The Trolls Here Are Killing Me. Their Presence Speaks More Than Sinking

How the CIA Killed History

by Ace R. Hayes
(May/June 1997 issue)
From the Portland Free Press

Editor's note: Three decades ago (4 January 1967), the CIA produced adocument (#1035-960), "Countering Criticism of the Warren Report." This document was partly declassified under an FOIA, September 1976. It is the blueprint for employing "CIA media assets" to smear critics of the Warren Commission. The justification for this perversion of truth, justice and democracy was clearly stated: "Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society."

CONTINUED…

http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/news/ciakillhistory.htm

Read this CIA document 1035-960 here:

Countering Criticism of the Warren Report

http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html

It's my party and I'll spy if I want to

December 26, 2005
By Glen McAdoo
Lahontan Valley News and Fallon Eagle Standard (Nevada)

"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires - a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so"- George W. Bush April 20, 2004.

At the very time of that statement, George W. Bush was personally overseeing wiretaps without any court orders.

For all of you who still claim this president doesn't lie, this must come as a shock. For the rest of us it just comes as another "we told you so." He admitted as much the other day when he vowed to continue the practice of spying on American citizens whom he suspects may have ties to Al Qaeda.

The problem is, who is deciding just what amounts to "ties to Al Qaeda?" Not the courts. George W. Bush is above the law. He and he alone will decide. Okay, he may consult with a crony or two. As Richard Nixon once said, "if the president does it, it can't be illegal." Right, George?

How times have changed. With a few exceptions, the most outspoken Republicans who were screaming for the head of Bill Clinton for lying about an extra-marital encounter, claiming no one was above the law, are singing a different tune now that it's their guy who seems to believe he is above the law.

CONTINUED...

http://www.lahontanvalleynews.com/article/20051226/Opinion/112260005

IMPEACH BUSH: NO PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW, NOT IN CHILE, NOT IN THE U.S.

Bush’s Slippery Slope Leads To A Police State, Plain And Simple

(Dec. 21, 2005, Ed. Note: It is a sad state of affairs to have the President of the United States admit to the nation and to the world that he is spying on the citizens he is elected to safeguard.

It is worse to have the President aggressively justify his “big brother” politics in the name of an ill-begotten, counter-productive war on terrorism that, by his own admission, will go on for years and years and years. It would seem that George Orwell’s “1984” is now at hand; that Bush is aiming to outdo Chile’s Gen. Augusto Pinochet, who also justified his assault on the human rights of Chileans in the higher name of a “war on terrorism.”

The slippery slope that Bush has embarked upon leads to a police state, plain and simple.

Bush argues that his powers as a president in “times of war” are plenary – that is, full, complete, without limit. Yet the very soul of a democracy is the equal powers that the three branches of government share, each serving as a counterweight to the messianic impulses that any one of the other branches might dare assume.

How can President Bush claim to want to instill a working democracy in Iraq, while at the same time violating our own U.S. laws, our own system of checks and balances? Terrorism is a serious risk to our nation, but a far greater threat is the centralization of American political power in the hands of any single branch of the government.

CONTINUED w Byrd's speech to the U.S. Senate...

http://www.tcgnews.com/santiagotimes/index.php?nav=story&story_id=10503&topic_id=1

April Glaspie Redux

Remember how the justification for the US government's permanent blockade and eventual aggressive invasion of Iraq in 2003 was based on the idea that Saddam Hussein was in defiance of the cease fire agreement that ended his war with the United Nations in 1991?

For the sake of making the real point of this post, we can neglect the fact that, as former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter has explained,

"Within months of this resolution being passed – and the United States was a drafter and voted in favor of this resolution – within months, the President, George Herbert Walker Bush, and his Secretary of State, James Baker, are saying publicly -- not privately, publicly -- that even if Iraq complies with its obligation to disarm, economic sanctions will be maintained until which time Saddam Hussein is removed from power. That is proof positive that disarmament was only useful insofar as it contained, through the maintenance of sanctions, and facilitated regime change.

It was never about disarmament. It was never about getting rid of weapons of mass destruction. It started with George Herbert Walker Bush and it was a policy continued through eight years of the Clinton presidency and then brought us to this current disastrous course of action under the current Bush administration,"

and instead focus on the question of what justified the UN war in the first place:

Why did Saddam want to invade Kuwait in August 1990? Seems he was having trouble paying off his debts from the war with Iran and Kuwait's government was having more than their OPEC quota worth of oil produced, which was driving down Saddam's revenues to the point where he was facing bankruptcy and perhaps the loss of his power. On top of this were allegations that the Kuwaitis were slant-drilling under Iraq's border and stealing their oil in order to accomplish this.

Enter US ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie.

As we are reminded in this piece for the Jang group by Kaleem Omar, "Is the US State Department still keeping April Glaspie under wraps?, the United States, during a meeting between Hussein and Glaspie, invited Saddam Hussein to send his army to invade tiny, defenseless Kuwait.

CONTINUED...

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/index.php?id=P2585