Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.
The tag 'Bush-George W' is associated with 274 posts.

FTR#1321 The Assassination of John Lennon

You can sub­scribe to RSS feed from Spitfirelist.com HERE. You can sub­scribe to the com­ments made on pro­grams and posts–an excel­lent source of infor­ma­tion in, and of, itself, HERE. WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE. Mr. Emory’s entire life’s work is avail­able on a 32GB flash dri­ve, avail­able for a con­tri­bu­tion of […]


FTR#1320 “La Plus Ca Change. . . .”

This pro­gram is a “blast from the past.” Record­ed just past mid­night on 9/20/2001, this broad­cast is a [some­what dis­tort­ed] con­ver­sa­tion record­ed via tele­phone hookup.

Speak­ing with the late Roy of Hol­ly­wood, Mr. Emory parsed some of the intel­li­gence infor­ma­tion that was avail­able a lit­tle over a week after the attacks.

The pro­gram con­cludes with an eerie state­ment by Roy, fore­shad­ow­ing what is tak­ing place in the Mid­dle East today.


FTR#‘s 1309 and 1310 Deep Politics and the Death of Iris Chang, Parts 3 and 4

These broad­casts sup­ple­ment FTR#‘s 509, 1107 and 1108.

Sig­nif­i­cant sec­tions of the lat­ter two broad­casts are recapped in these pro­grams and this descrip­tion.

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include:

1.–Iris Chang’s moth­er, Ying-Ying Chang, could not rule out the “dark con­spir­a­cy” that Iris was fac­ing. Ying-Ying’s point of view was shaped, in part, by Steven Clemons’ obser­va­tions.
2.–In an appen­dix titled “Requiem for Iris Chang,” Steven Clemons not­ed the alleged “sui­cide” of his asso­ciate Juzo Ita­mi, who was bat­tling the same forces as Iris Chang. “I have nev­er bought the sto­ry about Juzo Ita­mi, who was at war in his films with the Japan­ese right-wing crowd and yakuza.”
3.–Iris’ best-known work, “The Rape of Nanking”, inspired a con­gres­sion­al res­o­lu­tion sup­port­ing Japan­ese com­pen­sa­tion for those who had been com­pelled to labor as slaves and slave pros­ti­tutes or “com­fort women.”
4.–Iris was work­ing on a book and doc­u­men­tary film project about the sur­vivors of the Bataan Death March. Some of those vet­er­ans had been used as slave labor­ers by Japan­ese cor­po­ra­tions dur­ing the war. The Bataan Death March vet­er­ans were among those who sued the Japan­ese cor­po­ra­tions that had enslaved them.
5.–The pre­sid­ing judge ruled against the vet­er­ans and for the Japan­ese cor­po­ra­tions. On the day of Iris’ “sui­cide” Gov­er­nor Arnold Schwarzeneg­ger was meet­ing with Japan­ese busi­ness­men to pro­mote Cal­i­for­nia-Japan­ese trade.
6.–In ear­ly Sep­tem­ber of 2001, Iris spoke at a con­fer­ence assem­bled to protest the cel­e­bra­tion of the 50th anniver­sary of the U.S./Japanese treaty of 1951 (nego­ti­at­ed by John Fos­ter Dulles). Iris called “the San Fran­cis­co Peace Treaty a trav­es­ty of jus­tice, a betray­al of our own Amer­i­can vet­er­ans.” Recall the con­gres­sion­al res­o­lu­tion passed in the after­math of, and because of The Rape of Nanking.
7.–After watch­ing a spir­it­ed dis­cus­sion between Iris and the Japan­ese ambas­sador to the U.S., a friend of Iris’ father advised her to hire a body­guard.
8.–As will be not­ed at greater length below, Iris was very crit­i­cal of the George W. Bush admin­is­tra­tion and had writ­ten sev­er­al arti­cles crit­i­cal of his poli­cies.
9.–Iris was very crit­i­cal of the George W. Bush admin­is­tra­tion, and had tak­en stances against many fea­tures of his for­eign pol­i­cy, Bush’s inva­sion of Iraq in par­tic­u­lar. Iris had long opposed all forms of racism in this coun­try.
10.–Sadly, many of those close to Iris dis­missed her fears con­cern­ing the government’s tar­get­ing of her and the over­lap­ping ide­o­log­i­cal ani­mos­i­ty and tar­get­ing of her by the Japan­ese right-wing. The his­tor­i­cal and oper­a­tional over­lap between the two is fun­da­men­tal and is explored in some of the mate­r­i­al below.
11.–When she trav­eled to Louisville, Ken­tucky to inter­view sur­vivors of the Bataan Death March, she felt she was under phys­i­cal sur­veil­lance and harass­ment. We note below that Ken­tucky was a place where Bush con­fi­dant William Stamps Far­ish III had pow­er­ful con­nec­tions.
12.–During her book tour for The Rape of Nanking, Iris was approached by some­one she felt was recruit­ing her. He said “You will be safer to join us.” Was this and attempt at recruit­ment by the CIA?
13.–We repeat the infor­ma­tion in #11, for pur­pos­es of empha­sis.
14.–Iris was con­vinced to her dying day that she was the focal point of hos­til­i­ty from the Bush admin­is­tra­tion. A remake of the movie The Manchuri­an Can­di­date height­ened her anx­i­ety. Her arti­cles crit­i­cal of the Bush admin­is­tra­tion and, as we have and shall see, the over­lap­ping dynam­ics of her work on The Rape of Nanking and Gold War­riors fur­ther deep­ened her per­il. She first pur­chased a firearm for pro­tec­tion and was hop­ing that John Ker­ry would defeat Bush in 2004.
15.–Despite the fact that Iris’ corpse was found in her car in the ear­ly morn­ing, her par­ents weren’t noti­fied of her death until almost mid­night. Why?
16.–Iris’ corpse was dis­cov­ered ear­ly in the morn­ing with her head against the driver’s side win­dow, her hands crossed in her lap and the gun on her left leg. While not phys­i­cal­ly impos­si­ble, this is alto­geth­er unlike­ly for some­one who had alleged­ly com­mit­ted sui­cide by fir­ing a pow­er­ful hand gun into her mouth. She felt that her prob­lems were “exter­nal,” while those around her thought they were “inter­nal,” i.e. “all in her head.”
17.–Same as 16.
18.–Iris’ ordeal was remark­ably sim­i­lar to what Rita Katz endured fol­low­ing her work on Oper­a­tion Green Quest and the SAAR inves­ti­ga­tion.
19.–George W. Bush was pur­su­ing Philip­pine Gold­en Lily loot in order to increase U.S. gold reserves and, per­haps more impor­tant­ly, to for­ti­fy his blind trust. That trust was over­seen by William Stamps Far­ish III, who had con­sid­er­able polit­i­cal and eco­nom­ic grav­i­tas in the state of Ken­tucky.
20.–Bush’s Harken Ener­gy may well have served as a mon­ey laun­der­ing front, per­haps for some of the gold recov­ered in the Philip­pines. We note that a direc­tor of Harken, Talat Oth­man, inter­ced­ed direct­ly with then Trea­sury Sec­re­tary Paul O’Neill on behalf of the tar­gets of the 3/20/2002 raids. The SAAR net­work was a pri­ma­ry tar­get of those raids: we have seen how Rita Katz and her fel­low inves­ti­ga­tors came under sur­veil­lance and harass­ment for dig­ging into that case.
21.–We revis­it the deep pol­i­tics of the Bush fam­i­ly, the fam­i­ly of Dou­glas MacArthur and William and Alan Quasha.
22.–More about the deep pol­i­tics of the Philip­pines, the Bush fam­i­ly, father and son Quasha, and the pos­si­bil­i­ty that Alan Quasha’s dom­i­nant pres­ence in Harken Ener­gy may be deriv­a­tive of the clan­des­tine acqui­si­tion of Gold­en Lily loot.
23.–The pro­gram con­cludes with review of the oper­a­tions of Gold­en Lily and their involve­ment with things Iris was inves­ti­gat­ing. The Rape of Nanking marked the for­mal begin­ning of Gold­en Lily.
24.–Colonel Tsu­ji Masanobu was heav­i­ly involved with Gold­en Lily and the Bataan Death March, the sur­vivors of which were a focal point of Iris Chang’s research at the time of her death.


Failure

In the first two pro­grams after the 9/11 attacks, Mr. Emory pre­sent­ed excerpts from his pro­grams which direct­ly fore­shad­owed the attacks. That event and those that fol­lowed embody the fail­ure of Amer­i­can soci­ety. Serge Schme­mann wrote the lead arti­cle for “The New York Times” the day after the attack. He also craft­ed a “hit-piece” review of Christo­pher Simp­son’s “Blow­back.” That is not sur­pris­ing, giv­en Schme­man­n’s back­ground and some of the “Gray Lady’s” hir­ing prac­tices. WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.


Reflections on the Collapse in Afghanistan

The Afghan col­lapse was not a sur­prise. Emblem­at­ic of the fail­ure of the mil­i­tary effort was the Bush admin­is­tra­tion’s evac­u­a­tion of Al-Qae­da and Tal­iban com­bat­ants so they could escape U.S. mil­i­tary encir­clement. In the last pro­gram Mr. Emory did in 1999, he exam­ined George W. Bush’s polit­i­cal CV and her­itage, in order to gain per­spec­tive on what a Bush pres­i­den­cy might be like. Side 1 of the pro­gram began with dis­cus­sion of the Bin Laden fam­i­ly’s financ­ing of George W. Bush’s first ener­gy com­pa­ny. WFMU-FM is pod­cast­ing For The Record–You can sub­scribe to the pod­cast HERE.


FTR#1189 The Oswald Institute of Virology, Part 8: Covid-19 and The American Deep State, Part 2 (The Cover-Up Obviates the Conspiracy)

This pro­gram con­tin­ues our series ana­lyz­ing the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy as hav­ing been set up to take the fall for the Covid-19 pan­dem­ic, which–in our con­sid­ered opinion–is a covert oper­a­tion by the U.S. as part of the full-court press against Chi­na.

Under­scor­ing a point of analy­sis from pre­vi­ous broad­casts, we note that, of para­mount impor­tance in this con­text, is the fact that ANY virus can be made in a lab­o­ra­to­ry, from scratch as is being done for the SARS-CoV­‑2 (Covid-19) virus.

Ralph Baric–who did the gain-of-func­tion mod­i­fi­ca­tion on the Horse­shoe Bat coro­n­avirus, has been select­ed to engi­neer the Covid-19.

Note what might be termed a “viro­log­ic Juras­sic Park” man­i­fes­ta­tion: ” . . . . The tech­nol­o­gy imme­di­ate­ly cre­at­ed bio-weapon wor­ries. . . . Researchers at the US Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol and Pre­ven­tion (CDC) drove that point home in 2005 when they res­ur­rect­ed the influen­za virus that killed tens of mil­lions in 1918–1919. . . .”

Cen­tral to the inquiry about a lab­o­ra­to­ry gen­e­sis for the virus is Ralph Bar­ic. We note that:

1.–Baric’s mod­i­fi­ca­tion of a horse­shoe bat virus to make it more infec­tious (in col­lab­o­ra­tion with Shi Zhengli and in an Eco­Health Alliance affil­i­at­ed project) took place in North Car­oli­na, not Wuhan. “. . . . Crit­ics have jumped on this paper as evi­dence that Shi was con­duct­ing “gain of func­tion” exper­i­ments that could have cre­at­ed a super­bug, but Shi denies it. The research cit­ed in the paper was con­duct­ed in North Car­oli­na.
2.–Baric has been using relat­ed tech­niques to text remde­sivir (in 2017) and the Mod­er­na vac­cine. This places him in a milieu inex­tri­ca­bly linked to the mil­i­tary and pre-dat­ing the pan­dem­ic. ” . . . . Using a sim­i­lar tech­nique, in 2017, Baric’s lab showed that remde­sivir — cur­rent­ly the only licensed drug for treat­ing covid — could be use­ful in fight­ing coro­n­avirus infec­tions. Bar­ic also helped test the Mod­er­na covid vac­cine and a lead­ing new drug can­di­date against covid. . . .”

Next, we present analy­sis of a very impor­tant, albeit slant­ed Van­i­ty Fair arti­cle:

1.–Pompeo State Depart­ment offi­cials pur­su­ing the lab-leak hypoth­e­sis were told to cov­er it up lest it shed light on U.S. gov­ern­ment fund­ing of research at the “Oswald Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy!”: ” . . . . In one State Depart­ment meet­ing, offi­cials seek­ing to demand trans­paren­cy from the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment say they were explic­it­ly told by col­leagues not to explore the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virology’s gain-of-func­tion research, because it would bring unwel­come atten­tion to U.S. gov­ern­ment fund­ing of it. . . . . In an inter­nal memo obtained by Van­i­ty Fair, Thomas DiNan­no, for­mer act­ing assis­tant sec­re­tary of the State Department’s Bureau of Arms Con­trol, Ver­i­fi­ca­tion, and Com­pli­ance, wrote that. . .  staff from two bureaus . . . “warned” lead­ers with­in his bureau ‘not to pur­sue an inves­ti­ga­tion into the ori­gin of COVID-19’ because it would ‘open a can of worms’ if it con­tin­ued.’ . . . . As the group probed the lab-leak sce­nario, among oth­er pos­si­bil­i­ties, its mem­bers were repeat­ed­ly advised not to open a ‘Pandora’s box,’ said four for­mer State Depart­ment offi­cials inter­viewed by Van­i­ty Fair. . . .”
2.–Setting the ortho­doxy in ear­ly 2020 with a Lancet arti­cle rul­ing out a lab­o­ra­to­ry ori­gin for the virus was Peter Daszak, with approval from Ralph Bar­ic: ” . . . . It soon emerged, based on emails obtained by a Free­dom of Infor­ma­tion group called U.S. Right to Know, that Daszak had not only signed but orga­nized the influ­en­tial Lancet state­ment, with the inten­tion of con­ceal­ing his role and cre­at­ing the impres­sion of sci­en­tif­ic una­nim­i­ty. . . .”
3.–” . . . . In late March, for­mer Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol direc­tor Robert Red­field received death threats from fel­low sci­en­tists after telling CNN that he believed COVID-19 had orig­i­nat­ed in a lab. . . . ”
4.–Matthew Pot­tinger, a Chi­na hawk in the Trump admin­is­tra­tion, head­ed up a team to inves­ti­gate the Wuhan lab leak hypoth­e­sis. Note that the gain-of-func­tion milieu in the U.S. nation­al secu­ri­ty estab­lish­ment was a retard­ing fac­tor in the inquiry: ” . . . . By then, Matthew Pot­tinger had approved a COVID-19 ori­gins team, run by the NSC direc­torate that over­saw issues relat­ed to weapons of mass destruc­tion. A long­time Asia expert and for­mer jour­nal­ist, Pot­tinger pur­pose­ful­ly kept the team small . . . . In addi­tion, many lead­ing experts had either received or approved fund­ing for gain-of-func­tion research. Their ‘con­flict­ed’ sta­tus, said Pot­tinger, ‘played a pro­found role in mud­dy­ing the waters and con­t­a­m­i­nat­ing the shot at hav­ing an impar­tial inquiry.’  . . . .” 
5.–Note that Lawrence Liv­er­more sci­en­tists were involved with the gen­e­sis of the “Chi­na did it” hypoth­e­sis, after alleged­ly being alert­ed by a for­eign source to look into their own files. ” . . . . An intel­li­gence ana­lyst work­ing with David Ash­er sift­ed through clas­si­fied chan­nels and turned up a report that out­lined why the lab-leak hypoth­e­sis was plau­si­ble. It had been writ­ten in May by researchers at the Lawrence Liv­er­more Nation­al Lab­o­ra­to­ry, which per­forms nation­al secu­ri­ty research for the Depart­ment of Ener­gy. But it appeared to have been buried with­in the clas­si­fied col­lec­tions sys­tem. . . .”
6.–Note, also, that Chris Ford, a Chi­na hawk, was work­ing to sup­press the Wuhan lab leak hypoth­e­sis: ” . . . . Their frus­tra­tion crest­ed in Decem­ber, when they final­ly briefed Chris Ford, act­ing under­sec­re­tary for Arms Con­trol and Inter­na­tion­al Secu­ri­ty. He seemed so hos­tile to their probe that they viewed him as a blink­ered func­tionary bent on white­wash­ing China’s malfea­sance. But Ford, who had years of expe­ri­ence in nuclear non­pro­lif­er­a­tion, had long been a Chi­na hawk. . . .”
7.–The “Chi­na did it/Wuhan lab leak” hypoth­e­sis sur­vived from the Trump admin­is­tra­tion and Mike Pom­peo’s State Depart­ment to the Biden admin­is­tra­tion: ” . . . .. . . . The state­ment with­stood ‘aggres­sive sus­pi­cion,’ as one for­mer State Depart­ment offi­cial said, and the Biden admin­is­tra­tion has not walked it back. ‘I was very pleased to see Pompeo’s state­ment come through,’ said Chris Ford, who per­son­al­ly signed off on a draft of the fact sheet before leav­ing the State Depart­ment. ‘I was so relieved that they were using real report­ing that had been vet­ted and cleared.’ . . . .”
8.–Avril Haines, whom we have cit­ed in this series as a key par­tic­i­pant in the Deep State shep­herd­ing of the “Lab-Leak Hypoth­e­sis,” looms large in the inquiry into the per­pet­u­a­tion of this pro­pa­gan­da meme: ” . . . . Inside the U.S. gov­ern­ment, mean­while, the lab-leak hypoth­e­sis had sur­vived the tran­si­tion from Trump to Biden. On April 15, Direc­tor of Nation­al Intel­li­gence Avril Haines told the House Intel­li­gence Com­mit­tee that two ‘plau­si­ble the­o­ries’ were being weighed: a lab acci­dent or nat­ur­al emer­gence. . . .”
9.–The arti­cle con­cludes with the inter­est­ing use of the term “cut-out” to describe the Eco­Health Alliance. The term gen­er­al­ly refers to an intel­li­gence-com­mu­ni­ty front orga­ni­za­tion. Is the author hint­ing at more? Did her edi­tor take infor­ma­tion out? ” . . . . The Unit­ed States deserves a healthy share of blame as well. Thanks to their unprece­dent­ed track record of men­dac­i­ty and race-bait­ing, Trump and his allies had less than zero cred­i­bil­i­ty. And the prac­tice of fund­ing risky research via cutouts like Eco­Health Alliance enmeshed lead­ing virol­o­gists in con­flicts of inter­est at the exact moment their exper­tise was most des­per­ate­ly need­ed. . . .”

We con­clude with two impor­tant points from an arti­cle used ear­li­er in the pro­gram.

1.–Shi Zhengli has not­ed that open­ing up the WIV’s records is unac­cept­able: ” . . . . That demand is ‘def­i­nite­ly not accept­able,’ respond­ed Shi Zhengli, who directs the Cen­ter for Emerg­ing Infec­tious Dis­eases at the Wuhan Insti­tute. ‘Who can pro­vide evi­dence that does not exist?’ she told MIT Tech­nol­o­gy Review. Shi has said that thou­sands of attempts to hack its com­put­er sys­tems forced the insti­tute to close its data­base. . . .”
2.–The U.S. would not be accept­able to such a propo­si­tion, if the Chi­nese demand­ed access to Ft. Det­rick (part of which was shut down by the CDC in ear­ly August of 2019 on the eve of the pan­dem­ic). A com­menter also not­ed the Rocky Moun­tain lab in his analy­sis, which we not­ed was one of the areas where Willy Burgdor­fer appears to have worked on the devel­op­ment of Lyme Dis­ease.) ” . . . . If a dis­ease had emerged from the U.S. and the Chi­nese blamed the Pen­ta­gon and demand­ed access to the data, ‘what would we say?’ [Dr. Getrald] Keusch asked. ‘Would we throw out the red car­pet, ‘Come on over to Fort Det­rick and the Rocky Moun­tain Lab?’ We’d have done exact­ly what the Chi­nese did, which is say, ‘Screw you!’’ . . . .”


FTR#1188 The Oswald Institute of Virology, Part 7: Covid-19 and The American Deep State

This pro­gram con­tin­ues our series ana­lyz­ing the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy as hav­ing been set up to take the fall for the Covid-19 pan­dem­ic, which–in our con­sid­ered opinion–is a covert oper­a­tion by the U.S. as part of the full-court press against Chi­na.

As the “Lab Leak Hypoth­e­sis” of the pan­demic’s ori­gins moves toward becom­ing a main­streamed pro­pa­gan­da theme, we note that:

1.–Anthony Fau­ci him­self set forth the “lab leak” sce­nario in his 2012 endorse­ment of a mora­to­ri­um on gain-of-func­tion manip­u­la­tions, set­ting the intel­lec­tu­al stage for the “gam­ing” of just such a sce­nario. In FTR#1187, we not­ed that Fau­ci’s NIH NIAID was among the insti­tu­tions that presided over Eco­Health Alliance’s fund­ing of exper­i­men­ta­tion on bat-borne coro­n­avirus­es at the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy. ” . . . . In 2012, Dr. Antho­ny Fau­ci, who leads NIH’s Nation­al Insti­tute of Aller­gy and Infec­tious Dis­eases, came out in sup­port of a mora­to­ri­um on such research, pos­ing a hypo­thet­i­cal sce­nario involv­ing a poor­ly trained sci­en­tist in a poor­ly reg­u­lat­ed lab: ‘In an unlike­ly but con­ceiv­able turn of events, what if that sci­en­tist becomes infect­ed with the virus, which leads to an out­break and ulti­mate­ly trig­gers a pan­dem­ic?’ Fau­ci wrote. . . .”
2.–USAID’s PREDICT project trained many of the sci­en­tists at the WIV.  From the stand­point of covert oper­a­tions, this would afford the oppor­tu­ni­ty to place one or more oper­a­tives inside that appar­ent­ly tar­get­ed insti­tu­tion: [USAID is a State Depart­ment sub­sidiary that is one of the largest fun­ders of  the Eco­Health Alliance and a fre­quent cov­er for CIA activ­i­ty.] ” . . . . . . . . Many of the sci­en­tists at the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy have been trained by the U.S. government’s PREDICT project. . . .”
3.–The jour­nal­is­tic gen­er­a­tion of the lab-leak the­o­ry comes, in part, from Michael R. Gor­don, who has a his­to­ry of gen­er­at­ing dubi­ous jour­nal­ism to sup­port the plans of the nation­al secu­ri­ty estab­lish­ment. Gor­don: ” . . . . was the same man who, along with Judith Miller, wrote the Sep­tem­ber 8, 2002 arti­cle false­ly assert­ing that Iraqi Pres­i­dent Sad­dam Hus­sein was seek­ing to build a nuclear weapon. . . The claim was a lie, fun­neled to the Times by the office of US Vice Pres­i­dent Dick Cheney. . . On May 26, 2004, the Times pub­lished a let­ter from its edi­tors enti­tled ‘FROM THE EDITORS; The Times and Iraq,’ ‘acknowl­edg­ing that the Times repeat­ed­ly ‘fell for mis­in­for­ma­tion.’ . . . The let­ter notes: ‘But we have found a num­ber of instances of cov­er­age that was not as rig­or­ous as it should have been... On Sept. 8, 2002, the lead arti­cle of the paper was head­lined ‘U.S. Says Hus­sein Inten­si­fied Quest for A‑Bomb Parts.’ That report con­cerned the alu­minum tubes that the admin­is­tra­tion adver­tised insis­tent­ly as com­po­nents for the man­u­fac­ture of nuclear weapons fuel. … it should have been pre­sent­ed more cau­tious­ly . . . .”
4.–Gordon: ” . . . . On April 20, 2014 . . . co-authored an arti­cle enti­tled ‘Pho­tos Link Masked Men in East Ukraine to Rus­sia,’ which claimed to iden­ti­fy masked men oper­at­ing in east­ern Ukraine in oppo­si­tion to the US-backed coup regime as active-duty Russ­ian sol­diers. . . .Four days lat­er, the Times Pub­lic Edi­tor was again com­pelled to retract the claims in Gordon’s report­ing, call­ing them ‘dis­cred­it­ed.’ . . .”
5.–New York Times right-wing colum­nist Ross Douthat has high­light­ed the pro­pa­gan­da sig­nif­i­cance of pin­ning the “Lab Leak The­o­ry” on Chi­na: ” . . . . to the extent that the Unit­ed States is engaged in a con­flict of pro­pa­gan­da and soft pow­er with the regime in Bei­jing, there’s a pret­ty big dif­fer­ence between a world where the Chi­nese regime can say, We weren’t respon­si­ble for Covid but we crushed the virus and the West did not, because we’re strong and they’re deca­dent, and a world where this was basi­cal­ly their Cher­nobyl except their incom­pe­tence and cov­er-up sick­ened not just one of their own cities but also the entire globe. . . .”
6.–Pompeo State Depart­ment offi­cials pur­su­ing the lab-leak hypoth­e­sis were told to cov­er it up lest it shed light on U.S. gov­ern­ment fund­ing of research at the “Oswald Insti­tute of Virol­o­gy!”: ” . . . . In one State Depart­ment meet­ing, offi­cials seek­ing to demand trans­paren­cy from the Chi­nese gov­ern­ment say they were explic­it­ly told by col­leagues not to explore the Wuhan Insti­tute of Virology’s gain-of-func­tion research, because it would bring unwel­come atten­tion to U.S. gov­ern­ment fund­ing of it. . . . .In an inter­nal memo obtained by Van­i­ty Fair, Thomas DiNan­no, for­mer act­ing assis­tant sec­re­tary of the State Department’s Bureau of Arms Con­trol, Ver­i­fi­ca­tion, and Com­pli­ance, wrote that. . .  staff from two bureaus . . . “warned” lead­ers with­in his bureau ‘not to pur­sue an inves­ti­ga­tion into the ori­gin of COVID-19’ because it would ‘open a can of worms’ if it con­tin­ued.’ . . . . As the group probed the lab-leak sce­nario, among oth­er pos­si­bil­i­ties, its mem­bers were repeat­ed­ly advised not to open a ‘Pandora’s box,’ said four for­mer State Depart­ment offi­cials inter­viewed by Van­i­ty Fair. . . .”
7.–Setting the ortho­doxy in ear­ly 2020 with a Lancet arti­cle rul­ing out a lab­o­ra­to­ry ori­gin for the virus was Peter Daszak, with approval from Ralph Bar­ic: ” . . . . It soon emerged, based on emails obtained by a Free­dom of Infor­ma­tion group called U.S. Right to Know, that Daszak had not only signed but orga­nized the influ­en­tial Lancet state­ment, with the inten­tion of con­ceal­ing his role and cre­at­ing the impres­sion of sci­en­tif­ic una­nim­i­ty. . . .”
8.–” . . . . In late March, for­mer Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol direc­tor Robert Red­field received death threats from fel­low sci­en­tists after telling CNN that he believed COVID-19 had orig­i­nat­ed in a lab. . . . ”


FTR#1182 Terror, the Afghanistan War and The American Deep State, Part 2

The pro­gram begins with mate­r­i­al over­lapped from our pre­vi­ous pro­gram, delin­eat­ing U.S. gov­ern­ment pro­tec­tion of Jihadist ele­ments, in order that they could be used as proxy war­riors in ongo­ing covert oper­a­tions.

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: The FBI’s lim­it­ing of the inves­ti­ga­tion of the assas­si­na­tion of extrem­ist Rab­bi Meir Kahane; the fact that the lim­it­ing of that inves­ti­ga­tion per­mit­ted Ali Mohamed, Mah­moud Abouli­hama and Mohammed Salameh to par­tic­i­pate in future ter­ror­ist attacks, includ­ing the 1993 World Trade Cen­ter bomb­ing and the 1998 Nairo­bi Embassy bomb­ing; the FBI’s blam­ing of the atten­u­a­tion of the inves­ti­ga­tion of the Kahane mur­der on New York DA Robert Mor­gen­thau; Morgenthau’s pre­vi­ous inves­ti­ga­tion of the CIA-linked BCCI; the FBI’s shield­ing of Army Spe­cial Forces oper­a­tive Ali Mohamed in the1993 World Trade Cen­ter bomb­ing; the FBI’s shield­ing of Mohamed in the 1995 “Land­marks Case”—the plot to blow up the Unit­ed Nations, the George Wash­ing­ton Bridge and both the Lin­coln and Hol­land Tun­nels; the prob­a­bil­i­ty that Mohamed’s util­i­ty as a train­er of muja­hadeen for covert oper­a­tions in Afghanistan, Bosnia and parts of the for­mer Sovi­et Union was the cause of his invi­o­la­bil­i­ty.

The next sec­tion of the pro­gram presents infor­ma­tion about the gen­e­sis of Ali Mohamed as a U.S. agent and train­er of muja­hadeen.

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: Zbig­niew Brzezinski’s cre­ation of the muja­hadeen train­ing and recruit­ment orga­ni­za­tion at the out­set of the Afghan war against the Sovi­et Union; the train­ing of Egypt­ian pres­i­dent Anwar Sadat’s elite per­son­al guard (of which Ali Mohamed was a mem­ber) by J.J. Capuc­ci and Asso­ciates, head­ed by “ex” CIA-agent Edwin Wil­son and Theodore Shack­ley; the hand­ing over of the train­ing of Sadat’s guard to the CIA fol­low­ing Brzezinski’s vis­it to Egypt in 1980; Ali Mohamed’s train­ing at Fort Bragg in the U.S. by Spe­cial Forces; Mohamed’s net­work­ing with and alle­giance to both Sheikh Rah­man (involved with the Al-Kifah Cen­ter muja­hadeen effort, the 1993 World Trade Cen­ter bomb­ing and the Land­marks case) and Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden’s right-hand man and even­tu­al suc­ces­sor.

Next, we dol­ly back and exam­ine the con­tin­ued domes­tic and for­eign oper­a­tions of the Al-Kifah Cen­ter milieu, includ­ing oper­a­tions involv­ing drug traf­fick­ing and oth­er crim­i­nal activ­i­ty, sup­port for the Al-Kifah Cen­ter by Sau­di Ara­bia and the Cen­ter’s involve­ment in covert oper­a­tions in Xin­jiang Province in Chi­na, Chech­nya in Rus­sia, Uzbek­istan and oth­er for­mer parts of the Sovi­et Union and the Balka­ns.

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: The tran­si­tion of Ali Mohamed’s muja­hadeen-train­ing pro­gram from send­ing fight­ers to Afghanistan to send­ing fight­ers to Bosnia; the Sau­di government’s par­tial financ­ing of Sheikh Rahman’s defense fund (Rah­man was indict­ed in the 1993 World Trade Cen­ter bomb­ing); Al-Kifah trainees’ par­tic­i­pa­tion in covert oper­a­tions in Chech­nya, Tajik­istan and fight­ing along­side the Uighurs in Xin­jiang province; Al-Qaeda’s alliance with the Islam­ic Move­ment of Uzbek­istan; the Al-Qaeda/IMU use of hero­in traf­fick­ing to finance com­bat and ter­ror oper­a­tions; the 9/11 Com­mis­sion Report’s dis­missal of the ver­i­fi­able fact that Al-Qae­da helped finance its oper­a­tions with the Afghan drug trade; the Al-Kifah Cen­ter milieu’s involve­ment in the drug trade, as well as arson-for-hire and coun­ter­feit­ing; Mujahid Abdulqaadir Menep­ta, a Mus­lim sus­pect in both the 9/11 case and the Okla­homa City bomb­ing; Menepta’s alleged involve­ment in orga­nized crime and drug traf­fick­ing; the Al-Kifah Center’s joint oper­a­tions with the Saud­is; Sphinx Trading’s link to the Al-Kifah oper­a­tion; the pro­tec­tion of Sphinx Trad­ing even after 9/11.

Flesh­ing out the jihadist milieu, we note bin Laden rel­a­tives and their involve­ment in Al-Qae­da fronts and the cov­er-up of their activ­i­ties by the Deep State milieu.

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: the World Assem­bly of Mus­lim Youth and its links to muja­hadeen and ter­ror­ism; Abdul­lah bin Laden’s lead­er­ship of the WAMY; Abdul­lah bin Laden’s evac­u­a­tion by jet along with oth­er Saud­is and mem­bers of the bin Laden fam­i­ly after 9/11; the Gold­en Chain let­ter dis­cov­ered in the IIRO office in Bosnia, con­tain­ing the names of key Al-Qae­da financiers; the pres­ence in the “Gold­en Chain’ of Khalid bin Mah­fouz, the top banker in Sau­di Ara­bia; the IIRO’s found­ing by Jamal Kali­fa, Osama bin Laden’s nephew.

The last part of our pro­gram reviews two ele­ments pre­sent­ed in FTR#1181.

In the tri­al of Ramzi Yousef, a lay-out of the ter­ror sce­nario that became the 9/11 attacks was on Youse­f’s lap­top, yet was nev­er brought to light.

Like­wise, the name of Khalid Shaikh Mohamed–dubbed the mas­ter­mind of the 9/11 and cur­rent­ly the focal point of ongo­ing legal proceedings–was all but omit­ted from Youse­f’s tri­al, despite his par­tic­i­pa­tion in the abort­ed “Oper­a­tion Bojin­ka” plot to blow up a num­ber of air­lin­ers over the Pacif­ic.

In our series, we note the exclu­sion of key par­tic­i­pants in the mur­der of extrem­ist Rab­bi Meir Kahane, which per­mit­ted co-con­spir­a­tors to par­tic­i­pate in the first World Trade Cen­ter attack in 1993 and Nairo­bi U.S. Embassy bomb­ings in 1998.

Among the prob­a­ble motives for these key, dead­ly omis­sions is the use of these Al-Qae­da, Mus­lim-Broth­er­hood derived ter­ror­ist ele­ments as proxy war­riors in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chech­nya and Uzbek­istan.

We con­clude by review­ing how cyn­i­cal the Deep State can be, act­ing with a com­plete dis­re­gard for Amer­i­can com­bat mil­i­tary per­son­nel.


FTR #1181 Terror, The Afghanistan War and the American Deep State, Part 1

With Pres­i­dent Biden hav­ing announced the with­draw­al of U.S. com­bat forces from Afghanistan, we con­tem­plate the events that led to that involve­ment, espe­cial­ly ter­ror­ist inci­dents cul­mi­nat­ing in the 9/11 attack.

We rely on research done by the bril­liant, ven­er­a­ble Peter Dale Scott.

We begin by not­ing how cyn­i­cal the Deep State can be, act­ing with a com­plete dis­re­gard for Amer­i­can com­bat mil­i­tary per­son­nel: ” . . . . Just how sub­or­di­nat­ed offi­cial pol­i­cy could become to deep state needs was demon­strat­ed in Novem­ber 2001, when Cheney, at the request of [Pakistan’s head of state] Mushar­raf and the ISI [Pakistan’s pri­ma­ry intel­li­gence ser­vice], approved secret air­lifts to fer­ry sur­round­ed Pak­istani and high-lev­el al-Qae­da fight­ers out of Afghanistan, to safe­ty in Pak­istan. . . .”

In the tri­al of Ramzi Yousef, a lay-out of the ter­ror sce­nario that became the 9/11 attacks was on Youse­f’s lap­top, yet was nev­er brought to light.

Like­wise, the name of Khalid Shaikh Mohamed–dubbed the mas­ter­mind of the 9/11 and cur­rent­ly the focal point of ongo­ing legal proceedings–was all but omit­ted from Youse­f’s tri­al, despite his par­tic­i­pa­tion in the abort­ed “Oper­a­tion Bojin­ka” plot to blow up a num­ber of air­lin­ers over the Pacif­ic.

In our series, we note the exclu­sion of key par­tic­i­pants in the mur­der of extrem­ist Rab­bi Meir Kahane, which per­mit­ted co-con­spir­a­tors to par­tic­i­pate in the first World Trade Cen­ter attack in 1993 and Nairo­bi U.S. Embassy bomb­ings in 1998.

Among the prob­a­ble motives for these key, dead­ly omis­sions is the use of these Al-Qae­da, Mus­lim-Broth­er­hood derived ter­ror­ist ele­ments as proxy war­riors in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chech­nya and Uzbek­istan.

“. . . . In Triple Cross, Peter Lance, who does not men­tion KSM’s escape from Qatar, focus­es instead on the way that, lat­er in the same year, U.S. fed­er­al pros­e­cu­tors kept his name out of the tri­al of Ramzi Yousef in con­nec­tion with the 1993 World Trade Cen­ter bomb­ing: “Assis­tant U.S. Attor­neys Mike Gar­cia and Diet­rich Snell pre­sent­ed a riv­et­ing, evi­dence-dri­ven case . . . and char­ac­ter­ized the mate­r­i­al retrieved from Ramzi’s Toshi­ba lap­top as ‘the most dev­as­tat­ing evi­dence of all. . . .’ . . . While Yousef’s lap­top . . . con­tained the full details of the plot lat­er exe­cut­ed on 9/11, not a word of that sce­nario was men­tioned dur­ing tri­al . . . . Most sur­pris­ing, dur­ing the entire sum­mer-long tri­al, the name of the fourth Bojin­ka con­spir­a­tor, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed . . . . was men­tioned by name only once, in ref­er­ence to a let­ter found in [Yousef’s apart­ment] . . . .”

Illus­trat­ing the machi­na­tions of what Pro­fes­sor Scott terms “The Amer­i­can Deep State” are the inter­ac­tions between Big Oil, Sul­li­van & Cromwell, the Dulles broth­ers and the Eisen­how­er admin­is­tra­tion to desta­bi­lize the Mossad­eq regime in Iran.

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: A let­ter writ­ten by Sul­li­van & Cromwell attor­ney John Fos­ter Dulles in the 1930s to a British col­league, cel­e­brat­ing car­tels and the tri­umph of inter­na­tion­al busi­ness­men in over­com­ing bar­ri­ers to geopo­lit­i­cal maneu­ver­ing erect­ed by “nation­al­ist” politi­cians; col­lab­o­ra­tion by the “Sev­en Sis­ters” of Big Oil (Stan­dard Oil of New Jer­sey [now Exxon], Stan­dard Oil of New York [now Mobil], Stan­dard Oil of Cal­i­for­nia [now Chevron], Gulf Oil, Tex­a­co, Roy­al Dutch Shell and Anglo-Iran­ian [now BP] in con­trol­ling the inter­na­tion­al oil busi­ness; a coop­er­a­tive effort by the Sev­en Sis­ters to suc­cess­ful­ly reduce Iran­ian oil pro­duc­tion from 241 mil­lion bar­rels a year in 1950 to 10.6 mil­lion bar­rels a year in 1952 in order to desta­bi­lize pre­mier Mossad­eq; Pro­fes­sor Scott’s point that the CIA’s over­throw of Mossad­eq in 1953 rep­re­sent­ed a “Deep State” real­iza­tion of the goal of the oil car­tel; the role of ARAMCO in the stran­gling of Iran­ian oil pro­duc­tion, off­set­ting the drop in Iran­ian pro­duc­tion by increas­ing its own; change of a Jus­tice Depart­ment suit against Big Oil from a crim­i­nal pro­ceed­ing to a civ­il suit pros­e­cut­ed by the Depart­ment of State; the pre­dictable res­o­lu­tion of that suit in favor of big oil; the fact that the oil car­tel was rep­re­sent­ed in that suit by Sul­li­van & Cromwell and John Fos­ter Dulles was in charge of the State Depart­ment; the fact that John Fos­ter Dulles’ broth­er and Sul­li­van & Cromwell asso­ciate Allen was in charge of the CIA at the same time and over­saw the removal of Mossad­eq; Allen Dulles’ suc­cess­ful gam­bit to side­step Pres­i­dent Eisen­how­er by secur­ing British Prime Min­is­ter Harold MacMil­lan as an exec­u­tive author­i­ty to dis­patch U‑2 flights..

The pro­gram con­cludes with delin­eation of U.S. gov­ern­ment pro­tec­tion of Jihadist ele­ments so that they could be used as proxy war­riors in ongo­ing covert oper­a­tions.

Key Points of Dis­cus­sion and Analy­sis Include: U.S. gov­ern­ment pro­tec­tion for Ali Mohamed, an al-Qae­da oper­a­tive who dou­bled as a Spe­cial Forces oper­a­tive train­ing muja­hadeen for com­bat oper­a­tions in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Chech­nya among oth­er places; FBI agent John Zent’s com­mu­ni­ca­tion to the RCMP in Van­cou­ver, lead­ing to Mohamed’s release from cus­tody; Mohamed’s train­ing of muja­hadeen at the Al-Kifah Refugee Cen­ter in Brook­lyn; the assas­si­na­tion of extrem­ist Rab­bi Meir Kahane by trainees of Mohamed’s includ­ing El Sayyid Nosair; the FBI and New York Police Department’s cov­er-up of the par­tic­i­pa­tion in the Kahane killing of Nosair/Mohamed asso­ciates; the even­tu­al par­tic­i­pa­tion of some of those asso­ciates in the 1993 World Trade Cen­ter bomb­ing; the FBI’s sab­o­tage of New York Coun­ty Dis­trict Attor­ney Robert Morgenthau’s attempts to widen the inves­ti­ga­tion of the Al-Kifah milieu; the cen­tral role of Ali Mohamed’s Al-Kifah trainees in the 1993 World Trade Cen­ter bomb­ing.


Afghan Overture

In a series of pro­grams we are record­ing, we high­light the vital research of the bril­liant, ven­er­a­ble Berke­ley researcher Peter Dale Scott, who has chron­i­cled the shock­ing behav­ior of ele­ments of our gov­ern­ment, cov­er­ing up the involve­ment in ter­ror­ist inci­dents of indi­vid­u­als and insti­tu­tions that, if prop­er­ly pur­sued, could have pre­vent­ed the 9/11 attacks–the event that pre­cip­i­tat­ed our entry into that con­flict. “. . . . In Triple Cross, Peter Lance, who does not men­tion [9/11 mas­ter­mind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed’s] escape from Qatar, focus­es instead on the way that, lat­er in the same year, U.S. fed­er­al pros­e­cu­tors kept his name out of the tri­al of Ramzi Yousef in con­nec­tion with the 1993 World Trade Cen­ter bomb­ing: ‘Assis­tant U.S. Attor­neys Mike Gar­cia and Diet­rich Snell pre­sent­ed a riv­et­ing, evi­dence-dri­ven case . . . and char­ac­ter­ized the mate­r­i­al retrieved from Ramzi’s Toshi­ba lap­top as ‘the most dev­as­tat­ing evi­dence of all. . . .’ . . . While Yousef’s lap­top . . . con­tained the full details of the plot lat­er exe­cut­ed on 9/11, not a word of that sce­nario was men­tioned dur­ing tri­al . . . . Most sur­pris­ing, dur­ing the entire sum­mer-long tri­al, the name of the fourth Bojin­ka con­spir­a­tor, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed . . . . was men­tioned by name only once, in ref­er­ence to a let­ter found in [Yousef’s apart­ment] . . . .”