House - August 19, 2007

Some interesting, and scary, insights from our fly on the wall in the Washington Nut House. It's one thing when crazy fundies are spouting their rubbish in an Internet chatroom but quite another when they are in control of the largest and most technologically advanced military on the planet. Bush about the last person on Earth you'd want to have in control of a nuclear war-head!

Most of the White House staff who has any contact with the President knows that he claims that he is a very religious man. He believes that he has a compact with God Almighty who talks to him on a regular basis and tells him what to do. No, this is not blog nonsense because he has modestly informed a number of the press assigned to the White House press corps that this is the real skinny. He said that when he was at the late Pope’s funeral, he saw the pages of the Bible fluttering in the wind and in that moment, he knew God was talking to him. This is one of the reasons Bush is fanatically pro-Israel because Bush firmly believes that Jesus is coming back and he will be the celestial instrument in the totally fictional “Battle of Armageddon.’ Bush firmly believes that the Holy Land must all belong to Israel even if they have to kill off all the Muslims living there. Bush has had several of his portraits doctored digitally to show him with a halo over his head and he has an old Bible in his office that he drags out from time to time to “thoughtfully and prayerfully” read whenever he wants to impress a visitor. At first, I thought this was just another Bush con job to impress the Christian Right nit wits that used to visit here but little by little, I came to the inescapable conclusion that Bush actually believed this nonsense and is determined to pursue his lunatic and disruptive Mid East policy in the face of logic and disaster. Those who think he will “abandon Israel” and pull out are dead wrong. He will hint at possible future withdrawals but in truth, will stay in that country until the day he leaves office. Why? Because he says God had promised him all kinds of nice things if he just waits a little longer so Armageddon can take place. No one dares to tell Bush that the ‘Battle of Armageddon’ is not anywhere in the Bible. The only reference to this geographical location can be found in Revelations 16:16 and nowhere else. In fact, no one dares to tell Bush anything he does not want to hear or there is instant reprisal. As the result of his increasing eccentricities, many staffers have quietly left and now, with the departure of Rove, Bush has no one he can confide in. Cheney merely orders him around, Gonzales is a pathetic, creepy little butt kisser and there is no point on dwelling on the shallow and useless Rice. Well, I suppose we get what we pay for and we paid for a wacko who has the power to kill a great number of people. That is if God tells him to.

Full story...

Israel's Jewish problem in Tehran

Israel would have us believe that Iran is evil and is about to launch nukes in 45 minutes (sic) and they eat babies and they want nothing more than to wipe Israel off the map. Along with the rest of us being anti-Semites for even suggesting that Israel is a little naughty. The only problem is that most of what comes out of Tel Aviv could only be described as horse-shit! They've been saying for 10 years that Iran is 1 year away from having the bomb. What they don't want you to know is that there are Jews who live happily in Iran, so much so that they can't even be paid to leave. How many Iranians live happily in Israel? More to the point how long before some bomb goes off in Iran that kills a load of Jews and the rest feel they have to emigrate to Israel. It's been done before!

Iran is the new Nazi Germany and its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is the new Hitler. Or so Israeli officials have been declaring for months as they and their American allies try to persuade the doubters in Washington that an attack on Tehran is essential. And if the latest media reports are to be trusted, it looks like they may again be winning the battle for hearts and minds: Vice President Dick Cheney is said to be diverting the White House back on track to launch a military strike.

Earlier this year Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's opposition leader and the man who appears to be styling himself scaremonger-in-chief, told us: "It's 1938 and Iran is Germany. And Iran is racing to arm itself with atomic bombs." Of Ahmadinejad, he said: "He is preparing another Holocaust for the Jewish state."”

A few weeks ago, as Israel's military intelligence claimed -- as it has been doing regularly since the early 1990s -- that Iran is only a year or so away from the "point of no return" on developing a nuclear warhead. Netanyahu was at it again. "Iran could be the first undeterrable nuclear power," he warned, adding: "This is a Jewish problem like Hitler was a Jewish problem. The future of the Jewish people depends on the future of Israel."”

But Netanyahu has been far from alone in making extravagant claims about a looming genocide from Iran. Israel's new president, Shimon peres, has compared an Iranian nuclear bomb to a "flying concentration camp". And the prime minister, Ehud Olmert, told a German newspaper last year: "[Ahmadinejad] speaks as Hitler did in his time of the extermination of the entire Jewish nation."”

There is an interesting problem with selling Iran as "Nazi Germany". If Ahmadinejad really is Hitler, ready to commit genocide against Israel’s Jews as soon as he can get his hands on a nuclear weapon, why are some 25,000 Jews living peacefully in Iran and more than reluctant to leave despite repeated enticements from Israel and American Jews?

What is the basis for Israel's dire forecasts -- the ideological scaffolding being erected, presumably, to justify an attack on Iran? Helpfully, as George Bush defended his Iraq policies last month, he reminded us yet again of the menace Iran supposedly poses: it is "threatening to wipe Israel off the map".

This myth has been endlessly recycled since a translating error was made of a speech Ahmadinejad delivered nearly two years ago. Farsi experts have verified that the Iranian president, far from threatening to destroy Israel, was quoting from an earlier speech by the late Ayatollah Khomeini in which he reassured supporters of the Palestinians that "the Zionist regime in Jerusalem would vanish from the page of time".

He was not threatening to exterminate Jews or even Israel. He was comparing Israel's occupation of the Palestinians with other illegitimate systems of rule whose time had passed, including the Shahs who once ruled Iran, apartheid South Africa and the Soviet empire. Nonetheless, this erroneous translation has survived and prospered because Israel and her supporters have exploited it for their own crude propaganda purposes.

In the meantime, the 25,000-strong Iranian Jewish community is the largest in the Middle East outside Israel and traces its roots back 3,000 years. As one of several non-Muslim minorities in Iran, Jews there suffer discrimination, but they are certainly no worse off than the one million Palestinian citizens of Israel -- and far better off than Palestinians under Israeli occupation in the West Bank and Gaza.

Iranian Jews have little influence on decision-making and are not allowed to hold senior posts in the army or bureaucracy. But they enjoy many freedoms. They have an elected representative in parliament, they practice their religion openly in synagogues, their charities are funded by the Jewish diaspora, and they can travel freely, including to Israel. In Tehran there are six kosher butchers and about 30 synagogues. Ahmadinejad's office recently made a donation to a Jewish hospital in Tehran.

As Ciamak Moresadegh, an Iranian Jewish leader, observed: "If you think Judaism and Zionism are one, it is like thinking Islam and the Taliban are the same, and they are not."

Full story...

Monday 20 August 2007

YouTube row over social services baby threat

This is seriously Orwellian! UK social services removing infants from their mothers because the mother *may* at some point in future cause the baby some harm? What about the damage to the baby of removing it from its mother? It's bloody British officialdom (aka neo-fascists-r-us) thinking it knows best, as always. In reality they are a bunch of morons who have no business being in charge of anything let alone the nation's children. The officials in question are trying to get the video removed from YouTube so I have posted it here in glorious technicolour. If you have a blog I encourage you to do the same and also email the link to everyone you know! As Mike Rivero of says "Notice that the social workers had absolutely no qualms about snatching the baby a few days after its birth to hand off to another family for no good reason: they just hated getting caught doing it."

A heavily pregnant woman is at the centre of an extraordinary legal battle with social workers after she secretly recorded them threatening to take away her newborn baby.

Vanessa Brookes, 34, who is due to give birth early next month, smuggled taping equipment into a meeting with social services officials, fearing they would try to take her baby for forced adoption.

She recorded a social worker telling her and her husband Martin, 41, that even though there was "no immediate risk to your child from yourselves", the council would seek a court order to place the child in foster care.

Mother and baby would be allowed "two or three days" in hospital together, but should not leave the premises until social workers came to remove the infant. In a desperate attempt to keep their baby, the couple have published the recorded conversation on the internet.

Calderdale council, in West Yorkshire, last night accused them of breaching the Data Protection Act by recording its staff without their knowledge or consent. The council said it had begun legal action to have the recording removed from the YouTube website. Mrs Brookes said: "Even puppies and kittens aren't removed from their mothers at birth. Social workers always record everything, so why shouldn't we record them?"

John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP and chairman of campaign group Justice for Families, said: "I find it very odd that a newborn baby would be removed when there is not any allegation by the authorities that the child is at risk. Yet this case is not unique. There are many cases in which newborns are removed because of allegations that their mothers may at some later stage 'emotionally abuse' the child."

The case returns the spotlight to claims that social services are being heavy-handed in removing children from their parents, in order to meet Government adoption targets.

The Sunday Telegraph has previously revealed cases of mothers who were not told why their children were taken away, and cases of families whose children were not returned even after the parents had been cleared of wrongdoing. More than 2,000 babies aged under a year were taken for adoption last year, almost triple the level of a decade ago.

Full story...

Court secrecy rules hide child abuse errors

Sunday 19 August 2007

Two al-CIAQaeda hijackers surrender peacefully

As soon as I saw this story my first thought was, "False Flag". Talk about obvious! In pre-Internet years people would have swallowed it whole. Nasty Iranians doing what they like to do best after Friday prayers! What a crock of shyte. These two have to be the most incompetant terrorists ever! Leaving back doors open and allowing people to escape through windows. What a bunch of morons. It's almost like they wanted to get caught! Identified "tentatively" as a Turk and a Palestinian. Identified by whom? The Israelis perhaps?!?! Don't believe it kids, this has the CIA and Mossad's grubby little fingerprints all over it. By way of deception shalt thou do war!

Two hijackers of an Istanbul-bound airliner have given themselves up to authorities, Turkish television has reported.

The surrender brings to an end a five-hour ordeal that began when the airplane, operated by Atlas-Jet and with 136 passengers on board, was seized shortly after taking off from Northern Cyprus by two men claiming to have a bomb and demanding to be flown to Tehran. They have tentatively been identified as a Turkish national and a Palestinian.

The plane made an emergency landing in the resort town of Antalya, where most of the passengers were able to escape after forcing open a rear door.

Both pilots also jumped clear, and only the hijackers, two stewardesses and three passengers remained on board as negotiations with police began. The hijackers eventually freed their remaining hostages before surrendering a short time later.

Earlier, some passengers who escaped reported that the hijackers claimed they were members of al-Qaeda, although others said they did not identify themselves.

Full story...

Junkscience in Global Warming Theory?

Some facts about Global Warming. I see from the news that our new PM wants to increase the "green" tax on air travel. That is what the climate change lobby is about: control and taxation. The IPCC is quite possibly one of the most unscientific scientific bodies in existence. The the article below and you'll see what I mean.

In spite of what some call a national debate on global warming, there really hasn’t been one. There has been name calling, personal attacks, calls for defunding the skeptics, calls for Nuremburg trials, muzzling the critics. This isn’t debate, this is not a discussion, this isn’t consensus, and it isn’t science. It is bullying and thuggery, and reminiscent of remedial behavior classes.

Significantly, as the numbers of scientists grow increasingly appalled with the unscientific bullying and are becoming skeptics themselves, massive re-examination of the entire global warming effort and the purported evidence is taking place. For scientists the findings thus far are worse than imagined. Much of the evidence put forth by the warmers for their theory is either exaggerated, wrong, or being fudged.

* 1. Past president of the National Academy of Science Dr. Fred Seitz noted in the Wall Street Journal 1996 (, serious problems with the Third Assessment Report (TAR), by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). A second brief IPCC document entitled the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), did not match what the hundreds of scientists had stated in the TAR. The SPM had misrepresented what the scientists had said without their knowledge or approval.

Dr. Seitz wrote: “This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely because it has been peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, modified and approved by an international body of experts. These scientists have laid their reputations on the line. But this report is not what it appears to be--it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”

* 2. The issue of the famous” hockeystick” graph was another major blow to the credibility of IPCC and the global alarmists. This chart was included as fact in the TAR and has been shown widely around the nation and in state governments and agencies, such as in the legislature of the State of Washington. The hockeystick term refers to the general shape of the chart of global temperatures over the past 1000 years or so. It had been produced by modifying temperature data and proxies and generating the chart by a computer algorithm. Detailed analyses of the data and the algorithm ( by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick demonstrated very improper and unscientific conduct.

For example the chart did not show the well known warmer times of the Medieval Warming Period about 1000 years ago. This was a time when Vikings lived and farmed in Greenland for centuries.

The hockeystick also did not show the Little Ice Age which extended from about 1350 to 1850. The history of those times include snow falling in Paris in July, ice festivals held on 4 feet of ice on the Thames River in London, people walking from Denmark to Sweden across the frozen Baltic, as well as people walking from Manhattan to New Jersey across the frozen New York Harbor (

The Little Ice Age also included major famines, crop failures, and widespread diseases. So yes, it seems to be warmer now than some past time when it was cooler. Nobody has lately walked from Manhattan to New Jersey. We should all hope that such misery of cooler times would not occur again.

The improper conduct extends to the authors of the chart, editors and peer reviewers at Nature Magazine which published the chart, as well as the peer reviewers, editors, and publishers at the IPCC for publishing the chart in the TAR.

Even worse, the computer algorithm developed by these authors was essentially reverse engineered since the authors were unprofessionally reluctant in sharing it. What McIntyre and McKitrick found was that the algorithm could produce a hockeystick shaped graph from a table of random numbers. No valid temperature data was necessary.

* 3. Recently Steve McIntyre again found errors in the temperature data of NASA facility at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). See McIntyre’s findings at this website. ( It is disappointing to find NASA involved with such poor data management and doing so secretly. In one example at Douglas, AZ, the reported error changed the temperature by 1.75 Deg C ( This is a huge error in a universe looking for temperature changes of 0.7 deg C per Century.

Some of the consequences of this error were summarized by climatologist Dr. Fred Singer: “A change in climate history data at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies recently occurred which dramatically alters the debate over global warming. Yet, this transpired with no official announcement from GISS head James Hansen, and went unreported until Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit discovered it Wednesday, August 11, 2007.” As with the IPCC problems (above) this drastically undermines the credibility of NASA.

* 4. On December 6, 2006 Dr. David Deming of the University of Oklahoma gave some telling testimony to the US Senate ( He testified that after writing a research paper in Science, he had received a call from a prominent global warmer stating that “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warming Period”. This amazing question illuminates even more the ethical problems found in this movement and is troubling behavior.

* 5. Those wishing to improve their understanding of the global warming debate must become aware of Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, among others. He is an excellent analyst, with a great command of scientific principles, and was a science advisor to Margaret Thatcher. Lord Monckton recently provided excellent analyses of the concept of “consensus” (

Consensus is invoked as a justification for some sort of authority in the “debate”. Appealing to authority is not a part of science, as some seem to think. Appealing to the truth, the data, and facts is part of the scientific process. It is a mistake to believe otherwise. As Michael Crichton said “Consensus is not science, and science is not consensus”.

Lord Monckton analyzes the alarmist rhetoric as follows:

"One has only to cut away the alarmist rhetoric and the media distractions, one has only to focus on the central question in the climate-change debate, and at once the fact that there is no scientific consensus about climate change is laid bare. The central question is this: By how much will global temperature increase in response to any foreseeable increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide? On that question, the 'climate-sensitivity question', there is no consensus whatsoever within the scientific community. There is no scientific basis for the current panic."

Brit Hume told us that the appeal to consensus is what people do when they don’t have the facts. This may work when deciding where to build the city library, but it has no place in science. Margaret Thatcher summed this nicely: “To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.”

* 6. Freeman Dyson summarizes the global warming controversy: “My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans.

They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models.”

The low quality of the debate displayed by the warmers is notable and extraordinary, suggesting that personal and political agendas are at play, instead of science. This is a destructive way to make national science and energy policy.

Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., a science and energy reporter for Hawaii Reporter and a science analyist for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, is retired and now lives in Eastern Washington. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows.

Full story...