MEDIA ROOTS- Richard Clarke, former anti-terrorism chief under Bush, has given a new account of the 9/11 story that implicates the CIA for intentionally obstructing the investigation and withholding vital information that would have likely prevented the attacks. His testimony smashes a hole in the government’s ‘incompetence’ theory that rationalized their inaction. It also invalidates the mindset of ‘oh well, there was so much intelligence coming in that we couldn’t differentiate the real threats from the fake ones’, by pointing out that someone from the inside must have been purposefully obstructing him from doing his job. 

The filmmakers of 9/11: Press for Truth interview Richard Clarke about the revelations.

There are numerous things very telling about Clarke’s sudden revival with this information. His new, more frustrated demeanor hints at something deeper that he could suspect or possibly know to be true about the attacks. Clarke suggests that Saudi intelligence was involved, further connecting the dots between Bandar Bush and the Saudi Royal Family to 9/11.

Al Qaeda on US Government Payroll

Shockingly, Clarke also theorizes that the CIA tried to recruit a member of Al Qaeda who later turned out to be one of the 19 hijackers, proving that the CIA was well aware of Al Qaeda ‘cells’ prior to the attacks. His allegations add credibility to the theory that some of the hijackers could have possibly been on the US government payroll.

If one studies the JFK case, there are eerily similar consistencies with Lee Harvey Oswald’s background as a Russian intelligence agent or potential double agent working for the US. Oswald listed his address in the same New Orleans building as CIA Bay of Pigs co-organizer, Guy Banister. Similarly, five of the 19 hijackers were trained at secure US military installations in the 90s, and three of them listed their addresses at the Pensacola naval base in Florida.

Clarke astoundingly divulges a theory that George Tenant, along with up to 40 CIA agents (by his estimate), knew about attempts to get one of the hijackers on the CIA payroll as an informant up to four months before 9/11.

We don’t know for certain whether Clarke is telling the truth, but what we do know is that over time insiders like Clarke might feel safer revealing more pieces of the 9/11 puzzle. Possibly he is plagued with a guilty conscious, or maybe the US government is still using him to spread conflicting propaganda in order to manipulate the narrative.

Unsurprisingly, the corporate press hasn’t touched the explosive allegation. What is surprising, however, is the lack of coverage from the so-called ‘alternative’ media sites like Salon, Slate, and Wired. There seems to be an active campaign among both the progressive media establishment and the corporate news to censor such a revelatory story.

Who is Richard Blee?

The name Richard Blee comes up multiple times throughout Clarke’s video interview. He points the finger at Blee and accuses him of being a key player in withholding information that could have prevented the attacks. As more investigating is done into this case, hopefully Blee will be further questioned. For now, George Tenant, Blee and others accused by Clarke have already written a rebuttal to his allegations of the ‘lady doth protest too much’ varietal.

Investigative journalism like that done by Secrecy Kills and the 9/11: Press for Truth crew is rare. We give high honors to the people who dug deep into this story and look forward to their future revelations. Make sure to visit their website Secrecy Kills and listen to an hour long podcast detailing much more than what is discussed here. 

Written by Robbie and Abby Martin

MEDIA ROOTS- It seems relatively obvious– legally buying medical marijuana at a dispensary eliminates the need to deal with street drug dealers, which diminishes the risk factor for crime. However, law enforcement agencies continue to argue that the cash troves on site boost crime by attracting thieves who resell the drugs.

Research from a recent report by the RAND Corporation supports the former– crime rates rose significantly in Los Angeles neighborhoods after hundreds of medical marijuana dispensaries in the vicinity were forced to shut down.

Via TIME:

Researchers gathered information and crime reports from 600 dispensaries in Los Angeles County, of which 430 were ordered to close by City Council. They then looked at the 10 days prior to when the ordinance took effect (June 7, 2010) and the 10 days after the shutdown. They found a 59% increase in crime within three-tenths of a mile of the closed dispensaries and 24% increase within six-tenths of a mile.

“If medical marijuana dispensaries are causing crime, then there should be a drop in crime when they close,” said Mireille Jacobson, the RAND study’s lead author and senior economist. Researchers went on to explain that open dispensaries probably strengthened the security of the immediate area, if anything, due to their security cameras and guards, as well as an increase in foot traffic and trumping illegal street sales of marijuana.

One of things that piqued my curiosity most about the study is that the RAND Corporation, the company that conducted the research and released the report, is one of the most powerful globalist think tanks in the world. Its members have written extensive policy prescriptions on the militarization of society in a post 9/11 world, and they proudly display a giant mushroom cloud sculpture constructed out of chain links outside of their LA headquarters.

They were also accused of helping pen the tyrannical Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism and Prevention Act of 2007. Why is RAND throwing the public a bone in the ‘War on Drugs’? This study seems to work against their interests in the ubiquitous ‘War on Everything’ they recommend policy for.

Abby Martin

Photo by Flickr user KayVee.INC

MEDIA ROOTS- After seeing this pro Obama ‘gangsta’ meme circulating on facebook this morning, we felt the need to provide a quick rebuttal to the alleged accomplishments it touts.

Here’s what I promised again and again to do that I didn’t do:

I didn’t close Guantanamo Bay. Sure, it was a cornerstone of my campaign, but still. Terrorists gonna terrorize.

I didn’t repeal the Bush tax cuts. In fact, I extended them.

I didn’t negotiate the health care reform ideas in public or televised sessions, as promised.

In fact, remember when I said this in 2007? “I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American” – Yeah, I was just kidding. What we’re going to do instead is force you to BUY insurance, or we’ll fine you – and if you don’t pay that fine, you’ll go to jail.

I didn’t sign the Employee Free Choice act, making it easy for workers to unionize and protect themselves from thug political bullying, like what happened in Wisconsin.

I didn’t forbid companies going into bankruptcy from giving executive bonuses.

I didn’t allow imported prescription drugs to save citizens money.

I didn’t form an international group to help the millions of displaced Iraq refugees who were pushed out of their country because of a decade long bombing campaign for a terrorist act they had nothing to do with.

I didn’t withdraw from Afghanistan– instead I added more troops. In the case of Iraq, I replaced some troops with corporate thugs-for-hire. Now private military contractors make up half of our force in both countries.

I didn’t double funding for afterschool programs, as I repeatedly promised to do.

I didn’t instill tougher rules against lobbyists. In fact, I did the opposite, and even hired a couple for cabinet positions!

I didn’t use any revenue from cap and trade to support clean energy and environmental restoration.

But yeah, I gave the order to kill a guy in Pakistan and dump his body in the ocean mafia style.

And yeah, I gave the order to drop some million dollar missiles in Libya.

And yeah, I bailed out Wall Street with taxpayer money and then offered nothing to the people, while those same swindling fatcats showered one another with “job creation” money – without creating a single fucking job.

Awesome choices we are given by the establishment: choose between hysterical and unthinkably dangerous creationist caricatures or a lying right wing Republican in Democrat’s clothes who solely serves corporate America while breaking off tiny token crumbs in perfect sync with the election cycle. Obama is just Bush with an iPod. And we are duped into thinking that the sliver of hardened shit might turn to gold if we ‘hope’ hard enough.

Written by Johnny Firecloud, Founder, Managing Editor of Antiquiet.com

MEDIA ROOTS- What happened to all that talk about transparency, Mr. President? Oh right, it was all just empty rhetoric. One of the first things Obama did once he elected was promise an “unprecedented level of transparency” in government. He was even given a transparency award which was ironically delivered to him in a private Oval Office ceremony off the public record. However, his administration has exacerbated some of the most egregious policies regarding secrecy and censorship.

The Obama administration has not only prosecuted more whistleblowers than any other president combined. Officials in this administration are also responsible for classifying 77 million documents in 2010—a shocking one-year jump of 40 percent. Furthermore, this cabinet has misguidedly used the Espionage Act in five cases of news media disclosures, when previously there were no more than four in all of White House history.

Abby

***

NEW YORK TIMES– A former top official in charge of ensuring that real secrets are kept secret has delivered a stunning repudiation of the Obama administration’s decision to use the Espionage Act against a whistle-blower attempting to expose government waste and abuse.

J. William Leonard, who directed the Information Security Oversight Office during the George W. Bush administration, filed a formal complaint about the prosecution with the Justice Department and the National Security Agency, and urged punishment of officials who needlessly classify documents that contain no actual secrets.

In the case in question, Thomas Drake, an N.S.A. employee, faced 35 years in prison for espionage after he leaked information to a reporter about a potential billion-dollar computer boondoggle. The case collapsed last month with Mr. Drake walking away after a token misdemeanor plea to providing information to an unauthorized person. The government was deservedly berated by Judge Richard Bennett of Federal District Court in Maryland for an “unconscionable” pursuit of the accused across “four years of hell.”

Prosecutors dropped the felony charges at the 11th hour after Judge Bennett ordered them to show allegedly classified material to the jury. But Mr. Leonard said he was willing to testify for Mr. Drake that there were no secrets at issue and that he had never seen “a more deliberate and willful example of government officials improperly classifying a document.”

The Obama administration has misguidedly used the Espionage Act in five such cases of news media disclosures; previously there were no more than four in all of White House history. This comes as officials classified nearly 77 million documents last year — a one-year jump of 40 percent. The government claim that this was because of improved reporting is not reassuring.

Two years ago, President Obama ordered all agencies to review secret material by June 2012 with a goal of promoting more declassification. Unfortunately, the administration’s emphasis since then has all been in the opposite direction. Treating potentially embarrassing information as a state secret is the antithesis of healthy government.

Read more about Why Is That A Secret?

© 2011 The New York Times

Photo by Flickr user Animation Concept

MEDIA ROOTS- After using NATO’s Orwellian “humanitarian bombing” operation as the front for US intervention in Libya, the establishment is narrowing its sight on oil rich Syria next. Already the US and the EU have slapped economic sanctions on the country, citing President Bashar al-Assad’s human rights abuses during Syria’s recent protests. The corporate media is also beginning to ingrain propaganda about Syria’s stockpile of deadly weapons that is reminiscent of the propaganda surrounding the lead up to the Iraq war.

Earlier this month, Russia Today reported that the UN Security Council condemned “the widespread violation of human rights in Syria and the use of force against civilians by the country’s security forces,” while also urging the Damascus authorities to respect human rights and observe international law. “Those responsible for the violence should be held accountable,” the Council said in a presidential statement, the UN official website reports.

A great article by Global Research cuts through the misinformation regarding Syria and lays out some facts that don’t jive with what we are being told about their “democratic uprising”. Instead, reports suggest that the government and corporate press are fabricating a pretext for another NATO led humanitarian intervention in the region. Let’s not forgot that the United States pays the largest percentage of all NATO efforts, and wields the most influence on the shots being called on the grand chessboard.

Abby

***

GLOBAL RESEARCH– There is evidence of gross media manipulation and falsification from the outset of the protest movement in southern Syria on March 17th.

The Western media has presented the events in Syria as part of the broader Arab pro-democracy protest movement, spreading spontaneously from Tunisia, to Egypt, and from Libya to Syria. 

Media coverage has focussed on the Syrian police and armed forces, which are accused of indiscriminately shooting and killing unarmed “pro-democracy” demonstrators. While these police shootings did indeed occur, what the media failed to mention is that among the demonstrators there were armed gunmen as well as snipers who were shooting at both the security forces and the protesters.

The death figures presented in the reports are often unsubstantiated. Many of the reports are “according to witnesses”. The images and video footages aired on Al Jazeera and CNN do not always correspond to the events which are being covered by the news reports.

There is certainly cause for social unrest and mass protest in Syria: unemployment has increased in recent year, social conditions have deteriorated, particularly since the adoption in 2006 of sweeping economic reforms under IMF guidance. The IMF’s “economic medicine” includes austerity measures, a freeze on wages, the deregulation of the financial system, trade reform and privatization.

With a government dominated by the minority Alawite (an offshoot of Shia Islam), Syria is no “model society” with regard to civil rights and freedom of expression. It nonetheless constitutes the only (remaining) independent secular state in the Arab world. Its populist, anti-Imperialist and secular base is inherited from the dominant Baath party, which integrates Muslims, Christians and Druze.

Moreover, in contrast to Egypt and Tunisia, in Syria there is considerable popular support for President Bashar Al Assad. The large rally in Damascus on March 29, “with tens of thousands of supporters” (Reuters) of President Al Assad is barely mentioned. Yet in an unusual twist, the images and video footage of several pro-government events were used by the Western media to convince international public opinion that the President was being confronted by mass anti-government rallies.

The “Epicenter” of the Protest Movement. Daraa: A Small Border Town in southern Syria 

What is the nature of the protest movement? From what sectors of Syrian society does it emanate? What triggered the violence?

What is the cause of the deaths?

The existence of an organized insurrection composed of armed gangs involved in acts of killing and arson has been dismissed by the Western media, despite evidence to the contrary.

The demonstrations did not start in Damascus, the nation’s capital. At the outset, the protests were not integrated by a mass movement of citizens in Syria’s capital.

The demonstrations started in Daraa, a small border town of 75,000 inhabitants, on the Syrian Jordanian border, rather than in Damascus or Aleppo, where the mainstay of organized political opposition and social movements are located. (Daraa is a small border town comparable e.g. to Plattsburgh, NY on the US-Canadian border).

The Associated Press report (quoting unnamed “witnesses” and “activists”) describes the early protests in Daraa as follows:

The violence in Daraa, a city of about 300,000 near the border with Jordan, was fast becoming a major challenge for President Bashar Assad, …. Syrian police launched a relentless assault Wednesday on a neighborhood sheltering anti-government protesters [Daraa], fatally shooting at least 15 in an operation that began before dawn, witnesses said.

At least six were killed in the early morning attack on the al–Omari mosque in the southern agricultural city of Daraa, where protesters have taken to the streets in calls for reforms and political freedoms, witnesses said. An activist in contact with people in Daraa said police shot another three people protesting in its Roman-era city center after dusk. Six more bodies were found later in the day, the activist said.

As the casualties mounted, people from the nearby villages of Inkhil, Jasim, Khirbet Ghazaleh and al–Harrah tried to march on Daraa Wednesday night but security forces opened fire as they approached, the activist said. It was not immediately clear if there were more deaths or injuries. (AP, March 23, 2011, emphasis added)

The AP report inflates the numbers: Daraa is presented as a city of 300,000 when in fact its population is 75,000; “protesters gathered by the thousands”, “casualties mounted”.

The report is silent on the death of policemen which in the West invariably makes the front page of the tabloids.

The deaths of the policemen are important in assessing what actually happened. When there are police casualties, this means that there is an exchange of gunfire between opposing sides, between policemen and “demonstrators”.

Who are these “demonstrators” including roof top snipers who were targeting the police.

Israeli and Lebanese news reports (which acknowledge the police deaths) provide a clearer picture of what happened in Daraa on March 17-18. The Israel National News Report (which cannot be accused of being biased in favor of Damascus) reviews these same events as follows:

Seven police officers and at least four demonstrators in Syria have been killed in continuing violent clashes that erupted in the southern town of Daraa last Thursday.

…. On Friday police opened fire on armed protesters killing four and injuring as many as 100 others. According to one witness, who spoke to the press on condition of anonymity, “They used live ammunition immediately — no tear gas or anything else.”

…. In an uncharacteristic gesture intended to ease tensions the government offered to release the detained students, but seven police officers were killed, and the Baath Party Headquarters and courthouse were torched, in renewed violence on Sunday. (Gavriel Queenann, Syria: Seven Police Killed, Buildings Torched in Protests, Israel National News, Arutz Sheva, March 21, 2011, emphasis added)

The Lebanese news report, quoting various sources, also acknowledges the killings of seven policemen in Daraa: They were killed “during clashes between the security forces and protesters… They got killed trying to drive away protesters during demonstration in Dara’a”

The Lebanese Ya Libnan report quoting Al Jazeera also acknowledged that protesters had “burned the headquarters of the Baath Party and the court house in Dara’a” (emphasis added)

These news reports of the events in Daraa confirm the following:

1. This was not a “peaceful protest” as claimed by the Western media. Several of the “demonstrators” had fire arms and were using them against the police: “The police opened fire on armed protesters killing four”.

2. From the initial casualty figures (Israel News), there were more policemen than demonstrators who were killed: 7 policemen killed versus 4 demonstrators. This is significant because it suggests that the police force might have been initially outnumbered by a well organized armed gang. According to Syrian media sources, there were also snipers on rooftops which were shooting at both the police and the protesters.

What is clear from these initial reports is that many of the demonstrators were not demonstrators but terrorists involved in premeditated acts of killing and arson. The title of the Israeli news report summarizes what happened: Syria: Seven Police Killed, Buildings Torched in Protests.

The Daraa “protest movement” on March 18 had all the appearances of a staged event involving, in all likelihood, covert support to Islamic terrorists by Mossad and/or Western intelligence. Government sources point to the role of radical Salafist groups (supported by Israel)

Other reports have pointed to the role of Saudi Arabia in financing the protest movement.

What has unfolded in Daraa in the weeks following the initial violent clashes on 17-18 March, is the confrontation between the police and the armed forces on the one hand and armed units of terrorists and snipers on the other which have infiltrated the protest movement.

Reports suggest that these terrorists are integrated by Islamists. There is no concrete evidence as to which Islamic organizations are behind the terrorists and the government has not released corroborating information as to who these groups are.

Both the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood (whose leadership is in exile in the UK) and the banned Hizb ut-Tahrir (the Party of Liberation), among others have paid lip service to the protest movement. Hizb ut Tahir (led in the 1980s by Syrian born Omar Bakri Muhammad) tends to “dominate the British Islamist scene” according to Foreign Affairs. Hizb ut Tahir is also considered to be of strategic importance to Britain’s Secret Service MI6. in the pursuit of Anglo-American interests in the Middle East and Central Asia. (Is Hizb-ut-Tahrir another project of British MI6? | State of Pakistan).

Syria is a secular Arab country, a society of religious tolerance, where Muslims and Christians have for several centuries lived in peace. Hizb ut–Tahrir (the Party of Liberation) is a radical political movement committed to the creation of an Islamic caliphate. In Syria, its avowed objective is to destabilize the secular state.

Since the Soviet-Afghan war, Western intelligence agencies as well as Israel’s Mossad have consistently used various Islamic terrorist organizations as “intelligence assets”. Both Washington and its indefectible British ally have provided covert support to “Islamic terrorists” in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and Libya, etc. as a means to triggering ethnic strife, sectarian violence and political instability.

The staged protest movement in Syria is modelled on Libya. The insurrection in Eastern Libya is integrated by the Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) which is supported by MI6 and the CIA. The ultimate objective of the Syria protest movement, through media lies and fabrications, is to create divisions within Syrian society as well as justify an eventual “humanitarian intervention”.

Read more about Who is Behind The Protest Movement? Fabricating a Pretext for a US-NATO “Humanitarian Intervention”

Written by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

© 2011 Global Research

Photo by Flickr use gmsampaio