Wednesday, March 18, 2009

old GLADIO lie in TIMES embedded newspaper

Haha... godfather = MAFIA!!
(get the drift?)

March 17, 2009

Andreotti: why I walked out of my own biopic

The godfather of Italian politics, Giulio Andreotti, was not impressed by Il Divo, a film about his life

When Giulio Andreotti, seven times Italian Prime Minister, went to see the film Il Divo, which portrays him as the man at the heart of postwar Italy's dark secrets, he suffered in silence. There came a moment however, it was reported, when the 90-year-old Andreotti groaned and stood up, declaring: “No, no - that is really too much.”

When we met at the Italian Senate I asked him what the “too much” moment was. Was it when the film's Andreotti - brilliantly played by Tony Servillo, who also starred in Gomorrah - explains the discrepancy between his deep Roman Catholic faith and his political pragmatism with the cynical words “God doesn't vote”?

Was it perhaps when he recites a list of mysterious violent deaths and says: “Sometimes you have to do evil to do good”? Or was it the scene in which he is seen sealing his links to the Mafia by giving a “kiss of honour” to Toto Riina, the notorious Godfather who was arrested in 1993 and is serving multiple life sentences, an episode that one Mafia turncoat swore he had seen?

He gazes at me owlishly through his spectacles, a small, hunched but alert figure, as if struggling to remember. “Yes, the kiss, I think,” he says. “It never happened, you know. It was an invention. I would kiss my wife, but not Toto Riina.”

OK, but did he also resent the rest of the film? He shrugs. “I didn't see much of it, to be honest.” A disarming smile and a chuckle. “I had better things to do.” Did he consider complaining to Paolo Sorrentino, the director, whom he once called “a blackguard”, or even taking legal action? “Good heavens, no. I don't say the film didn't interest me, I say it didn't particularly move me. I don't consider myself a hero or a saint. I am a normal man.”

“Normal”, however, is the one thing Andreotti is not, as emerges with dramatic force from Sorrentino's operatic and often savagely biting film, which won the Prix du Jury at the Cannes Film Festival last year. His various nicknames speak for themselves: Il Divo Giulio (from Divus Iulius, the nickname of Julius Caesar) but also Beelzebub, the Prince of Darkness, the Fox, the Hunchback (“Perhaps if I had taken more exercise when young my figure would be different,” he remarked).

He is a difficult man to pin down: evasive, enigmatic, witty, entertaining, sinister to many, he embodies the Italy of the past 65 years, including its “dark heart”. Having lived through Fascism as a young man, he was present at the creation of postwar Italian democracy as a disciple of Alcide De Gasperi, the great Christian Democratic Prime Minister.

Andreotti was born in Via dei Prefetti, just “two steps” from Parliament. He said he preferred “the old, authentic Rome” of the cobbled historic centre to the modern suburbs. He tends to see events in the broad sweep of history rather than today's headlines. “I have been blamed for almost everything apart from the Punic wars, which were before my time,” he once said. His father died when he was young, and he was brought up in considerable hardship by his mother. As an altar boy he acquired the faith that has never left him (he still goes to Mass every day).

He studied law and dabbled in journalism, until a chance meeting in the Vatican library with De Gasperi took him into politics. An aunt taught him to realise that few things were truly important and to keep a sense of perspective. The two dominant women in his life, however, have been his wife Livia (played in the film by Anna Bonaiuto), to whom he has been married for more than 60 years (they have four children, plus grandchildren), and his long-serving secretary Vincenza Enea (Piera Degli Esposti), both of whom he found sympathetically portrayed.

He was Prime Minister on seven occasions from 1972 to 1992, as well as Minister of the Interior, Defence Minister and Foreign Minister, and is now a Senator for Life, still manoeuvring to support or bring down governments. He has sat in Parliament without interruption since 1946 - with (his enemies say) the backing of the United States, the Vatican, the secret services and the Mafia.

When Il Divo was shown at the London Film Festival last October a critic for Times Online wrote: “Small, stiff-limbed and short-strided, Andreotti ought to be a figure of fun as he pigeon-steps his way through marble halls and palaces. The laughter stops when he comes to a halt, standing at the static centre of a room while lackeys and lieutenants swirl around him.”

He was acquitted, convicted and then acquitted again of ordering the murder in 1979 of Mino Pecorelli, an investigative journalist who had alleged that Andreotti had links to the Mafia and to the kidnapping and murder in 1978 of Aldo Moro, a former Prime Minister and close Christian Democratic colleague who wanted to bring the Italian Communists into government in an “historic compromise”.

He was also acquitted on a separate charge of “Mafia association”. However, the final judgment in the Pecorelli case, in 2003, stated that Andreotti had had strong ties to the Mafia until 1980. It has never been established what he knew about the fate of Roberto Calvi, the Vatican-linked financier known as God's Banker, who was found hanging under Blackfriars Bridge in London in 1982.

So, a Mafia man? No, Andreotti says: after all, he himself ordered a crackdown on Cosa Nostra. “Anyway, I was born in Rome and live in Rome. We have our criminal gangs in Rome, but they are not Cosa Nostra.” He is being disingenuous, I suggest: after all, Christian Democracy was sustained by Sicilian votes, as is Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia today. “Yes, yes,” he murmurs. “The Sicilians are full of enthusiasm, you know. Warm people.”

Did he ever say that you have to be evil to do good? “No, no. It's not true anyway. Evil is evil and good is good. It's a hypocritical excuse on the part of those who have done evil and seek to justify themselves.” He is famous for remarking that “Power wears out those who don't have it” - a remark used in the film Godfather III - but says he never used his power to enrich himself.

The episode that haunts him most - and features prominently in Il Divo - is the death of Moro at the hands of the extreme leftwing Red Brigades, which is still shrouded in mystery 30 years on. He denies rumours that as Prime Minister he could have done more to save Moro. “Moro and I were very close,” he says. “I was head of the Catholic University after him. He was a very complex man, very intelligent, a fascinating figure. The Red Brigades were not numerous, as it turned out, but they were highly motivated. They wanted to destroy capitalism.”

One theory is that many of the unsolved mysteries of postwar Italy are related to murky plots to stop the communists gaining power in a strategically vital Western country: after all in 1990 Andreotti himself acknowledged the existence of “Gladio”, a secret anti-communist military body that infiltrated the Italian elite.

“That is simplistic,” Andreotti counters. “Christian Democracy combined its values and convictions with the need to defend us against international communism, that much is true. The communist danger really existed. It is no secret that the Italian Communists and some leftwing trades unions were supported not only ideologically but also financially by Moscow.”

And the Vatican? On his side table the real Andreotti has a photograph of himself with Pope Benedict XVI and images of Jesus and the Virgin Mary. “The Vatican has some influence with certain groups and persons in Italian life, but I believe most Italians respect the Vatican and do not think the Pope interferes too much.” Far from bending to the Vatican's will he sometimes stood up to it, he says.

Despite its popularity Andreotti dismisses the film, saying he believes he will in the end be judged “on his record”. So the mysteries remain. I asked him if was true that when he turned 90 he had said he would “take his secrets to the grave”. “True. In my life I have made many, shall we say, delicate choices. Some people played a double game, claiming to be on one side while being on another. Some things you don't see at the time because you are blinded by the light. You think you understood everything, then you see you didn't. But the past is the past. It is better to look to the future.”

Il Divo is released on Friday


check wikipedia:GLADIO.

CIA killed hundreds of innocent civilians..
It's OFFICIAL, proven.

Never mind how crazy it sounds... there is only one truth, namely that THAT HAPPENED.

TIMES is corporate owned, NEVER can it tell you the workings of OUR RULERS. The revolution will not be televized.

Stay Tuned with Hope Johnson

March 17, 2009

Pelosi - Throw the Book at Her

Which book? Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, of course!

Madame Speaker, in her infinite wisdom, requests the Department of Justice allow local newspapers more flexibility to merge in order to save The Chronicle. Pelosi believes anti-competition laws should include television and internet media in defining competition faced by newspapers.

In this time of economic uncertainty, Madoff, and a corporate history including the Enron fiasco, do we really need to further limit the people controlling the media?

Propaganda model lesson time from Herman and Chomsky.

Few find value in a failed Chron; however, any news unfavorable toward the owners of a media source is susceptible to censorship and biased reporting. Diversified ownership is key to ensure what might be subject to censorship in one publication receives props in another.

Besides, Nancy, newspapers and your idea of their “new” competition, television and the internet, are already owned by a small minority. Think Rupert Murdoch.

The Bush administration used terrorist attacks to limit our freedom. Is this an attempt at using the economic crisis to help the affluent limit our information?

Best Political Mind Prediction Redux

Predicted first comment on viewing new Willie Brown Way street signs? “Hey, check it out, San Francisco really is liberal. They’ve switched from honoring great writers on street names to honoring criminals and con men!”

As one SF resident, who requested anonymity, said of the name change, “Totally unacceptable, unless, of course, it terminates in Madoff Circle.”

Gav, you want to name a street after the guy who used his weekly column to praise a man about to raise college tuition fees during one of the worst economic crisis in our history. What’s the kickback?

Oh, Won’t You Stay Just a Little Bit Longer

At his office party on Friday, District 11 Supervisor John Avalos described the odd feeling of moving from legislative aide to being on the inside of the Board Chambers railing separating electeds from the public.

“That separation exists but I’m trying to break it down as much as possible,” Avalos explained.

And that he did at Wednesday’s Budget and Finance Committee meeting.

It’s never seemed fair the Mayor and department heads aren’t required to listen to public comment on their proposed program cuts, especially as we face devastating losses this year.

Imagine Rec and Park Department General Manager Jared Blumenfeld’s surprise when Avalos said, “I would like to ask a few questions as well but after public comment.”

“I think it would be good if you’re able to respond certainly to our questions, but then some of the things that are brought up in public comment as well at the end,” Avalos instructed Blumenfeld.

And, just like that, finally, the Mayor’s office had to not only stay for their fair share of public comment but also listen carefully. There was a test at the end!

Kudos to Supe Avalos for offering a hopeful spirit to worried commentators and, hopefully, starting a pattern of everyone involved in budget cuts getting an earful.

Stay tuned. Oh, yeah, and happy St. Paddy’s!

Fun Fact

FCJ’s multi-talented Elaine Santore captured live the solidarity protest for Tristan Anderson at the Israeli Embassy. Check it out, here.

Chomsky: Obama coming to Turkey for energy
There has been many scenarios about U.S. President Barack Obama`s visits to Turkey.
Wednesday, 18 March 2009 12:04
Chomsky: Obama coming to Turkey for energy Wednesday, 18 March 2009 12:04

There has been many scenarios about U.S. President Barack Obama`s visits to Turkey.

Chomsky, the famous U.S. political thinker, said Obama`s main objective during his vist to Turkey is to guarantee the Middle East energy resources.

There has been many scenarios about U.S. President Barack Obama`s visits to Turkey. USA's leading political thinker Noam Chomsky believes the main and the most important agenda will be energy during the visit.

Chomsky told Turkish newspaper Sabah, "The U.S. is trying to develop a new system in the Middle East. It wants to guarantee energy resources in the Middle East. It has preferred country models, such as Turkey, Israel and Iran in the Shah period."

Highlighting Turkey's strategic position, Chomsky said, "Turkey should assess this carefully as it serves as "energy bridge". At the same time, it should increase the level of their relations with Central Asian countries."

Chomsky states the United States has given much importance to Turkey`s armaments since the Cold War and added "as Turkey is the the world's fastest armed country, the relations have strengthened since especially 1997. But, in 2003, the Turkish government has made an interesting surprise (rejecting US troops to invade Iraq). The United States could not tolerate the idea that Turkey is a democratic country ."

Chomsky also said that Obama`s foreign policy is not different than Bush`s and the reason for increasing the number of troops in Afghanistan is to reduce the impact of Iran and Russia on this country

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum."
- Noam Chomsky

"That's an internet theory and it's hopelessly implausible. Hopelessly implausible. So hopelessly implausible I don't see any point in talking about it."
- Noam Chomsky, at a FAIR event at New York's Town Hall, 22 January 2002, in response to a question from the audience about US government foreknowledge of 9/11. At that time, 9/11 investigators had already presented substantial documented evidence for: prior warnings, Air Force stand-down, anomalous insider trading connected to CIA, cover-up of the domestic anthrax attacks, inconsistencies in identities & timelines of "hijackers", US connections to al Qaeda in Balkans, a Pak ISI-al Qaeda funding connection, etc etc etc.

Professor Noam Chomsky, one of the country's most famous dissidents, says that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman in Dallas. Anyone who still supports the Warren Commission hoax after forty years of countering proofs is either ill-informed, dumb, gullible, afraid to speak truths to power or a disinformation agent.

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), where Chomsky has worked for decades, has a very good physics department (MIT is the largest university contractor to the military). Perhaps he could visit them and learn why it is physically impossible for Oswald to have been anything more than the "patsy" that he (accurately) claimed to be.

The truth is that Chomsky is very good in his analysis within certain parameters of limited debate -- but in understanding the "deep politics" of the actual, secret government, his analysis falls short.

Chomsky is good at explaining the double standards in US foreign policies - but at this point understanding / exposing the mechanics of the deceptions (9/11 isn't the only one) the reasons for it (Peak Oil / global dominance / domestic fascism) and what we can do (war crimes trials / permaculture to relocalize food production / paradigm shifts) is more important than more repetition from Chomsky.

Professor Chomsky was apparently part of a study group in the late 1960s that was investigating what really happened in Dallas (ie. he was a skeptic of the official story). It seems likely that Chomsky did indeed figure out what happened - and decided that this was too big of an issue to confront.

Maybe Chomsky gets more media attention these days than most other dissidents BECAUSE he urges people not to inquire into how the secret government operates.

Chomsky in his own words

9-11: Institutional Analysis vs. Conspiracy Theory
Submitted by Noam Chomsky on Fri, 2006-10-06 14:09.
Categories: Middle East | United States | US Foreign Policy

The following is an exchange between a ZNet Sustainer and Noam Chomsky, which took place in the Sustainer Web Board where Noam hosts a forum...

ZNet Sustainer: Dear Noam, There is much documentation observed and uncovered by the 911 families themselves suggesting a criminal conspiracy within the Bush Administration to cover-up the 9/11 attacks (see DVD, 9/11: Press for Truth). Additionally, much evidence has been put forward to question the official version of events. This has come in part from Paul Thompson, an activist who has creatively established the 9/11 Timeline, a free 9/11 investigative database for activist researchers, which now, according to The Village Voice’s James Ridgeway, rivals the 9/11 Commission’s report in accuracy and lucidity (see,,mondo1,52830,6.html, or

Noam Chomsky: Hard for me to respond to the rest of the letter, because I am not persuaded by the assumption that much documentation and other evidence has been uncovered. To determine that, we'd have to investigate the alleged evidence. Take, say, the physical evidence. There are ways to assess that: submit it to specialists -- of whom there are thousands -- who have the requisite background in civil-mechanical engineering, materials science, building construction, etc., for review and analysis; and one cannot gain the required knowledge by surfing the internet. In fact, that's been done, by the professional association of civil engineers. Or, take the course pursued by anyone who thinks they have made a genuine discovery: submit it to a serious journal for peer review and publication. To my knowledge, there isn't a single submission. ZNet Sustainer: A question that arises for me is that regardless of this issue, how do I as an activist prevent myself from getting distracted by such things as conspiracy theories instead of focusing on the bigger picture of the institutional analysis of private profit over people?

[note: the Complete 9/11 Timeline does not focus on the physical evidence, Chomsky is either ignorant of the issue or steering people into a false dichotomy]

Noam Chomsky: I think this reaches the heart of the matter. One of the major consequences of the 9/11 movement has been to draw enormous amounts of energy and effort away from activism directed to real and ongoing crimes of state, and their institutional background, crimes that are far more serious than blowing up the WTC would be, if there were any credibility to that thesis. That is, I suspect, why the 9/11 movement is treated far more tolerantly by centers of power than is the norm for serious critical and activist work. How do you personally set priorities? That's of course up to you. I've explained my priorities often, in print as well as elsewhere, but we have to make our own judgments.

ZNet Sustainer: In a sense, profit over people is the real conspiracy, yes, yet not a conspiracy at all – rather institutional reality? At the same time, if the core of conspiracy theories are accurate, which is challenging to pin down, though increasingly possible, does it not fit into the same motivations of furthering institutional aims of public subsidizes to private tyrannies? I mean, through the 9/11attacks, Bush Et Al. has been able to justify massive increases in defense spending for a “war without end,” and Israel has been given the green light to do virtually whatever it wants since now ‘the Americans are in the same fight.’ Furthermore, there has been a substantial rollback of civil rights in our nation, with the most extreme example being strong attempt to terminate habeas corpus.

Noam Chomsky: Can't answer for the same reasons. I don't see any reason to accept the presuppositions. As for the consequences, in one of my first interviews after 9/11 I pointed out the obvious: every power system in the world was going to exploit it for its own interests: the Russians in Chechnya, China against the Uighurs, Israel in the occupied territories,... etc., and states would exploit the opportunity to control their own populations more fully through "prevention of terrorism acts" and the like. By the "who gains" argument, every power system in the world could be assigned responsibility for 9/11.

ZNet Sustianer: This begs the question: if 9/11 was an inside job, then what’s to say that Bush Et Al., if cornered or not, wouldn't resort to another more heinous attack of grander proportions in the age of nuclear terrorism – which by its very nature would petrify populations the world over, leading citizens to cower under the Bush umbrella of power.

Noam Chomsky: Wrong question, in my opinion. They were carrying out far more serious crimes, against Americans as well, before 9/11 -- crimes that literally threaten human survival. They may well resort to further crimes if activists here prefer not to deal with them and to focus their attention on arcane and dubious theories about 9/11.

ZNet Sustainer: Considering that in the US there are stage-managed elections, public relations propaganda wars, and a military-industrial-education-prison-etc. complex, does something like this sound far-fetched?

Noam Chomsky: I think that's the wrong way to look at it. Everything you mention goes back far before 9/11, and hasn't changed that much since. More evidence that the 9/11 movement is diverting energy and attention away from far more serious crimes -- and in this case crimes that are quite real and easily demonstrated.

ZNet Sustainer:Considering the long history of false flag operations to wrongly justify wars, our most recent precedent being WMD in Iraq, The Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam, going back much further to Pearl Harbor (FDR knowingly allowing the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor – which is different from false flag operations), to the 1898 Spanish-American War, to the 1846 Mexican-American War, to Andrew Jackson’s seizing of Seminole land in 1812 (aka Florida).

Noam Chomsky: The concept of "false flag operation" is not a very serious one, in my opinion. None of the examples you describe, or any other in history, has even a remote resemblance to the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. I'd suggest that you look at each of them carefully.

ZNet Sustainer: Lastly, as the world’s leading terror state, would it not surprise anyone if the US was capable of such an action? Would it surprise you? Do you think that so-called conspiracy theorists have anything worthy to present?
Noam Chomsky: I think the Bush administration would have had to be utterly insane to try anything like what is alleged, for their own narrow interests, and do not think that serious evidence has been provided to support claims about actions that would not only be outlandish, for their own interests, but that have no remote historical parallel. The effects, however, are all too clear, namely, what I just mentioned: diverting activism and commitment away from the very serious ongoing crimes of state.

Chomsky supports the Warren Commission cover-up

JFK Conspiracy: The Intellectual Dishonesty and Cowardice of Alexander Cockburn and Noam Chomsky (Michael Worsham, The Touchstone. Feb 1997)

in early 1969 Mr. Chomsky met with several Kennedy experts and spent several hours looking at and discussing assassination photos. Mr. Chomsky even cancelled several appointments to have extra time. There was a followup meeting with Mr. Chomsky, which also lasted several hours. These meetings were ostensibly to try to do something to reopen the case. According to the Probe article, Mr. Chomsky indicated he was very interested, but had to give the matter careful consideration before committing.
After the meeting, Selwyn Bromberger, an MIT philosophy professor who had sit in on the discussion, said to the author: "If they are strong enough to kill the President and strong enough to cover it up, then they are too strong to confront directly . . . if they feel sufficiently threatened, they may move to open totalitarian rule." According to the author, Mr. Chomsky had given every indication that he believed there was a conspiracy at these meetings. However, Mr. Chomsky never got involved with trying to reopen the case.

"I agree that Professor Chomsky is not a CIA agent. But with respect to his pronouncements on the JFK assassination he is worse than a CIA agent. Without being an agent, with his enormous prestige as a thinker, as an independent radical, as a courageous man, he does the work of the agency. ... He is unconvinced by the evidence of a conspiracy, but his is utterly convinced that JFK was a consummate cold warrior who could not have changed and did nothing to irritate the military industrial intelligence complex."
- Vincent Salandria

Chomsky and his good friend and soulmate on the JFK case, Alexander Cockburn went on an (orchestrated?) campaign at the time of Stone’s JFK to convince whatever passes for the left in this country that the murder of Kennedy was 1) not the result of a conspiracy, and 2) didn’t matter even if it was. They were given unlimited space in magazines like The Nation and Z Magazine. But, as Howard Zinn implied in a recent letter to Schotz defending Chomsky, these stances are not based on facts or evidence, but on a political choice. They choose not to fight this battle. They would rather spend their time and effort on other matters. When cornered themselves, Chomsky and Cockburn resort to rhetorical devices like exaggeration, sarcasm, and ridicule. In other words, they resort to propaganda and evasion.
CTKA believes that this is perhaps the most obvious and destructive example of Schotz’s “denial.” For if we take Chomsky and Cockburn as being genuine in their crusades--no matter how unattractive their tactics--their myopia about politics is breathtaking. For if the assassinations of the ‘60’s did not matter--and Morrisey notes that these are Chomsky’s sentiments—then why has the crowd the left plays to shrunk and why has the field of play tilted so far to the right? Anyone today who was around in the ‘60’s will tell you that the Kennedys, King, and Malcolm X electrified the political debate, not so much because of their (considerable) oratorical powers, but because they were winning. On the issues of economic justice, withdrawal from Southeast Asia, civil rights, a more reasonable approach to the Third World, and a tougher approach to the power elite within the U.S., they and the left were making considerable headway. The very grounds of the debate had shifted to the center and leftward on these and other issues. As one commentator has written, today the bright young Harvard lawyers go to work on Wall Street, in the sixties they went to work for Ralph Nader.
knowing, that our last progressive president was killed in a blatant conspiracy; that a presidentially appointed inquest then consciously covered it up; that the mainstream media like the Post and the Times acquiesced in that effort; that this assassination led to the death of 58,000 Americans and two million Vietnamese; to us that’s quite a consciousness raiser. Chomsky, Cockburn and most of their acolytes don’t seem to think so.
In the ‘80’s, Bill Moyers questioned Chomsky on this point, that the political activism of the ‘60’s had receded and that Martin Luther King had been an integral part of that scene. Chomsky refused to acknowledge this obvious fact. He said it really wasn’t so. His evidence: he gets more speaking invitations today ( A World of Ideas, p. 48). The man who disingenuously avoids a conspiracy in the JFK case now tells us to ignore Reagan, Bush, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Stern and the rest. It doesn’t matter. ...
... what Probe is trying to do here is not so much explain the reaction, or non-reaction, of the Left to the death of John Kennedy. What we are really saying is that, in the face of that non-reaction, the murder of Kennedy was the first step that led to the death of the Left. That’s the terrible truth that most of these men and organizations can’t bring themselves to state. If they did, they would have to admit their complicity in that result.

Left Denial on 9/11 Turns Irrational
by Jack Straw 6 May 2005

People like Noam Chomsky and Ward Churchill are turning toward the irrational as they continue to deny increasing signs that 9/11 was an inside job.
Ever since the events of 9/11, the American Left and even ultra-Left have been downright fanatical in combating notions that the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks or at least had foreknowledge of the events. Lately, this stance has taken a turn towards the irrational.
In a recent interview, Noam Chomsky has made an incredible assertion:

"There's by now a small industry on the thesis that the administration had something to do with 9-11. I've looked at some of it, and have often been asked. There's a weak thesis that is possible though extremely unlikely in my opinion, and a strong thesis that is close to inconceivable. The weak thesis is that they knew about it and didn't try to stop it. The strong thesis is that they were actually involved. The evidence for either thesis is, in my opinion, based on a failure to understand properly what evidence is. Even in controlled scientific experiments one finds all sorts of unexplained phenomena, strange coincidences, loose ends, apparent contradictions, etc. Read the letters in technical science journals and you'll find plenty of samples. In real world situations, chaos is overwhelming, and these will mount to the sky. That aside, they'd have had to be quite mad to try anything like that. It would have had to involve a large number of people, something would be very likely to leak, pretty quickly, they'd all be lined up before firing squads and the Republican Party would be dead forever. That would have happened whether the plan succeeded or not, and success was at best a long shot; it would have been extremely hard to predict what would happen."

[note: The "it would have had to involve a large number of people" claim is a tired cliche that completely ignores the role of compartmentalization in covert operations, something Professor Chomsky has probably read about during his long career.
On the other hand, the "Left Denial" article is generally very good about the strange myopia of the "left" about 9/11, but it is marred by a strange focus on alleged, unprovable assertions of temperature inside the burning towers that supposedly means they were demolished, and most of the web links for additional information are bogus. The "Left Denial" article ignores the evidence about foreknowledge, warnings to insiders, the stock trades on United and American Airlines just before 9/11, the anthrax attacks on the media and the Democrats, the motivation of Peak Oil and creating the pretext for invading the Middle East oil fields, among other issues that have very strong evidence for complicity. These omissions allow the leftists in denial to avoid the issue of complicity.

Published on Thursday, October 30, 2003 by Reuters
U.S. Dissident Says Bush Needs Fear for Re-election
by Anthony Boadle

HAVANA - U.S. linguist and political dissident Noam Chomsky said on Wednesday that President Bush will have to "manufacture" another threat to American security to win reelection in 2004 after U.S failure in occupying Iraq.
Chomsky, attending a Latin American social sciences conference in Cuba, said that since the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, the Bush administration had redefined U.S. national security policy to include the use of force abroad, with or without U.N. approval.
"It is a frightened country and it is easy to conjure up an imminent threat," Chomsky said at the launching of a Cuban edition of a book of interviews published by the Mexican newspaper La Jornada, when asked how Bush could get reelected.
"They have a card that they can play ... terrify the population with some invented threat, and that is not very hard to do," he said.
After the "disaster" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Bush could turn his sights on Communist-run Cuba, which his administration officials have charged with developing a biological weapons research program, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor of linguistics said.
Chomsky said the military occupation of Iraq, to topple a "horrible monster running it but not a threat to anyone," was a failure.
"The country had been devastated by sanctions. The invasion ended sanctions. The tyrant is gone and there is no outside support for domestic dissidence," he said. "It takes real talent to fail in this endeavor."
Chomsky said it was reasonable to assume the Bush administration would try to "manufacture a short-term improvement in the economy" by incurring in enormous federal government debt and "imposing burdens on future generations."

StumbleUpon PLEASE give it a thumbs up Stumble It!
Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 6:26 PM


Post a Comment

<< Home