Showing posts with label ISIS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ISIS. Show all posts

Thursday, August 4, 2016

Iran's Ayatollah: "The US Created ISIS"

Even as the Obama administration is embroiled in a scandal involving the paradropping of a crate of cash with $400 million in it in non-USD denominated bills to Iran, the same Iran continues to heap scorn upon the US president, culminating yesterday with Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khemenei, accusing the U.S. of creating and supporting ISIS as a means of creating conflict among Muslims and promoting a false form of Islam in the world.
In an English language Twitter account affiliated with Iranian Supreme Leader, the country’s highest authority, tweeted:
He alleged that the US aim of making and backing ISIS is to sow discord in Islamic Ummah, defame true Islam & promote Wahabbi Islam which is far from true Islam, in fact it is the religion of Saudi Arabia, some of the most ardent supporters of the Clintons. The claim is not the first time Khamenei has accused the U.S. and the West of creating the current conflict in Syria and Iraq.
Last December, Khamenei accused U.S. officials of sowing discord among Muslims by “creating terrorist groups like Daesh (the Arabic word for the ISIL) and other groups that have been created through the funding of the US affiliates and their political aids," according to Iran’s state-run media outlet, Fars News.
Following prostate surgery in late 2014, he suggested America, Zionism and “the wicked government of Britain” created Al Qaeda and Da'esh (ISIS) as way to contain Iran, but that instead these groups “have turned on them.” 
Ironically, the relentless attacks against Obama take place as his administration has spent the past few years cozying up to Iran brokering an agreement last July between the Islamic Republic and world powers to curb Iran’s nuclear program and lift international sanctions. It recently culminated with news of secret monetary paradrops coinciding with a prominent prisoner exchange. Obama has denied the money was paid as a ransom.
We are confident Obama will deny the ISIS creation allegations as well, despite the previously documented existence of a secret Pentagon memo which revealed that the US "created" ISIS as a "tool" to overthrow Syria's president Assad.

Thursday, May 19, 2016

Visas for Al Qaeda

Visas for Al-QuaidaBy Michael Springmann, former diplomat in the U.S. State Department’s Foreign Service, with postings to Germany, India, Saudi Arabia, and the Bureau of Intelligence and Research in Washington, D.C. Springmann was the head of the U.S. consular official in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia . The published author of several articles on national security themes, Mr. Springmann is now an attorney in private practice in the Washington, D.C. area.
The following is an excerpt from Springmann’s book, Visas for Al Qaeda, sent to us by the author.
Having just joined the “real” Foreign Service (after stints in the State-Commerce Exchange Program and the Foreign Commercial Service), I was assigned to Jeddah, the “Grandmother of Cities.” (Eve, the grandmother of us all, is reputedly buried in it.) There, I learned that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was a mys­terious and exotic place, but it was nowhere near as exotic and mysterious as the American consulate general on Palestine Road.
Upon arrival, I found, as a new visa officer, I was expected to winnow more than one hundred applications a day, separating them into “issuances,” “refusals,” and what turned out to be “free passes for CIA agents.” However, none of the clean-cut young fellows at the consulate (or even any of the pudgy, “been around too many blocks” types) bothered to clue me in on this special class of applicants.

However.
One day, Eric Qualkenbush, the CIA Base Chief, stopped me while I was walking on the consulate’s huge compound (which in­cluded a nine-hole golf course). He had a request. Could I issue a visa to one of his agents, an Iranian whose family owned an Oriental rug store? Eric said, “Mike, make it look good (wink, wink). We want him in Washington for consultations.”
Flabbergasted, I said, “Sure.” Up to that point, I had had almost a daily battle with Jay Freres, the Consul General, along with other CIA officials, who demanded visas for peculiar people, that is, people whom law and regulation required me to refuse. I also had running fights with visa applicants who told me to approve their paperwork or they would complain to Freres and have him overrule me.
Why, I wondered, did Qualkenbush clearly explain what was com­ing? And why didn’t he tip me the wink about the others, instead of leaving me to fight continued violations of rule and directive all by myself?
I was even more flummoxed when Eric’s agent appeared in line before me while I was on my stool behind the visa section’s armored window. Secure in my industrial-strength cinderblock office, I went through the interview: Memo on company letterhead explaining trip and customers to be visited? Check. Properly filled out visa application form DS-156? Check. Clean passport with no hidden notations of previ­ous travel refusals? Check. Coherent, comprehensive, clear account of travel purpose? Check. Previous US visa stamps? Check. Appropriate responses to my questions about proposed journey? Check.
I issued the visa and wished I had more applicants like him. And yet…
I had heard in Washington about all sorts of abnormal problems tied to visas in Jeddah. None of it made sense at the time, but the office atmosphere after my arrival was increasingly poisonous as I invoked the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Foreign Affairs Manual in preventing scruffy types from apparently trying to emigrate to the United States. Despite my questioning people in the office, I began to suspect that something wasn’t quite right. I knew it wasn’t right when the State Department later fired me without explanation and then stonewalled my efforts to learn why.
The following story is what I learned about what was really hap­pening in Jeddah, how I got there, and the dreadful consequences of what I learned to be American policy.
Here Are Two Key Points
First, the Consular Section’s job was to secure visas for CIA agents, i.e., foreigners recruited by American case officers. The Department of State and the Central Intelligence Agency collabo­rated on sending ignorant pawns to Jeddah, a place that was han­dling about forty-five thousand visa applications annually. If they processed the paperwork like automatons and didn’t ask awkward questions about the applicants, they kept their jobs. If they followed law and regulation and resisted illegal pressure to overlook the people who had no real reason for traveling to the United States, they “weren’t with the program” and could easily be dismissed as incompetent.
Second, the Department of State already had a watchdog in place to prevent this type of problem: the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. According to its website:
D[iplomatic]S[ecurity] works with the Bureau of Consular Affairs on cases involving allegations of corrupt American Embassy employees, fraudulent document vendors, and the use of visas by terrorists, and those smuggling and trafficking drugs and hu­man beings.
Passport and visa crimes are federal offenses punish­able by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000. The maximum prison sentence is increased to 15 years if the offense is connected to drug trafficking, and to 20 years if connected to terrorism.
So who was committing these violations, and what were they do­ing? And why wasn’t the watchdog watching? As I later learned to my dismay, the visa applicants were recruits for the war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union’s armed forces. Further, as time went by, the fighters, trained in the United States, went on to other battlefields: Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. They worked with the American intelligence services and the State Department to destabilize gov­ernments the United States opposed. While it’s no secret, most knowledgeable people still refuse to talk about this agenda.
The Magic Kingdom: Confusion to the Americans

Prelude
Surprisingly, I got a call one day from a desk officer (essentially, those in Washington who follow political, economic, and social affairs in a country) for Saudi Arabia. Ambassador Cutler was in town for consultations about the kingdom with State Department officials, and he invited me to meet with him. I expected it to be a five-minute “hello and good-bye” ses­sion. Instead, Cutler kept me for about forty-five minutes, telling me the problems my predecessor as vice consul in Jeddah, Greta Holtz, had created for our embassy in Riyadh. Visas were being denied to servants of rich Saudi women who, after all, couldn’t travel to the United States without their entourage of hairdressers, seamstresses, and other factotums. I sat there and listened and wondered at this report. Clearly, Cutler was conveying some message, but for the life of me, I could not puzzle it out. Afterward, I spoke to the desk officer, who had been there with me during the talk, asking what that meeting was really all about. His response was that he didn’t know, saying that Cutler (who had previously been ambassador to Zaire and Tunisia) was “ just a queer duck.”
Years later, Cutler, then head of Meridian House, a nonprofit that promotes international understanding, flatly refused to talk to me about Jeddah. Despite his silence, he knew full well what had been going on. In a discussion about recruits for the Afghan war in Robert Dreyfuss’s Devil’s Game, Cutler is quoted as saying, “Where I was, nobody was looking ahead at what would happen to those unemployed freedom fighters.” (Contrary to what Cutler told me and, as I learned later, many of Jeddah’s visa applicants were mujahideen recruits, alleged “freedom fighters”, and not servants of rich Saudi women.)
Then, being “satiably curious,” like Rudyard Kipling’s Elephant Child, I began asking around about Cutler’s odd remarks on visas in Jeddah. Heeding the advice of a consular officer that anything out of the ordinary should be questioned as a source of potential trouble, I contacted Ellen Goff in the Executive Office for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs (NEA/EX), essentially a position handling administrative matters. She told me that, yes, she had heard stories about visa problems in Jeddah, but she had no details on the subject.
Still puzzled and confused, I went off to Jeddah in September 1987. I later learned that I had been assigned to a CIA post, another unpleasant surprise. [Most of the American officers and staff did not work for the State Department, but instead for the Agency (the CIA, or “Langley” for the location of the CIA in Virginia), or the National Security Agency (NSA).]
Arrival and Puzzlement
Welcomed with open arms by Jay Freres, the Consul General (identified by the German journalist Julius Mader as a CIA of­ficial), and Henry Ensher, the political officer, I was told I was an improvement over Greta Holtz, whom they alleged had had terrible problems at the consulate. [Years later, I began to realize that this was more a cover story than anything else, especially since my visa refusal rate was within five percentage points of hers. According to one biography, Holtz had had strong ties to the intelligence ser­vices, having previously worked at the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), later receiving the Christopher Award from the CIA (accord­ing to another biography)] For someone who created such prob­lems for our embassy in Riyadh, Greta Holtz has done extremely well for herself, moving steadily up the promotion ladder. Once Minister-Counselor for Provincial Affairs in Iraq, she became a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. Then President Barack Obama named her Ambassador to Oman in September 2012. Her new of­ficial biography strangely omits her DIA service, saying just that she worked in the NATO policy office at the Defense Department. When in Washington, DC, she lives in a $2.4 million house in nearby Potomac, Maryland.)
My New Job as Consular Officer—Issuing Visas
Later on, during my service in Jeddah, I began getting referrals from Freres and Ensher (and others, such as Paul Arvid Tveit, a com­mercial officer listed in namebase.org as a CIA official). Initially, I was approached diffidently with the caveat that, while according to law and regulation, I had the final decision, they really wanted visas for their contacts. While no example springs to mind, the referrals, for the most part, were unremarkable. Later, after I had begun questioning the credentials of many applicants because they lacked ties to Saudi Arabia or their own country, the requests became demands. Then, they became threats.
Ghost Busters
While the Foreign Service is filled with people who do not work for the Department of State, Jeddah was my first experience with a majority-spook post. (Intelligence officers, in State Department slang, are spooks because they’re invisible beings from another world.) According to both a former CIA station chief (head of undercover operations in a country) who asked not to be named, and Jay Hawley, now a retired FSO, the average percentage of intelligence officers to real diplomats at a given Foreign Service post is about one in three. My experience in Jeddah, Stuttgart, and New Delhi might place it higher— at least 50 percent, if not more. According to the Anti-CIA Club of Diplomats: Spooks in U.S. Foreign Service [sic], a twelve-page, 1983 Canadian publication (see namebase.org), the percentage is 60 percent. At Jeddah, to the best of my knowledge, out of some twenty US citizens assigned to the consulate, only three people, including myself, worked for the Department of State. The rest were CIA or NSA officials or their spouses. (NSA creates and breaks ciphers, listens to telephone calls, and reads e-mails. This allegedly makes US government communi­cations more secure and those of American citizens and other na­tions less so. One of the languages it teaches its analysts is “Special Arabic”—that is, Hebrew, helping conceal Israel as being a target of NSA activity.)
Things rapidly went from bad to worse.
My name was on the visa plate that stamped applications to enter the United States, making me personally responsible for my actions. After opposing questionable demands for visas, I be­gan to inquire about what was really going on. First, I asked Jean Bradford, the head of the Citizens’ Services branch of the consular section. She told me that “Jay Freres (the source for most of the illegal visa pressure) just likes giving candy to babies.” I then tried Justice (given name) Stevens, head of the consular section. He told me to keep quiet and do what Freres wanted. I later discussed the matter with Stephanie A. Smith (a former French citizen) who was Counselor for Consular Affairs in Riyadh, the capital. Another one of those listed as a CIA official in Anti-CIA Club of Diplomats. Spooks in US Foreign Service, she told me that Freres’ and others’ demands for illegal visas were “very bad.” She later advised me to raise the issue with the Bureau of Consular Affairs on my next trip to Washington.
Eric Qualkenbush, the CIA base chief at Jeddah, whose cover was head of the Political/Economic Section, came up with a new demand: he or his staff had to examine and approve all visas that my staff and I had issued before the stamped passports were returned to the applicants. I had to wonder if this practice originated from his experience as a Clandestine Service officer at the CIA station in New Delhi or as station chief in Sofia, Bulgaria, prior to Jeddah, where one European diplomat told me he served? (Eric’s assignment after Jeddah was Bonn.) According to retired consular officers, this requirement was highly unusual. Another, who asked that I withhold his name, informed me that the CIA often trolled visa application files or sought specific information about visa-seekers.)
Exorcists Needed
In our spook–ridden Jeddah consulate, I sometimes found it was a daily battle to do my job. Here are just a few examples of what I discovered and how the laws of the United States were routinely ignored. Little did I know that I was dealing with recruits for the Arab–Afghan Legion.
Two Pakistanis came to me for a visa. According to their story, they were traveling on a Commerce Department–organized trade mission to an automotive parts exhibition in the United States. However, they couldn’t name the trade show or identify the city in which it would be held. I denied their visa request. Within sixty min­utes, Paul Arvid Tveit (now retired and living in Virginia) called and demanded visas for these same Pakistanis. I explained the reasons for my refusal, citing § 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (a visa applicant is an intending immigrant unless and until he can prove otherwise) and the Foreign Affairs Manual (FAM, State’s holy book that carries instructions for everything, including the requirement to refuse visas if there is any doubt as to the applicant’s bona fides). Ignoring the law and regulation, Tveit went to Justice Stevens and the visas were issued.
Then, Karen Sasahara, the political officer and Henry Ensher’s successor, demanded a visa for a Sudanese who was a refugee from his own country and unemployed in Saudi Arabia. Following the letter and the spirit of the law, I refused. Sasahara immediately went to Justice, and a visa was issued. When I later asked Justice why he authorized a visa to someone with no ties to the Sudan or the kingdom, he replied simply “national security,” a phrase without legal definition.
Besides staff going to Stevens (now retired and living in Switzerland), people from outside the consulate frequently went to Jay Freres to reverse my decisions. One individual, an expatriate company messenger with a stack of passports, appeared at the visa window one day, telling me I could issue the visas then and there, or I could do it after he went to Freres. Per regulation, the only way a refusal could be overridden was by a senior FSO with a consular commission, which Freres lacked. Additionally, the senior officer had to have more information unavailable to the denying officer. Therefore, Freres acted without authority, also failing to make a required written report. (Cf. 9 FAM 41.121).
A Questionable Question
One question that I never addressed was, if a junior consular officer, such as myself, questioned the credentials of all the peculiar visa applicants, what were the far more experienced Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) inspectors doing at the port of entry when these lowlifes entered the country? How is it that none of them were turned back? I well remember being told a story by Mike Carpenter, head of the consular section in Stuttgart in the 1970s. One of the applicants to whom he had given a visa had been sent home from New York. Although she had declared to the inspector that her US visit would be short, INS found a two–year supply of birth control pills in her handbag, thus indicating her fraudulent plans for a much longer stay.
Jay the Jailer
Jay Freres did more than help questionable people get visas. He helped the Saudi government put expatriates in jail. This seemed to be in keeping with his questionable past, such as his assignment to Kabul in 1979 when the American Ambassador, “Spike” Dubs, was kidnapped and killed. As the Afghan security forces blazed away at the people holding Dubs within Room 117 in the Kabul Hotel, somehow Freres, head of the Economic/Commercial Section, was situated outside the space. Dean Henderson, a writer, columnist, and blogger, asserts that Dubs was also CIA chief of station, unlikely in knowledgeable people’s opinions. However, a European diplomat opined that Dubs, and likely Freres, were State Department officials co-opted by the Agency. Freres later became Political Counselor in Ankara in 1982. (Other than his service as consul general in Jeddah, these were his only assignments that I could find in the State Department’s Key Officers of Foreign Service Posts booklet.)
Not long after I arrived and began making contacts around town, consular officers from two European consulates took me to lunch. Over good food and “Saudi champagne” (sparkling water, apple juice, and citrus slices), they asked my help in identifying and pub­licizing the actions of a fellow of indeterminate nationality having multiple passports. They said this man possessed an arrangement with the Saudi government to import and sell liquor and drugs. According to my interlocutors, he would hold parties in alcohol-free Jeddah, generously supplying intoxicants, liquid and otherwise. As I understood it, he would then provide the names of his guests to the Saudi authorities who, on occasion, would raid the events, ar­resting as many attendees as they could catch. In return, he got to keep his profits (and stay out of jail). Subsequently, at one of the consulate’s “pool parties,” I happened to meet a man, an American citizen, who had been to one of the raided functions. Appearing to be in his fifties and far out of shape, he told me he ran out the back door as the police came in the front. Despite his age and physical condition, he said, he was up and over the wall at the rear of the house faster than a teenage athlete.
Learning about this scam, I felt I should post details of this mys­terious dealer to warn American citizens in our consular district, the Hejaz. A simple notice, mailed to those registered with the consulate, would be the easiest way to protect our citizens. When I suggested this to Freres, as head of the consulate, he refused. He said it would offend the Saudis, and he ordered me to keep silent.
While I didn’t work in Citizens Services at the consulate, which deals with the welfare of US nationals and handles any imprison­ments, I still thought it only prudent (and my duty) to quietly pass the word to people I knew about this subject, Freres be damned.
Pool Parties, the Marine House, and the Brass Eagle
Alcohol was a big deal in Saudi Arabia where, if you drank and were caught, you were (1) arrested, (2) flogged, (3) deported. Yet, despite our efforts to “conceal” alcohol use at the consulate (by crushing bottles and beer cans, for example), the Saudis knew all about what the Americans were doing. Saudi citizens and gov­ernment officials attended receptions at my house where I served forbidden drinks. They also attended pool parties and functions at the Marine House where alcohol was provided. Saudi citizens and government officials attended events at the Brass Eagle, several rooms that served as the consulate’s private bar. And, if they didn’t spill the beans about alcohol consumption, a movable Saudi “traf­fic” camera overlooked the compound with its parties, and provided a bird’s-eye view of what went on there, including drinking and mixed-sex dancing.
Shortly after Lonnie Washington, the only State Department Communicator (who sent and received official messages) and I arrived, we learned about the Brass Eagle. Begun by former con­sular officer Brad Braford’s wife, it was a remarkably dreary and sparsely attended place used mostly by CIA officials. We two, with our household effects still in transit, decided to invite official and unofficial contacts to this bar. Selling tickets for the local equivalent of ten dollars for five drinks, we filled the Brass Eagle to overflow­ing in no time and made a pretty good profit for the American Employees Family Support Association (AEFSA) (which may have been a CIA front). The Agency really didn’t like that we brought non–Americans to the consulate. So, in retaliation, they put road­blocks into the otherwise smooth operation of our parties.
Later, after the CIA grasped what a good idea it was to ply expa­triates with alcohol, it began organizing parties around the consul­ate swimming pool. The parties, with two hundred or more guests, generated about one million dollars per annum for said AEFSA, an alleged nonprofit organization.
The Marine House was another watering hole. Invitations were highly prized, and guests tried to compensate for a booze-free week by drinking as much as they could in a few hours. Many departing guests staggered out onto Palestine Road, fronting the consulate, in various stages of drunkenness. (I had arrived in Jeddah too late to enjoy the Marine House’s “Tarts and Vicars” party, where the female guests displayed abundant intoxicated skin as they left the grounds—a blatant violation of Saudi mores.) Sometime later in my tour, a Marine Corps inspection team arrived to question such consumption of alcohol and earnings from its sale.
Keep the Saudis Happy, Part One
Consul General Jay Freres’s watchword at the consulate was, “Don’t offend the Saudis.” At the same time, he refused to hire a capable, American-educated Saudi female for a US Information Service position advising on academic study in the United States. (I learned the previous employee had been fired earlier because she had allegedly identified a CIA official at one of the pool parties.) Also, he allowed illuminated Christmas trees (regarded as religious symbols in Jeddah) to be displayed at the consulate and Christmas carols to be played over loudspeakers. (This might seem inoffensive, but the only religion permitted in the kingdom is Islam. Anyone caught openly practicing another faith suffers disproportionate consequences.)
Were Freres genuinely interested in not alienating the Saudis, he could have done more to keep liquor out of nondiplomatic hands on consular premises. Official receptions could have served fruit juice and soft drinks, and he could have stopped supplying liquor to the Mobil Oil Corporation’s boat.
Keep the Saudis Happy, Part Two
Jay Freres and his “Don’t Offend the Saudis” program had as many holes as a piece of Swiss cheese hit by a shotgun blast. Again, in Saudi Arabia, Islam is the only religion permitted. People of other faiths get their prayer books, hymnals, and other religious articles seized at the border, and if they act blatantly enough, can get them­selves deported. Yet Freres, a Roman Catholic, had an undercover priest say Mass at his official residence on Sundays for coreligionists from inside and outside the consulate. Protestant expatriates were allowed to hold services in the auditorium in the consulate’s main building, something FSOs, such as myself, were ignorant of. After Freres retired, Tim Hunter, a devout Catholic, told me that he (Hunter) had been ordered to discourage attendance at the Holy Church of the Consulate. When he objected, he was savaged by US government officials.
They’re Like Termites…But Do More Damage
Besides direct confrontation and dubious “referrals,” the spooks, the “Invisible Ones” were also assigned to the consular section for “diplomatic cover.” Philip Agee, a former case officer, said to me that, in Mexico City, where he had been assigned, the CIA always had one of its Clandestine Service people occupying a consular position. From what I was told by people in Jeddah, Brad Braford, Andrew C. Weber’s predecessor, had been assigned to the visa sec­tion as a “part–time” consular officer. (He went on to Dhahran as political/military officer.) Supposedly, he and Andy Weber had complained about Jay Freres’s questionable visa issuances. (Without a consular commission, Freres had had a visa signature slug made, and presumably, used.) Weber would occasionally sit at the visa window and say to me, “Mike, let me take this next guy in line, he’s one of mine.”
CIA involvement in hanky-panky with visas, such as that in Jeddah, is common in almost every Foreign Service Post. If this behavior leaks out, it’s quickly hushed up. Remember, it was a CIA “consular officer” at Khartoum in the Sudan who issued a tourist visa to Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, later linked to the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. The “blind” Sheikh had been on a State Department terrorist watch list when he was issued the visa, entering the United States by way of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the Sudan in 1990. [I later wondered if this was the same fellow who had once sent an emissary to me in Jeddah with his passport and application. Since we required personal appearances for every nationality except Saudi (and sometimes even for them), I told the representative I needed to see the applicant, but I was told the man was “handicapped.” Still, I thought, why could he not get on a bus in Mecca to travel to our consulate?]
Keep That Lid On (So the Whole Mess Doesn’t Boil Over and Dirty the Stove)
I began to see Jeddah as a very strange place filled with people I really knew nothing about who conducted themselves in a remark­ably odd fashion. Questions got me nowhere. A plethora of contacts couldn’t explain to me what really went on inside the consulate. European diplomats regularly asked about the number of spooks on Uncle Sam’s payroll there, possibly because Agency staff didn’t seem to care about their “cover.” Unlike other American officers, they all drove identical, olive-drab Toyota Land Cruisers with orange-and-red lightning bolts painted on their sides—with buff Saudi, instead of green Consular Corps license plates that real diplomats had on their cars.
As previously mentioned, before I left Washington for Jeddah, I wrote to Greta Holtz several times, asking about my job and what she wished she had known before she took up her post there. I never received a response. When I met her in person, during one of her visits to Jeddah from Yemen where she was next assigned, she told me she’d been “too upset” to give me a clear picture. Holtz called me in Washington, DC after I’d left the service and questioned me about the progress of my complaints about Jeddah, even though I’d never mentioned a word to her about the subject.
Then, the Inspectors came.
Periodically, Foreign Service Posts are examined for compliance with law and regulation, and a report is prepared. Nestor Martin, one of my close, well-connected contacts, a Cuban American with intimate ties to intelligence officials, had warned me to say noth­ing to the inspectors about problem areas. These included suspect visas, extremely profitable and voluminous liquor sales to expatri­ates, Muslim and otherwise, as well as the harassment of the Arab American language teacher, Salma Webber. If you do, he cautioned, you will be fired.
While serving in Jeddah, I was quizzed by Joseph P. O’Neill, one of the State Department’s Inspection Team members. O’Neill interviewed me and pressed me to confirm what he’d heard about visa problems and alcohol deals. He shared details new to me and repeatedly said anything I told him was and would remain confiden­tial. When I repeated what Nestor had stated to me, O’Neill reas­sured me that nothing would happen to my career. After about an hour, I relented and, trusting my government, confirmed O’Neill’s suspicions. Just a few days later, Jay Freres wrote a vicious efficiency report on me that would virtually guarantee my dismissal from the Foreign Service.
During my conversation with O’Neill, I told him about the file of shady visas I had been keeping. Neglecting to make a copy or take the file with me, I later learned it had been mysteriously shredded (by a person or persons unknown), and O’Neill, I suspect, was the instigator of that. (He was the only American officer who knew about this file.) Subsequently, I wrote O’Neill a letter when he was consul general in Bermuda (and before he traveled to Afghanistan, the Ukraine, and Uzbekistan on several Foreign Service assignments as a retiree), ask­ing about what really went on at Jeddah. No response. Perhaps this was a result of O’Neill’s becoming an“off the-books” liaison with the Arab Afghans he seemed to be protecting. Or, possibly, it was his ties to the CIA, going back to 1979 when he was assigned to the American embassy in Tehran when irate students captured it. (O’Neill wasn’t listed in the 1979 Key Officers Booklet, and he wasn’t listed as a hostage by the Jimmy Carter Presidential Library and Museum).
Revelations on the Road to Unemployment
Like Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus, I was blinded by the “light of truth.” In a chance meeting, Joe Trento, a journalist at the Public Education Center in Washington, DC, put all the hostility toward me into perspective. Joe revealed to me what had been really going on with the CIA in Jeddah and what had been concealed from me. It wasn’t garden variety visa fraud as I had once thought, but something much more serious: it was the Visas for Terrorists Program, set up to recruit and train (in the United States) murderers, war criminals, and human rights violators for combat in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. These men became the founding members of al-Qaeda, the Arab–Afghan Legion. President Jimmy Carter (D-GA) and his National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski, began the campaign to assemble these goons to engage in blowing things up and shooting things down, prefer­ably with Soviet soldiers inside. To help them do that, Trento said, the Department of State and the Central Intelligence Agency sent patsies as visa officers to the Jeddah consulate, then handling about forty-five thousand visa applications annually. If they weren’t bright enough to question what was going on, Trento noted, things would be fine. If they protested the spurious visa requests, as I would, and resisted illegal pressure to overlook them, they could easily be fired because, as he added, “they wouldn’t get with the program” and there was “obviously” something wrong with them.
Supplementing Trento’s remarks were similar statements made by a former US government employee at the Voice of America and another man connected with George Washington University in DC. I reached both by chance in the course of researching an article on the Middle East, and they told me that the CIA, ably assisted by as­set Osama bin Laden and Saudi connections, had three recruiting offices in the kingdom: one was in Jeddah, one was in Riyadh, and one was somewhere in the eastern province of al-Sharqiah. However, the Saudis, once the Soviets had withdrawn from Afghanistan, they said, were not pleased with the saddle tramps that they had helped recruit. In fact, the Saudis prevented those who’d been enlisted within the kingdom, particularly the Palestinians, from returning. They feared they would use their newly acquired skills to promote “regime change” at home. Other nations in the region rejected these recruits as well, my contacts told me.
Many recruiting offices were located in the United States, too. According to background on Abdullah Azzam, one of the cofound­ers of the Services Office (an organization inter alia placing Arab volunteers with Afghan factions fighting the Soviets),
The main aim of Sheikh Abdullah in creating the Jihad magazine (an Arabic publication providing information about the Afghan war, focusing on Arab efforts to help that struggle) was to inform the Arab world what is happening in Afghanistan; informing them, help funding, recruit people. [Eventually we printed] seventy thousand copies [an issue]. Most of them go to the United States because we had fifty-two centers in the United States. The main office was in Brooklyn, [also] Phoenix, Boston, Chicago, Tucson, Minnesota, Washington DC, and Washington State. [Emphasis added.] Every year [Abdullah Azzam] used to go to United States. The wealthy of the United States can help much more than Muslims who are living in poor countries or under dictatorship.
When I contacted him by email and telephone in 2013, Sheikh Abdullah Anas, Azzam’s son-in-law, somehow couldn’t remember any of this. All he said was that there were only a handful of non–Afghan fighters and that the CIA had no role in dealing with them. One cause of his faulty memory might be his gaining asylum in the United Kingdom. (The UK’s Secret Intelligence Service was a participant in the Afghan war.) Another might be his rumored interest in mov­ing to the United States and not wanting to offend the people who can make that happen.
Perhaps secret travel to the United States by members of the Services Office was another source of friction in Jeddah. While I was at the consulate, I proposed meeting with various Muslim organizations who had been sending me unqualified visa ap­plicants. These interviewees were clerics ostensibly going to the United States to preach to congregations but couldn’t explain why there were no qualified Muslim evangelists in America. I had wanted to describe to the groups what was needed for visa applications to reduce the time I spent with unfit candidates. Jay P. Freres forbade this.
In a subsequent conversation with Celerino Castillo, a former Drug Enforcement Agency official, I learned that the CIA’s involve­ment in the visa process was a successful program of long-stand­ing in Latin America and, I presume, a model for Saudi Arabia. South of the border, he said, the Agency would slip passports and applications from its contacts into packages sent to the local US consulate or embassy by travel agents. Sandwiched between legitimate applications, “Agency assets” would not be carefully examined by consular officers and would thus get a free ride to the United States.
The question, of course, is: Were these recruits selected in Washington, DC by CIA headquarters or locally by the base or sta­tion? (A “base” is a CIA office concealed in a consulate, while a “sta­tion” is a CIA office at an embassy and controlling all the intelligence activities in a country.) Former Agency official Marc Sageman, (one of only three people who managed the entire anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan), maintains that the stations and bases never dealt with Washington. They didn’t communicate with headquarters on enlist­ing fighters abroad, he asserted. The three people “managing” the Afghan war were Sageman, Milt Bearden, and Gus Avrakotos (“Dr. Dirty,” as he was called, the man in charge of arming the Afghans. He’s now dead). In 2008, Sageman played up the threat of Muslims as dangerous because they were “self- recruited, without leadership, and globally connected through the Internet” and who “lack[ed] structure and organizing principles…” These were characteristics usually put forward to denigrate a risk. Sageman ran “unilateral programs with the Afghan Mujahedin [sic] between 1987 and 1989 from Islamabad, and also was an advisor to the New York City Police for years. In 2008, he became its “scholar in residence.”
How Stupid Could They Be?
Very stupid.
If I had been informed of what the CIA, the State Department, and Osama bin Laden were doing in Jeddah, I may have been dumb enough at the time to have gone along with this policy. After all, I trusted my government. The CIA and the State Department would have saved themselves negative publicity, law suits, and twenty years of painful truth-telling from me.
I managed to do my job despite wrangling daily with the intelligence officers who staffed and ran the consulate. These were the people who arranged for recruiting and training what were then the mujahideen, who later became al-Qaeda, who then transformed themselves into ISIS. I saw, but didn’t recognize, their start at Jeddah. We’ve all seen their later development and what happens when the intel­ligence services control foreign policy and diplomacy: the people they assembled aided the breakup of Yugoslavia, the destruction of Iraq, the collapse of Libya, and the savaging of Syria.

Friday, March 25, 2016

Russian Documentary Shows ISIS Documents of Turkey’s Assistance

Screen Shot 2016-03-24 at 8.05.29 PM
Eric Zuesse
Russian Television is starting a series of documentaries showing captured ISIS documents, and Turkish-border-stamped passports of ISIS fighters. The initial news-report also refers to a ‘fatwa’ that allegedly allows infidels to be killed to supply fresh organs for transplantation into severely injured ISIS fighters. 
Invoices are shown for records of Syrian oil trucked into Turkey for sale, which indicate “the name of the driver, the vehicle type driven, and the weight of the truck, both full and empty, as well as the agreed upon price and invoice number. One of the discovered invoices dated 11 January, 2016, says that IS had extracted some 1,925 barrels of oil from Kabibah oil field and sold it for $38,342.” Turkey then sells it for far more — the current market-price.
Also shown is “Islamist propaganda printed in Istanbul.” 
The U.S. supplies ISIS through Turkey. Furthermore, Turkey is now a dictatorship, and its dictator, the fundamentalist-Sunni Tayyip Erdogan, is passionate to overthrow Syria’s leader, the secular Shiite Bashar al-Assad. ISIS is the main fighting force he works with to do that.
Allied with Turkey in this effort are: U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Kuwait.
Turkey and the U.S. are in NATO; the others are in the Saudi group, the Gulf Cooperation Council. (Turkey isn’t, because it’s not on the Persian Gulf. Turkey is instead the GCC’s representative in, or main link to, NATO. Turkey also is their link to the EU, but hasn’t yet entirely won membership in the EU.)

The royal Sauds are the main funders of Al Qaeda, known as Al Nusra in Syria; and, according to a cable from former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the entire Gulf Cooperation Council are heavy financial backers of not only Al Qaeda but other jihadist groups.
The foreign backers of the jihadist groups who have flocked into Syria to overthrow Assad are U.S., Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Kuwait, and that includes the nations whose leadership back jihadists, even while they need to make propagandistic statements and occasionally actions that kill some jihadists. 
The central targets of that alliance are Russia and Iran. Assad, of course, is allied to both Russia and Iran. 
—————

Tuesday, March 8, 2016

"I'll Go Full Power If There's No Agreement" - Kuwait Breaks OPEC Production Freeze

Tyler Durden's picture


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-08/ill-go-full-power-if-theres-no-agreement-kuwait-breaks-opec-production-freeze
Back in late February, when crude prices had just hit a 13 year low, one catalyst unleashed a furious short-covering rally: a WSJ report which cited a delayed SkyNews interview with the UAE energy minister, according to which OPEC would freeze, if not cut production. Since then we learned, courtesy of the Saudi oil minister Al-Naimi himself, that the Saudis will never reduce output, however, in a utterly meaningless gesture, Saudi Arabia and Russia agreed to "freeze" production at levels which are already at maximum capacity and under one condition: that all other OPEC members join the freeze, with the possible exception of Iran which may be allowed to produce until it hits its pre-embargo export levels.
Of course, even said "freeze" is nothing but a stalling tactic employed by an OPEC member (Saudi Arabia), to give the impression that OPEC still exists as a production-throttling cartel when OPEC ceased to exist in that capacity in November 2014. Everything since then has been one surreal redux of "Weekend at Bernies" where everyone pretends not to notice the corpse in the room.
However, while many had pretended to at least play along with the charade, today a core OPEC member effectively broke ranks when Kuwait said it would only agree to an output freeze if all major producers take part including Iran.
According to Reuters, Kuwait's oil minister said on Tuesday that his country's participation in an output freeze would require all major oil producers, including Iran, to be on board.
"I'll go full power if there's no agreement. Every barrel I produce I'll sell," Anas al-Saleh told reporters in Kuwait City. And since Iran has made it very, very clear it will not join the production freeze at its current mothballed output, and will need at least 9-12 months before it regains its pre-embargo capacity levels, one can forget about a production freeze well into 2017 if not for ever since by then at least one if not more OPEC members will be bankrupt (they know who they are: they are the source of those "ALL CAPS" flashing read headlines every day).
Putting Kuwait's production in context, Kuwait - the small Gulf state Saddam invaded 25 years ago - is currently producing 3 million barrels of oil per day. Incidentally, this is precisely how much the oil market is oversupplied each and every day, and why in addition to PADD1, 2 and 3 being almost full, and excess oil now being stored in ships, pipelines and trains, and re-exported to Europe, quite soon empty swimming pools will be full with the "black gold" as the algos continue to refuse to pay any attention to the constantly deteriorating fundamentals.
Kuwait's announcement followed a report by Goldman overnight in which, as we reported, Jeff Currie said that "commodity rally is not sustainable" and it is time to sell crude.
"While these dynamics (rising prices) could run further, they simply are not sustainable in the current environment," the analysts wrote. "Energy needs lower prices to maintain financial stress to finish the rebalancing process; otherwise, an oil price rally will prove self-defeating, as it did last spring."
Perhaps, but not just yet: in addition to China's abysmal exports we also learned that in February China's crude imports soared 19.1% to 31.80 million tonnes, or about 8 million barrels per day, an all time high, suggesting China - like the US - is filling every available container including its SPR at a time when precise are relatively low even if organic demand continues to deteriorate.
As Reuters writes, "despite strong oil demand, questions about the sustainability of growing consumption weighed on markets after China's overall exports tumbled by a quarter in February."
China's February vehicle sales, a key driver for gasoline demand, were down 3.7 percent year on year, data from the country's Passenger Car Association showed."This is really a poor start for trade this year," said Zhang Yongjun, senior economist at the China Centre for International Economic Exchanges.
However, judging by the latest bounce in crude in the last hour of trading, the only thing that still matters is who does the daily "short squeeze" rip higher. By the looks of things, at least one major trader already got the tap on the shoulder.

Monday, March 7, 2016

U.S. Supplies ISIS through Turkey

On Friday, March 4th, the leading opposition newspaper in Turkey, Zaman, was taken over by the Government; and, today, March 5th, one of the other opposition newspapers, Cumhuriyet, reported that Zaman’s separate news-service to other news-media, Cihan News Agency, has now also been disabled on the Internet. (Anyone who goes to the site obtains an error-message.)
The Turkish Government is trying to prevent the Turkish public from knowing that Turkey has been serving as the transit-route by which the U.S. government and its allied Arab oil monarchies (especially Saudi Arabia and Qatar) have been supplying foreign jihadists and weapons (largely U.S. but paid for with Saudi funds) into Syria to oust Bashar al-Assad from power.
Zaman’s editor has been imprisoned for publishing such prohibited truths, but somehow his newspaper continued reporting on a court case in which Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdoğan is accused of breaking Turkish law by aiding terrorists. That continued resistance by the newspaper might be a reason why the Turkish Government has now (as of Friday March 4th) shut it down.
On March 1st, Cumhuriyet, headlined, “Former Justice Minister of Turkey: Erdoğan Will Stand Trial,” and reported that, “Former Justice Minister Hikmet Sami Turk, said that Erdoğan’s actions ‘do not comply with the decision of the Constitutional Court.’ He criticized [Erdoğan] by saying … ‘One day this matter must be settled by the judiciary’.” 

Russian Television had first reported on the case, in English, back on 26 November 2015, headlining, “Turkish newspaper editor in court for ‘espionage’ after revealing weapon convoy to Syrian militants.” This news-report said that:
In May, the outlet [Cumhuriyet] published photos of weapons it said were then transferred to Syria by Turkey’s intelligence agency. … The articles, published on Cumhuriyet’s front page in May, claimed that Turkey’s National Intelligence Organization (MİT) is smuggling weapons in trucks into Syria and was caught doing so twice in 2014. The trucks were allegedly stopped and searched by police, with photos and videos of their contents obtained by Cumhuriyet.
According to the paper, the trucks were carrying six steel containers, with 1,000 artillery shells, 50,000 machine gun rounds, 30,000 heavy machine gun rounds and 1,000 mortar shells. The arms were reportedly delivered to extremist groups fighting against the Syrian government of President Bashar Assad, whom Ankara wants ousted from power.
The Erdoğan government alleged the weapons were “aid to Syrian ethnic Turkmen tribespeople and labeled their interception by local police an act of ‘treason’ and ‘espionage’.”
Turkey is a NATO member, and the famous investigative reporter Seymour Hersh had revealed in the 6 April 2014 London Review of Books, that on 20 June 2013 — just a few months prior to the sarin gas attack that Obama blamed on Assad and used as his excuse to invade Syria — the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency reported that America’s allies in overthrowing Bashar al-Assad were engaged in “the most advanced sarin plot since al-Qaida’s pre-9/11 effort,” but the U.S. Director of National Intelligence denied that it was true. One U.S. ally there was Al Qaeda in Syria, known in Syria as Al Nusra, (Nusra and Erdoğan wanted this gas-attack to provide the excuse that Obama had set as his “red line” to overthrow Assad — a chemical-weapons attack in Syria.) However, Hersh reported, “Last May, more than ten members of the al-Nusra Front were arrested in southern Turkey with what local police told the press were two kilograms of sarin.” All of that had occurred prior to the 21 August 2013 sarin gas attack.
Hersh went on:
The officer ultimately responsible for the planning and execution of the attack [U.S. bombing of Syria] was General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs. From the beginning of the crisis, the former intelligence official said, the joint chiefs had been sceptical of the administration’s argument that it had the facts to back up its belief in Assad’s guilt. They pressed the DIA and other agencies for more substantial evidence. ‘There was no way they thought Syria would use nerve gas at that stage, because Assad was winning the war,’ the former intelligence official said. Dempsey had irritated many in the Obama administration by repeatedly warning Congress over the summer of the danger of American military involvement in Syria.
Hersh subsequently reported that, rather than go ahead with an operation that the Joint Chiefs considered fraudulent, they sabotaged Obama’s policy. On 2 January 2016, Hersh headlined in the London Review of Books, “Military to Military,” and he explained how and why they had done this:
The Joint Chiefs felt that a direct challenge to Obama’s policy would have ‘had a zero chance of success.’ So in the autumn of 2013 they decided to take steps against the extremists without going through political channels, by providing US intelligence to the militaries of other nations, on the understanding that it would be passed on to the Syrian army and used against the common enemy, Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State. … General Dempsey and his colleagues on the Joint Chiefs of Staff kept their dissent out of bureaucratic channels, and survived in office. General Michael Flynn did not. ‘Flynn incurred the wrath of the White House by insisting on telling the truth about Syria,’ said Patrick Lang, a retired army colonel who served for nearly a decade as the chief Middle East civilian intelligence officer for the DIA. ‘He thought truth was the best thing and they shoved him out. He wouldn’t shut up.’
Obama couldn’t be swayed that the enemy were Al Qaeda and other jihadists instead of Assad — that overthrowing him was his top priority. However, Hersh said in his 6 April 2014 article, that Obama had to backtrack at the last moment anyway, because British intelligence reported to David Cameron that the sarin used in the attack didn’t come from Syria — that it had been imported; this implied that it was a set-up job in order to ‘justify’ invading. Cameron didn’t want to be just another Tony Blair. Obama couldn’t get his necessary-for-appearances’-sake public cover for an invasion, Britain, as his predecessor had done regarding Iraq. Hersh went on, in that 2014 article:
Obama’s move for congressional approval quickly became a dead end. ‘Congress was not going to let this go by,’ the former intelligence official said. ‘Congress made it known that, unlike the authorisation for the Iraq war, there would be substantive hearings.’ At this point, there was a sense of desperation in the White House, the former intelligence official said.
Obama, in other words, was now trapped. He couldn’t fire all of his Joint Chiefs — at least not right away; it would be embarrassing, how could he explain it? And the Republicans were eager to expose his Administration’s disarray on the matter. So: the story was passed around that Secretary of State John Kerry got Russia to get Assad to eliminate his sarin stocks. Russia’s leader Vladimir Putin was happy to help Obama avoid invading his Syrian ally. That was how the ‘news’ organizations reported the backtrack — as a rare instance of U.S.-Russian cooperation: good news for everybody. But for Obama, it was actually the way out of a desperately embarrassing situation. And he never gave up his goal of switching Syria from the secular Assad to a failed state whose crucial oil-pipeline routes would be in ‘friendly’ (to Saudi Arabia and Qatar) jihadist Sunni-ruled areas of Syria, so that ‘our’ Arab ‘allies’ (the jihadist-financiing nations, as even Kerry’s predecessor Hillary Clinton had known them to be) can grab the world’s largest energy-market, Europe, away from Russia.
Hersh, in his 2014 article, continued:
The full extent of US co-operation with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in assisting the rebel opposition in Syria has yet to come to light. The Obama administration has never publicly admitted to its role in creating what the CIA calls a ‘rat line’, a back channel highway into Syria. The rat line, authorised in early 2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition. Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida. (The DNI spokesperson said: ‘The idea that the United States was providing weapons from Libya to anyone is false.’)
He closed:
Barring a major change in policy by Obama, Turkey’s meddling in the Syrian civil war is likely to go on. ‘I asked my colleagues if there was any way to stop Erdoğan’s continued support for the rebels, especially now that it’s going so wrong,’ the former intelligence official told me. ‘The answer was: “We’re screwed.” We could go public if it was somebody other than Erdoğan, but Turkey is a special case. They’re a Nato ally.’ 
There is simply too much evidence proving that Erdoğan is supporting ISIS and other terrorist groups in Syria. This is the reality of NATO: conquering Russia, first by switching its allies (such as Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, etc.), is the assignment, regardless of the public’s safety. Even if the U.S. weren’t backing jihadists directly (which we are), we’re backing them by having jihadist governments such as Turkey and Saudi Arabia and Qatar as allies — instead of as enemies. ‘Our’ oil companies and mega-banks are in bed with them, and their top stockholders and executives, and their lobbyists, control the people who control the U.S. Government. The U.S. Constitution’s “We, the People …” has become only  those “People.” The rest are now just for extras in crowd-scenes, at political campaign events — and their mass-mind-control is done by their media, ‘our’ ‘free press’ (who don’t report this reality), in ‘our’ ‘democracy’.
Erdoğan is profoundly angry at the unsteady support he has been receiving from the U.S. government in their joint efforts to eliminate Bashar al-Assad. However, apparently, Obama doesn’t feel that the U.S. is yet ready for a nuclear war to be sparked between NATO and Russia — Obama thinks that doing it now would be premature. ‘Color revolutions’ and ‘Arab Spring’ and ‘Maidan demonstrations’, and other populist covers for coups (taking advantage of the local political opposition, which exists in any country), are a far safer way to gradually strip Russia of its allies and turn them into yet-more enemies of Russia — and, only then, can the rip-cord finally be pulled, and Russia be forced to either submit or else die (even if the rest of the world might die also). The U.S. has been doing this boil-the-frog-slowly routine ever since U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush laid the foundation for it in 1990.
As John Kerry recently said, when responding to aid workers at a donor conference for anti-Assad forces, “What do you want me to do? Go to war with Russia? Is that what you want?” Clearly, Erdoğan is lots more eager for that than Obama is. Perhaps Erdoğan thinks that Putin would just back down. American Presidents, however, aren’t so desperate that they feel they need to do it during their own Administration; they can afford to wait until the time is right, even if the plaudits will then go to some future President. Their paymasters will be duly appreciative of the contributions that each one of them has made toward the final ‘U.S.’ victory. (Victory for the paymasters, of course.)
So, the American government’s charade goes on. But already an MIT analysis — the Lloyd-Postal report — on the sarin attack that occurred 21 August 2013, stated unequivocally that the Obama Administration was lying through its teeth about the matter. They provided excruciating detail showing why “the US Government’s interpretation of the technical intelligence it gathered prior to and after the August 21 attack CANNOT POSSIBLY BE CORRECT.” (That’s a tactful, yet passionate, way of saying: “Obama and his Administration were trying to lie this country into invading Syria.”) Yet, Western news-media still simply ignore the evidence (they can do that in this dictatorship), and report that Assad’s forces were behind the sarin attack. It’s still the official reason why  we’re at war against Assad. Was even George W. Bush worse than this?
Seymour Hersh had tried to get his news-reports on these matters published by what had been his regular publisher, the New Yorker, which turned them down; and he tried other U.S. outlets as well, but wasn’t successful in finding any that would pay his regular charges — and he had already spent much in order to research these matters. Finally, he obtained a suitable outlet, in the LRB. This is why his recent reports are being published abroad.
Anyone who wishes to know more about what motivates the U.S. government regarding Syria should read the astoundingly brilliant article by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., published on an obscure environmental website, February 25th, “Syria: Another Pipeline War.” He tells so much suppressed history there, it’s flabbergasting to see it all brought together into one flowing historical narrative — and my checking of the few sources that I hadn’t previously known of indicates that his standards for quality-of-evidence that he builds his narrative on are as rigorous and high as mine are — which is rare. I very much respect that. Every high school student should read his article in order to understand how corrupt the U.S. is at its highest levels. The article is a masterpiece of historical writing. But even a masterpiece can have a flaw: his article plays down the role that leading Democrats after Reagan have been playing in GHW Bush’s long war to conquer Russia. We’re still in the post-Reagan era, just as, between FDR and Reagan, we had been in the post-FDR era. Obama is as rabid a Russia-hater as practically anyone except John McCain would be. If a piece of historical writing is going to be partisan (as almost all are), at least this one is partisan on the less-unacceptable side.
I might write RFK Jr.’s name onto the Presidential line of my ballot in November. There’s someone with favorable name-recognition, who clearly has the integrity and depth, and knowledge, to deal with the rot that has overtaken America, if anyone does. Maybe he could win by acclamation, if he wouldn’t be knocked-off first. But if the idea of writing in his name goes around like wildfire in the weeks before the November 8th general election, then who knows what would happen? Certainly, if Hillary is on the ballot as the ‘Democratic’ nominee, I won’t vote for her, though I’m a lifelong Democrat. And I don’t want to be forced to vote for Trump (since he’s almost totally unpredictable — which still isn’t as bad as Hillary). (Besides: Hillary should be in prison for her destruction of crucial public records — State Department emails — to hide her crimes; and The Donald should be in prison for his fake Trump ‘University’ commercial fraud. But the corrupt Obama won’t allow any such prosecutions.) And there’s such beautiful irony here: “Trump: If Elected, I’ll Prosecute Hillary.” It’s so much like Ukraine! (Cast Hillary as Tymoshenko, and Trump as Yanukovych — and I’d vote then for Trump, so as to avoid the near-certainty of disaster.)
But no intelligent American can be justified in simply not voting for President. That would be outrageously irresponsible. I won’t ever do that. Every intelligent and caring person must vote for President — not leave that responsibility to others (which would be unpatriotic — plus wrong and callous — for any well-informed voter). The “anyone but ___” non-voters are mere fools and frauds. They simply don’t care enough about the country to do their most-basic civic duty, which is to become informed and then to vote for someone on that basis (though never as a ‘protest vote’ — the nation is too important for any mere ‘protest’ — but only as a real  vote, for someone who has an authentic chance of winning  the election). Any mere throw-away ‘vote’ is like a non-vote.
That article by Kennedy should be linked to by all of his supporters: it tells more about the man than any number of campaign speeches possibly could. It proves that he’s fit for the job, if anyone is. That’s one person who doesn’t need to campaign for the job. He’s an outsider whose knowledge and understanding of the subject is probably among the best there is, and whose heart is unquestionably in the right place — which would be a refreshing and radical change, a change that’s of a kind needed now more than ever in the U.S.
But anyway: RFK Jr.’s article is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand the horrendous war in Syria. My article here is just a warm-up to it — and, I hope, a totally non-partisan one.

Thursday, February 18, 2016

Gov Officials Admit Turkey Has REPEATEDLY Carried Out False Flag Terror

Terror attacks have repeatedly rocked Turkey over the last year.
The government has blamed ISIS and Kurds for the attacks … and is about to use this “justification” to launch troops into Syria.
But there is an alternative explanation.  Specifically, government officials have admitted that Turkey has repeatedly carried out false flag attacks.
For example:
(1) The Turkish Prime Minister admitted that the Turkish government carried out the 1955 bombing on a Turkish consulate in Greece – also damaging the nearby birthplace of the founder of modern Turkey – and blamed it on Greece, for the purpose of inciting and justifying anti-Greek violence.
(2) The former Italian Prime Minister, an Italian judge, and the former head of Italian counterintelligence admit that NATO, with the help of the Pentagon and CIA, carried out terror bombings in Italy and other European countries in the 1950s and blamed the communists, in order to rally people’s support for their governments in Europe in their fight against communism. As one participant in this formerly-secret program stated: “You had to attack civilians, people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public, to turn to the state to ask for greater security” (and see this) (Italy and other European countries subject to the terror campaign had joined NATO before the bombings occurred). And watch this BBC special.

Turkish false flag attacks carried out pursuant to this program include – by way of example only:
(3) A top Turkish general admitted that Turkish forces burned down a mosque on Cyprus in the 1970s and blamed it on their enemy. He explained: “In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque.” In response to the surprised correspondent’s incredulous look the general said, “I am giving an example”.
(4) High-level American sources admitted that the Turkish government – a fellow NATO country – carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government; and high-ranking Turkish government admitted on tape plans to carry out attacks and blame it on the Syrian government.
Two members of the Turkish parliament stated:
Sarin was sent to Syria from Turkey via several businessmen.
***
The purpose of the attack was allegedly to provoke a US military operation in Syria which would topple the Assad regime …
Pulitzer-prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh – who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal and the Mai Lai massacre in Vietnam  – previously reported that high-level American sources tell him that the Turkish government carried out the chemical weapons attacks blamed on the Syrian government.
As Hersh noted:
‘We knew there were some in the Turkish government,’ a former senior US intelligence official, who has access to current intelligence, told me, ‘who believed they could get Assad’s nuts in a vice by dabbling with a sarin attack inside Syria – and forcing Obama to make good on his red line threat.’
Indeed, it’s long been known that sarin was coming through Turkey.
(5) While Turkey pretends it’s fighting ISIS, Turkey is actually one of the main supporters of ISIS.

Sunday, February 7, 2016

McCain Finally Tells the Truth: We Knew About ISIS Fuel Trucks and Did Nothing

Posted by 

It’s almost common knowledge at this point that vast convoys of oil tankers regularly make their way between Turkey and ISIL fighters in Syria. But what might be surprising to some is the United States knew about these illicit oil supply lines for quite some time — but did nothing about it.
When Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter testified in a hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee in December concerning the U.S. strategy for fighting ISIL, his inept attempt to keep knowledge of the oil convoy under wraps backfired in a most comical way. John McCain addressed the Defense Secretary in a state of facetious disbelief:
“Secretary, you may want to correct the record. We all knew those fuel trucks were moving back and forth. We’ve seen them. We knew it. The decision was not made by the White House to attack them. I think you may want to correct the record,” he added, “because I certainly knew.”
Offering instead to “clarify,” Carter paused, and then — as if searching for words that might excuse that decision — he said, “That is the case. And the, the wh . . . what uh . . . uhh . . . the air commanders were able to do is identify those trucks, and I, I . . . in a classified setting, I can describe exactly how that information was obtained, which were directly supporting ISIL. We have, and continue to try to, withhold attacks upon that part of the general infrastructure — energy, electricity, water, etc. — that is also necessary for the people . . . of Syria.”
Wait. Remember, McCain’s question pertained to oil convoys supplying ISIL — so, which Syrian people was Carter referring to?
“And we’re trying to peel off that which is . . . is . . . which ISIL uses, and command and controls for its own revenue source,” Carter offered in explanation. “We’re now able to make that distinction, which is whatenabled, uh, the air . . . the airstrikes, Chairman.” Then he hastily added, “And with regard to where that particular intelligence came from, and so forth, I’d be happy to have someone come up and tell you in a classifiedmanner.”
McCain, unconvinced, rebutted,
“I repeat: We knew those fuel trucks were moving back and forth, we saw them … and the decision was not made in the White House to attack them or not. You can’t tell me they were moving all that stuff back and forth for over a year, and we didn’t know about it. I mean, it’s just not possible given our [technological] capabilities — but I’ll be glad to hear additional information.”
Considering the enormity of the United States’ military budget — which is larger than at least the next six nations, combined — McCain’s skepticism is warranted.
“I was told directly, in Iraq,” McCain stated, “that we didn’t attack [the oil convoys] because the decision had not been made to attack them, and they didn’t want to harm anybody.”
If what McCain said is true — the U.S. didn’t want to harm people who are ostensibly enemy workers supplying an enemy with the fuel it needs to fight the U.S. — there is certainly room to question the actual U.S. military objectives in regard to ISIL.