On the approaching tenth anniversary of 9/11: Time for a commemorative orgy

What should we all be doing on that day? What should we be thinking? Many will continue to be afraid, very afraid, of their own shadows and shadow-sides that are the terrorists, really an archetype of our own collective crimes. Let me be clear on this: Nobody who died in the attacks on September 11th, 2001 deserved to die.

It was a heinous crime against humanity since there were people from all over the world who were killed by a coterie of madmen who were being bankrolled by wealthy sources in Gulf State nations, nations such as Saudi Arbia, Kuwait, Pakistan-and-Ollie (yes, not a "Gulf State, thank you. I hope your ego's been mollified...look up "mollified."), and the rest of the Middle Eastern Lollipop Guild, the usual suspects who are supposed to be our "friends," "friends" of America.

Of course, those regimes aren't ours or anyone's friends, they're theocratic criminals.

Here's the real problem: Being our own worst enemy, we're our own worst enema. We've sold many of our basic rights for...for...for...no idea whatsoever, some weird-assed contention that 9/11 was more catastrophic than it really was. It was not. It was horrible, an underhanded crime committed by Gulf State nations, using proxies, and then we started blowing our own balls off, even before the Nigerian bourgie who unsuccessfully attempted the same on a flight to Detroit not so long ago. This is the threat? Gimme a fuckin' break...

Nonetheless, the Children of Fear are running around, jerking themselves off every year September 11th rolls around. Do they really care about the victims? Nah. People even have commemorative picnics, which has to be the most retarded bullshit I've ever heard of in my natural life. Next year, I'm having one for the sinking of the Lusitania (look it up, Class of 2014, ya' fuckin' morons...) and the Civil War ironclad, the Monitor. I gotta say--and I had a classmate who died in the WTC and know people who witnessed the event firsthand--that with all the co-opting and misuse of the memories of the dead, I'm beginning not to care anymore, and that's not my fault, but the fault of the scumbags who have tried to "own" 9/11 to use for political gain. The worst offenders are the former Bush II administration and the GOP, but once again, the Democrats are doing likewise, only with more cunning and guile. We would have no war on terror otherwise.

So, no, I'm not having a picnic on these days. Instead, I'm not going to "observe" it at all. We need to move on emotionally from this event and bury the dead. We need to stop blowing our own toes off in the name of concentrated wealth, because they've used 9/11 to protect the core of the most evil form of economy on earth, namely American-style capitalism. It can end in peace, or it can end in slaughter, and likely, the collapse of human civilization, but the world cannot take the war on terror in its current form for much longer. Let's quit pretending that 9/11 was the most important event in our history, we've blown its significance entirely out of proportion and handed over too many of our rights.

The Northwest flight tard who blew his balls off (blues)

It seemed poetic, didn't it? The ruins of Detroit and the rest of America now needed to be protected once again from rich Nigerian tards with a screw loose (definitely not Fela Kuti material) and Gulf state professionals (easily indoctrinated with a middle-class education), and this would then require things like a "Department of Homeland Security for the Department of Homeland Security," it being that corrupt and worthless government institution created by "anti-government conservatives" inspired by the laughably sad likes of Grover Norquist. Thanks for the inaction with FEMA during Katrina. Point taken: government doesn't work...when you're in charge.

Yes, Washington D.C. really is Hollywood for ugly, stupid weaklings, and a more byzantine route to sex hasn't existed since the Mandarins. It's called "dysfunctional" for reason.

We're told with a straight face by Republicans, pundits (usually the same thing), and even the White House, that this is all serious when it's not. There's nothing serious or even remotely threatening about a retard blowing his balls off on a crowded airliner. This is all that he accomplished. This is the threat of terrorism, creole bourgeois extremists. That's not a very real threat at all. The real threat is how compromised our elected leaders--a euphemism--are to the paymasters in Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states. This is that infinitesimal chance that you'll slip in the shower and break your neck. This is the fear of one's shadow, the time of the hollow men. They will build palaces to this stupidity and this fear that will stand less than a generation, because you can't build a solid foundation on quivering shit.

To be afraid of a gaggle of clowns; to hand over any rights whatsoever over this; to think that the threat of terrorism is especially great and will affect you; is madness. The threat--I repeat--the threat is not real, and the war on terror is theater. No, I don't think this was "planned"--once again, like the events of September 11th, 2001, this is one more case of profound bureaucratic incompetence, piled one-upon-another and opportunism after-the-fact. I repeat: this is not a confirmation that government does not work. It's a confirmation that conservatives and corporatist influence within government do not work, and can never work to protect us or even to provide a livable society. In other words, any State-corporate nexus is the problem, and this comes from the revolving-door of appointees from the corporate world, something this current president has done plenty of, just like the last. Why would he fire all these Bush II appointees when he's the same? Quit fooling yourself.

But if stupid young men blowing their balls off scares you enough to hand over your liberty, you don't deserve any. If you allow the herd to stampede us there without a fight, you don't deserve any. Cowardice comes in many forms, and Americans do plenty of talking and no walking. I could take these bastards on any flight, any time, any day. I am not afraid. Cowards are afraid of their own shadow, and that's exactly what's happening in the American mind (or what's left of it) right now: we know our wars are illegal and immoral and that we have something coming to us. We know we are complicit. This is collective-guilt writ large. Did he blow off your balls, or his?

Arlen Specter surprises again: Reintroduces legislation to allow 9/11 lawsuits against Saudi ruling-class to move forward

Washington D.C.--If there's anything one can say about the senator from Pennsylvania, it's that he's unpredictable and probably really does have this nation's best interests at-heart--in his own mind at least. We'll set aside the magic-bullet theory for a moment...

This week--on December 21st--Specter called on the floor of the Senate for the passage of legislation that would allow lawsuits initiated by thousands of survivors (as well as the families of those killed and insurance companies) of the terrorists attacks on September 11, 2001 to move forward, and introduced the proposed bill with bipartisan support from no less a non-man than Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), although I'm sure it's purely a political move on his part since it's not likely to pass, at least not on his watch.

That would require will and real support, something Graham and others in both major parties aren't inclined to do since there's a lot of money at stake, never mind the destabilizing effects actual justice directed at the Saudi ruling-clans would have on the world's oil supply and the global economy. The coverage in the mainstream media--once again--has been virtually non-existent.

It's not his first time, and he began this road in late 2003 with roughly the same reaction, meaning indifference if not obstructionism. On October 25th, 2007, Specter introduced the "Saudi Arabia Accountability Act" that was designed to accomplish essentially the same aims, meaning dragging the Saudi government and various institutions and charities into the light and allowing lawsuits to proceed that are currently being barred by the State Department (the executive branch) and questionable Federal Circuit Court rulings, more recently in the 2nd Circuit:

Specter (D., Pa.) said the legislation would clarify that lawsuits by U.S. citizens could go forward without a sign-off from the State Department.

A federal appeals court in Manhattan last year dismissed claims against the Saudi government, saying such litigation can proceed only if the State Department finds that the Saudis provided financial aid and other assistance to terrorist groups.
Besides clarifying the law, the bill would reinstate those lawsuits.
The Philadelphia law firm Cozen O'Connor has sued Saudi Arabia, members of the Saudi royal family, and more than a dozen Islamic charities, alleging responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. The Cozen lawsuit, on behalf of dozens of U.S. and international insurers that lost billions of dollars at ground zero, accuses the Saudi government of financing charities that in turn laundered money into al-Qaeda. ("Specter looks to revive 9/11 suits against Saudis," Philadelphia Inquirer, 12.24.2009)

This is all very new since Americans have never been allowed to sue a foreign power without the permission of the executive branch through established channels at the State Department. In other words, this is a new right that Senator Specter is proposing, an expansion of legal recourse for the American people that should have been in-place generations ago.

Granted, this is just a new submission of essentially the same legislation he's been proposing since as early as 2003, but he's not giving up, and neither should anyone concerned at getting to the bottom of what happened. The problem for the "truther" movement is that this doesn't fit the anti-government agenda or many of their theories that go in the same direction (nowhere), so we can expect a general lack-of-enthusiasm let alone any noise over this from them. They're hardly alone in the business: there are extremely powerful players in the financial and political sectors whose ties to the Saudi regime run deep. Instead, hundreds-of-thousands are running around in denial with their science fiction theories that would never stand the legal test in a court of law.

This is why the last administration did everything it could to keep these things from going anywhere, and likewise for the new one. Rather than actually protecting the American people then, what we have is a sham in the so-called war on terror, making it blatantly reminiscent of that other failed war, the war on drugs. Who's side are they on anyway? Do we really want to get to the truth at all? If not, we need to stop talking about concern over the victims and using them as a political hot-potato, now. Frankly, it was always distasteful, but this is probably another reason that Graham signed-on with Specter as a co-sponsor, to cover his and the GOP's ass for the next elections hoping everyone's forgotten their real role in all of this.

Here are a few things remarked on by Specter when he introduced a similar bill in 2007 that "truthers" (their "truth" being highly-selective) tend to ignore:

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, evidence has emerged indicating that support for al-Qaeda, Ramas, and other organizations has come from Saudi Arabia.

Testimony presented to several Congressional committees, including the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Judiciary Committee, and Intelligence committees in both houses, has indicated that Saudi Arabia is an epicenter for terrorist financing. These committees have also found the Saudi government's cooperation in investigations into the al-Qaeda terrorist network has been lackluster.

In the 108 Congress, as a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee and as a member of the Judiciary Committee, we worked to establish a basic point that anybody who knowingly contributes to a terrorist organization is an accessory before the fact to murder; so when people contribute to al-Qaeda or Hamas, knowing that both organizations employ suicide bombers, they are accessories to murder.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1373, adopted in 2001, mandates that all States "refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts,'' take "the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts,'' and "deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts.'' There is mounting evidence that Saudi Arabia has not been compliant with this resolution.

The 9/11 Commission interviewed numerous military officers and government officials who repeatedly listed Saudi Arabia as a prime place for terrorists to set up bases and found that "Saudi Arabia's society was a place where al-Qaeda raised money directly from individuals through charities.''

The Council on Foreign Relations concluded in a 2002 report that "for years, individuals and charities based in Saudi Arabia have been the most important source of funds for al-Qaeda, and for years, Saudi officials have turned a blind eye.''

There are indications that, since the May 12, 2003, suicide bombings in Riyadh, the Government of Saudi Arabia is making a more serious effort to combat terrorism. That said, I would like to draw attention to the following findings recanted by organizations which have studied the record of the Saudis.

In a June 2004 report entitled "Update on the Global Campaign Against Terrorist Financing,'' the Council on Foreign Relations reported that "we find it regrettable and unacceptable that since September 11, 2001, we know of not a single Saudi donor of funds to terrorist groups who have been publicly punished.''

A joint committee of the Select Committee on Intelligence of the Senate and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives issued a report on July 24, 2003, that quotes various U.S. Government personnel who complained that the Saudis refused to cooperate in the investigation of Osama bin Laden and his network both before and after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

It should be remembered that the Saudi regime executes their own citizens publicly in Riyadh with beheadings and amputations for violations of religious laws in what is a theocratic dictatorship. Interestingly, there's no entry for the legislation for either December 21st or the 24th (the date of the Philadelphia Inquirer coverage) on his own web page, but the story is gradually getting out there. This pretty much spells-it-out in a clear and basic form that should be understandable to anyone who can read and comprehend, and Specter is hardly a radical.

Neither is Charles Schumer (D-NY). What's radical in the current political culture, however, is for this legislation to go anywhere at all. Is this about justice or agendas? Go ask Alex Jones. Go ask the Obama administration. They're against any such moves that the senator from Pennsylvania is suggesting. But Specter appears to feel that the prospects for the bill and its main-thrust are good, stating, "I think it will pass." Let's hope so since the Saudis aren't about to stand down anytime soon without sanctions. Think what you want, but government is the only answer in all of this, surely not oil companies and trusts.

"Specter looks to revive 9/11 suits against Saudis," Philadelphia Inquirer, 12.24.2009: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/business/homepage/20091224_Specter_looks_to_revive_9_11_suits_against_Saudis.html

Arlen Specter's Floor Statement on the Saudi Arabia Accountability Act of 2007, introduced October 25, 2007: http://specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=NewsRoom.ArlenSpecterSpeaks&ContentRecord_id=f6853748-1321-0e36-baae-0e4b60c0cd96&Region_id=&Issue_id=bd50d272-7e9c-9af9-72de-559d0e9aeed9

Call for information on those pesky Libertarians...

WWW--Jaenelle Antas sated my appetite to remove these bastards once-and-for-all from any affiliation with the counterculture and the antiwar movement. I think this is very doable and I will be investing some more time in this area as I think the turds have been coming around trying (without any luck) to cause problems on this site and elsewhere. They should know that any attacks are going to be reported to law enforcement...

I've told Cindy Sheehan on her Facebook page that I thought she was making a mistake going on Alex Jones's radio program, and she was not only dismissive but made it personal. That's not a level-headed person. It helped me understand the problems that people have been talking and writing about regarding Sheehan over the last few years: the notoriety has gone to her head, and she's listening to the Sirens. The fringe-right has her ear when logic would dictate that they're part of the problem. She's fallen into the wrong side of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." She's got it all wrong--they're part of the enemy camp on the right and some of their rhetoric has seduced her, as has issues of convenience. I hate writing any of this about her.

Meanwhile, Sheehan falls deeper-and-deeper into a depressing irrelevancy, which was probably part of the plan of some of the people currently whispering in her ear. They didn't have to try too hard considering the target. Since at least the end of the American Civil War, provocateurs and spies of capital have done these kinds of things--there is plenty of precedent here. I'm all-but-certain she's been the victim of at least a few agent provocateurs.

Why mention Jones in a call for information about Libertarians? Because he's been closely-affiliated with them and is a "self-described" part of that other branch of the Lollipop Guild of little men and women on the far right, the lunatic fringe (the public has never supported their agenda in the polls or the voting booth). Listen to him and read him enough and this is patently clear. Jones has also had Naomi Klein ("Disaster Capitalism," a book whose premise and thesis I consider to be conflated--go back to Canada) and numerous others from the progressive movement/left on his program to woo them into neutralization, a trap, and simply to feed his ratings. Surely, this is a case of mutual masturbation if ever there was one. It doesn't hurt for the target to be overambitious and egotistical. Take your pick as to which one best describes Klein and Sheehan--or some permutation of both--but they're most assuredly blowing it by associating with these people.

You don't build bridges with people who are the fringe of the wrong side of history. Considering that they have nothing to offer in numbers should be a real indicator of their standing with the public. They're not going to change, and they're not especially significant. However, these people associating them are helping to change that a little by "mainstreaming" them a tad, not that the public is even remotely ready to buy their agenda that's barely different from that of the GOP. These juvenile clowns are also trying to make inroads through the "9/11 Truth (bowel) movement," truly a gaggle of fools if ever there was one, and that's not to say there isn't a cover-up (which doesn't automatically imply an "inside job," that's someone sneaking an arch-conservative agenda through the back door).

My own take? The Bush II administration was so corrupt and incompetent (and compromised thanks to direct-ties to the Saudi ruling-class) that they blew it. It's about oil, dummies. The rest has been a cover-up to protect them and unaccountable power in Saudi Arabia, just like at home. How often do the "truthers" talk about the Saudi connection, assuredly the "foreign state" found in the 26-27 redacted pages of the 9/11 Commission's report? That's not an invitation to a debate, incidentally, I don't do those unpaid, my time's worth something.

So here's the deal: I want information--any information--that's reasonably verifiable as in the case of the Antas story. I want intelligence on the Libertarian Party in any and every state in America, and even Canada. Mmm-hmm, I want the dirt, the bad-with-the-bad, but it must be reasonably verifiable and pertinent. We all have agendas, and mine is to remove their influence from the progressive movement and the counterculture once-and-for-all, an evil thing, I know.

This isn't about money on this side of the fence, this is about fixing our nation and our culture and moving on from the myth of the Wild West and the Frontier. It's time America grew-up. Unlike Jones and Nimmo, I'm not trying to sell coffee mugs, books, quasi-racist images of the president emblazoned on t-shirts, and heavily-edited DVDs of insane ranting about the Bohemian Grove and other examples of Libertarian non-sequitur babbling. I want dirt. This is about principles, and I don't pay sources.

When is the GOP finally going to die, and where do we bury it?

"Climbing the eastern wall as it had come, the colossus went to and fro for many hours, no longer wreaking a hellish wrath and rancour, but searching, as people thought, for the various tombs and graves from which the hundreds of bodies that composed it had been so foully reft. From charnel to charnel, from cemetery to cemetery it went, through all the land; but there was no grave anywhere in which the dead colossus could lie down." --Clark Ashton Smith, The Colossus of Ylourgne," 1934.


Come on GOP, you know you want to take that gun and...you love that gun, oh yes you do, and you love to use it. So use it. The problem with you being gone is that then the Democrats will have a free hand to become even more corrupt than they already are, and boy are they, just like you. But they hide it better. In a short time, they would look exactly like you do, possibly worse. Granted, that's a short walk off a short pier, and God knows they want to stay in Afghanistan too and give us an Orwellian war without end, but they're a smidgen more realistic than you, GOP. Just not very much, and they like falling on their swords when it means a pro-business agenda will be secure.

And those dumbbells that come at you with assault rifles at presidential speeches--they're you're rednecks! I didn't make 'em, their stupid parents and a bad educational system did. The worst part of you--GOP--is the smell: it's there, all the signs of decay, of putrefaction, are present. You stink. Small wonder that the national elections are held in the first week of November, so close to All Saints Day, today, which is then followed by All Souls Day, for the departed. Everything about the Republican Party is death. What does the GOP have left but dead ideologies? The stiff's still walking around, going through the various stages of mourning; give it time to realize that it's dead, just let it die. Martyrs? There have been no martyrs in the Republican Party since Abraham Lincoln, so they might have to create a few, and they're willing to. What does the GOP have besides a bunch of free market extremists and racist psychopaths yelling their heads off until nobody listens?

Their disconnect from reality is both genuine and terrifying: just this week Rush Limbaugh claimed that former VP candidate Sarah Palin was somehow prepared to be president, that she's capable and educated enough in geopolitics, economics, world history, and so on, to serve adequately in the Oval Office. Never mind merit, I think she can win, so who cares? He sounds like Franz von Papen when he urged President Paul von Hindenburg "hire" Hitler and make him Chancellor (Hitler lost the election, look it up, Vonnegut was wrong), and at this point she doesn't have a chance unless the economy crashes even further without further government intervention and someone burns down the Reichstag again in a terrorist attack.

My guess is the Saudis are waiting for someone to rebuild the World Trade Center so they can blow it up again. They have a long wait. Oh yeah, and Dick Armey (unfortunate name) is William Jennings Bryan (in a sick way he really is) as William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes Monkey trial, not the one that defended Eugene Debs and other unionists. We just keep coming back to the 1920s-30s! What business elites (and Libertarians) want is to drag us back into the 19th century when there was no regulation of much of anything, the good old days that never were. It's not so hard to believe when you take into account that the rich in America never accepted the New Deal.

When are we going to cope with modernity? When are we going to finally accept that we cannot go back to some arboreal Eden, that there never was a golden age, and that we're stuck with technology? There's no sticking the Djin back in its bottle once it's gotten free. History doesn't work that way; it means moving forward, and we should do so cautiously. We must change. If we go forward as we have, favoring corporations, subsidizing fossil fuels and concentrated wealth, and continue to move away from democratic traditions, all is lost. The real threat is coming from misguided Populism, as it always has, because it can be used against the rest of us. That's right, lack in others is a threat to everyone. Pointing these dummies at hot button issues and progressive targets and letting them run amok works. When people already hold irrational beliefs and attitudes, it's not such a long walk off that short pier. Now, where are we going to bury the GOP? We might want two graves for both major parties. Anyone? A shovel?

Six years after 9/11...

THE USSA--Feel any safer? No? GOOD. That's what those who want to deprive you of your rights wish from you (your irrational fear), and it's not just the terrorists. Grow-a-pair people, and grow-up. The threat is real, yes, but 9/11 was due to incompetence thanks to the Bush administration, and probably because they're compromised to the Saudi Royal Family (The House of Saud). Leave Iraq now, and we'll be significantly safer.

Correct, we should have attacked the Saudi Royal Family, holding the ones that were here at that time hostage until their central government and the rest of the ruling clans started talking. Let's make it clear: the Saudis are the paymasters of Al-Qaeda and numerous other Muslim terrorist organizations. The best thing that could happen is for the regime there to fall and be replaced by ANYTHING ELSE. It's already the single-most extremist Islamic State in the entire world.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool YOU (not me) twelve-times: quit pretending you're an adult and start sucking that thumb. At least Sen.Chuck Hagel has had the prescience and logic to quit Congress after 2008 along with a gaggle of criminal Republican incumbents, and so should virtually all of them. That includes numerous Democratic incumbents.

This includes Rep. Joe Donnelly. You blew it man, and it's time for you to go next year. Change--or don't change, and be removed from office by the voters of the Second Voting District of Indiana. You're a pathetic little man, now go wash. Sens. Dick Lugar and Evan Bayh. No need to comment, you gotta go too. You and the rest of this criminal political generation are going to go, and yours truly is working overtime to ensure it. Thankfully, so are all of you there in Washington...

Deborah Jeane Palfrey filing pro se "Motion for "Pretrial Conference to Consider Matters Relating to Classified Information"

"[N]o one of course ID’d them self as a member of the House of Saud, in such a situation. Folks from this part of the world [the Middle East]–unlike the Dick Morris’s in this country–do not brag or draw attention to their true identities. With this said, we had many, many clients from the Middle East; especially, prior to 9/11." --Jeane Palfrey (personal correspondence with the author, 09.02.2007)

Washington D.C.--This is a major-step in the legal predicament of the so-called "DC Madam," and one that could yield a significantly different version of the last fourteen years of American political and diplomatic history. Under "The Classified Information Procedures Act," it's possible that Ms. Palfrey and her civil attorney Montogmery Sibley Blair will be able to finally gain the right of discovery process in her case (the evidence for-or-against her). In a recent interview with Lori Price of Citizens for Legitimate Government, Palfrey dropped a real bombshell (though not to readers of this site):

My attorney, Mr. Sibley, and I, have very good reason to believe my case involves matters relating to national security and intelligence gathering operations. One has to remember I was in business in a city, which is home and host to some of the most powerful and connected men - not only in this country, but to foreign officials, dignitaries and businessmen from abroad for almost 13 years, from 1993 to 2006. Particularly, my firm was patronized by a significant number of Middle-Eastern clients over the years; most especially, prior to 9/11. I have contended from the onset and have stated accordingly on numerous occasions, that my situation has absolutely nothing to do with prostitution related issues. (www.legitgov.org, 09.01.2007)

This is a large part of why this case interested this writer from the start--it's possibly part of the nexus of a submerged war between the United States and Saudi Arabia, and could involve illegal warrantless surveillance of Ms. Palfrey under the questionable stewardship of former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales at various points (though it extends-back to the tenure of AG Ashcroft).

But we all know that all roads lead to the White House in these matters, where the responsibility for all of this resides. Like most Americans who watched the airliners slamming-into the World Trade Center towers on that fateful day six-years-ago, I had to wonder "why"? "Who did it?" All these years, we've known: it was the Saudi government, utilizing middle-class nationals (a number with backgrounds as career professionals, presumably with access to power), religious fanatics.

Why is Saudi Arabia one of the most religiously fanatical Muslim nations? The answer is fairly simple. It's a form of social control in-lieu of a legitimate system of government, and the regime can be counted as a high-tech version of Medieval theocratic tyranny. There is domestic opposition within the Saudi state, and not all of it is Al-Qaeda-like groups and cells. As Dr. Noam Chomsky stated in an interview this May, ..."people don't give up." That's correct--they join Madrases and terrorists cells.

The individuals joining some of these groups are trying to take down the Saudi Royal family
and the ruling clans of Saudi Arabia in order to achieve their liberty in some fashion. They're keenly aware that without the support of the United States and other Western and international powers, this ruling system wouldn't exist. Thus begins a terrible and fateful dance, because this also plays-into how Middle Eastern politics has traditionally worked for ages: blaming the outsider rather than extending reform to the people of Saudi Arabia and the region.

For the House of Saud to continue their rule, they must both seek the support of the State Department, while simultaneously casting the United States as "the Great Satan." American intrusion into Iraq and Afghanistan is a legitimate concern for nation who has traditionally been crucial to keeping global oil prices lower. One should also reexamine the issue of American military bases in the region, one of the prime catalysts in the creation of Al-Qaeda, a rallying-call to extremism.

The Saudi hierarchy must also correctly view the invasions as a gambit by Western petrochemical interests to control oil in the region. But all this aside, when domestic problems in a Middle Eastern nation reach an apex through obvious misrule, you blame the outsider, and in our case, the guilt is certainly earned. It's not just plausible--Saudis understand better than most Americans that the regime of the Sauds wouldn't exist without the support of the State Department, Congress, and sundry other Western corporate interests. Added to this mix is that all nations have natural competing interests.

This author believes that Jeane Palfrey's legal predicament could play-into this nexus of international criminality and misrule. Particular intelligence entities are likely involved. It remains to be seen exactly how it does, but we could be seeing something akin to the unfolding of an American Profumo scandal...ora Dreyfus affair. Treason could be part of the equation. America could be having a full-on identity crisis very soon, perhaps much sooner than you think. And how much of it would we know about were it not for bumbling old George W. Bush?

The American public has a right to know its history--it's crucial to the continuance and functioning of any democracy. At-minimum, the declassification of information in the case of Ms. Palfrey will protect due process in this nation, as well as maintaining the real world security of the public with various disclosures. This new motion in her case could be a beginning into what 9/11 really means to all of us, not the spoon-fed versions. Nothing less will do. This is not about prostitution, it never was. Senator Leahy, are you listening?
 

Citizens for Legitimate Government, 09.01.2007: http://www.legitgov.org/dc_madam_update_010907.html

"HOOKERGATE," RANDALL L. TOBIAS, & PAUL WOLFOWITZ: THE AMERICAN PROFUMO SCANDAL? (Repost of a June 17th, 2007 article)

Washington D.C.--In e-mails and in our interview, Ms. Palfrey compared her situation as being very much like the "Profumo" scandal, and that it might involve a government official divulging information to a sex worker who was an operative for a foreign intelligence agency (though it should be noted here that many operatives frequently work all sides). It's an incredible assertion, and Palfrey has yet to provide evidence of it. However, this writer tends in that direction as well.

The evidence could very well be in her phone records, and she's currently waiting for a decision on the gag ruling by Federal District Judge Gladys Kessler. She's been correct about the majority of her public assertions so far: just ask Randall L. Tobias. Then, there's Harlan K. Ullman, military strategist and think tank advisor, professor, author, and-then-some. He's refused to talk at all, despite the defendant's attempts to subpoena him. An examination of the Profumo affair is instructive here:

What brought Profumo down even more than his deceit of the [House of] Commons, was the startling revelation that Keeler had also slept with Eugene Ivanov, the naval attache at the Soviet embassy. It was that detail which captured world attention, notably in the United States, where the FBI compiled a detailed report called Operation Bowtie [Ed.-the FOIA link to the files is now dead]. In Britain, Profumo's downfall naturally caused a huge sensation, inflated by the establishment's crude and cruel attempts to find scapegoats for its own embarrassment. As usual, official wrath was turned on those least able to defend themselves. Stephen Ward was prosecuted for living on immoral earnings. On the last day of his trial, he killed himself with an overdose of sleeping tablets. Keeler was also tried and imprisoned on related charges. (Guardian, 04.10.2001)

Tory War Minister John Dennis Profumo slept with Keeler, who slept with a Soviet spy. He might have said things to Keeler that he shouldn't have, and she may have conveyed it (accidentally?) to the Soviet Eugene Ivanov. Do we have a similar scenario here? Were federal investigators looking for something else entirely when they searched Deborah Jeane Palfrey's Vallejo home? What were 12 SWAT-equipped ("assault-rifles and masks," says one source) Howard county police doing at Brandy Britton's (former employee of Palfrey's) home when she was first arrested?

She says the authorities have unfairly singled her out, made up lies, mistreated, stalked and harassed her since Jan. 17, when a team of Howard County officers burst into her quiet suburban home and ransacked the place, breaking her belongings, upsetting her pets and arresting Britton on prostitution charges. “It sounds paranoid, but they did really serious criminal stuff,” Britton says. “They’ve broken into my house 10 or 15 times. They’ve tapped my phones. They put a tail on me and follow me everywhere.” (examiner.com, 10.26.2006)

That sounds like overkill for a woman who was anonymously accused of soliciting sex.What were they looking for? Was it an e-mail or document(s) relating to a scenario much like that between War Minister Profumo and Christine Keeler? Who is the Christine Keeler in this case? Who is/are the Profumo(s)? This leads us to...

Paul Wolfowitz's recent scandal could very well be connected to all of this: was his "girlfriend" really his beau? What is the entire background of Shaha Ali Riza? Could she be a deep cover agent for a Middle Eastern nation? There appears to be some smoke here, and it behooves us to ask the question of whether Wolfowitz compromised himself by uttering national security secrets in the presence of Ali Riza, and maybe others--could this be the real heart of this whole scandal?

Is there a connection between Wolfowitz and Tobias in all of this? Is there a connection between them and their "concerns" over the international sex trade and human trafficking? Gulf state nations like Saudi Arabia are notorious violators of such international agreements, importing sex-slaves from the region, including Southeast Asia, South Korea, and Africa. Read on.

Amazingly, the world press and everyone but the American public knew that Wolfowitz's girlfriend already worked at the World Bank before his appointment, and were reporting it widely:

There is Republican pressure to reform the World Bank so that it becomes more of a facilitator for private-sector involvement and less of a direct intervener. Mr Wolfowitz’s girlfriend, Shaha Ali Riza, works at the World Bank. Ms Riza, who was born in Tunis and grew up in Saudi Arabia, is an ardent proponent of spreading democratic rights throughout the Arabic world. Her low-key presence in Mr Wolfowitz’s life surprises critics, who assert that he masterminds a Zionist conspiracy from the Pentagon. (The Times, 03.17.2005)

Again, this was even before Wolfowitz was appointed World Bank President. Someone might want to ask Ms. Ali Riza if she's ever worked for the Saudi General Intelligence Directorate under Prince Turki al-Faisal (once Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, Great Britain, and Ireland). How did Shaha Ali Riza--a British subject at the time--obtain security clearances for the State Department and the Pentagon? Is she a triple-agent? No answers appear to be forthcoming here.

Of course, much of this is connected to late-April of this year, when the Wolfowitz/World Bank scandal broke. Paul Wolfowitz had--and still has--many detractors, but there was an odd "defender": former U.S. Attorney and international law and diplomacy prof at John Hopkins, Ruth Wedgwood. Her own location puts her very close geographically to the death of Brandy Britton, as well as what could be a sprawling web-of-corruption in Baltimore involving prostitution, police corruption at the highest-levels, political warfare, and much more. Where does Wedgwood fit into all of this? On April 17th, 2007, she did something peculiar: she wrote a defense of World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz for the L.A. Times called "The Wolfowitz non-story."

The authors of this acrid affair have nakedly forgotten the standards of fairness and due process owed Riza, who is a member of the bank staff association and entitled to its fiduciary protections. And the scandal-mongers have recklessly ignored a written record of bank documents that serves not to condemn but to exculpate Wolfowitz. (L.A. Times, 04.17.2007)

Oddly, a number of the facts she trots-out in the opinion piece tends towards the thesis that Ali Riza has an intelligence background. As we all know now, she was wrong about Wolfowitz on several counts, and hid her credentials as a staunch-supporter and beneficiary of the Bush administration (they appointed her as an Assistant U.S. Attorney) and Wolfowitz.

Wedgwood's article is a smokescreen, and her credibility is in-question. A reply was in-the-offing, and it came to the L.A. Times on April 30th from "Islamic Law expert and photojournalist" Sarah Whalen after angry readers pointed-out Wedgwood's connections to the Bush administration and the embattled World Bank President:

Ordinarily, expert opinions by former assistant U.S. attorneys like Wedgwood count for something. But Wedgwood, sputtered one angered reader, is biased. "For the Times to publish her column without disclosing her close ties to the Bush administration is inexcusable," scolded reader Gerald Shea. ...Wedgwood should address the real legal question facing Wolfowitz and Shaha: How did Shaha, a Libyan national with British citizenship, get her Pentagon and U.S. State Department security clearances? Sidney Blumenthal first raised this issue in his recent Guardian article, "Wolfowitz Sinking Into Endless Scandal." Shaha needed security clearances for her Wolfowitz-engineered "leave of absence" from the World Bank to her consulting job at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) [Ed.-This is the same intel contractor who employs Ron Roughead, found in the phone records of Pamela Martin & Associates. Emphasis added] and later to her State Department job. But she apparently didn't have them. "Who intervened?" Blumenthal asks. (L.A. Times, 04.30.2007)

That's right, who allowed Shaha Ali Riza those security clearances? When we know their name(s), they're going to be leaving office. Perhaps they already have--in-part--in the person of Paul D. Wolfowitz...and possibly Randall L. Tobias. It's important to put your middle-initial in there to at least look and sound prominent. Merely sleeping with a woman does not explain Tobias's immediate departure from the State Department. What generates and motivates these kinds of scandals and the usage of "honey traps"? Usually, overarching national and strategic-aims...

Saudi Arabia has been concerned about the status of the several break-away Republics in Central Asia which are primarily Muslim. They also provide pipeline routes and sources of oil and natural gas. The aims of all of this--employing someone like Shaha Ali Riza in deep cover--would be to ascertain what the State Department's and the Pentagon's planning on these regions would entail. Whether he knew it or not, Paul Wolfowitz might have allowed a spy for MI6/MI1c/SIS/the Saudi Intelligence Directorate/etc. to have extraordinary access and clearance within these institutions. This could be some of that context:

At the same time, members of the ruling dynasty, including the directors of several big oil companies and high-ranking officers of the General Intelligence Service, were pursuing clearly practical aims. They viewed Central Asia as part of a larger region, stretching from Pakistan in the South, to the Russian Caucasus in the North. Besides the diffusion of their influence over the local Muslims, and the competition with Turkey and Iran, the Saudis were interested in participating in a greater number of regional projects for the mining and transporting of energy resources.

Not having the possibility of neutralizing the competition with the Eurasian states in the oil and gas markets, Riyadh relied on getting a share of the income from their future profits. It was with this purpose in mind that Delta Oil Company developed its activity in Afghanistan; Gulf Star company and Dallah al-Baraka Group did the same in Kazakhstan; and the Caucasian Investment Bank was established for developing work in the Caucasus (with the help of the commercial structures belonging to the Saudi billionaire, Adnan Khashoggi). Pakistani partners were actively helping the Saudis to attain their goals. (axisglobe.com, 11.30.2005)

Is this a segment of "hookergate's" genesis? Sources are telling me that it could be. Was Shaha Ali Riza a sex worker? Did she have connections to these channels? "On December 11th, 2006, then-ambassador Prince Turki al-Faisal left his post "after 15 months." ('Saudi Ambassador Abruptly Resigns, Leaves Washington." (Washington Post, 12.12.2006) Is there a connection? More later.

The Guardian on the Profumo affair (2001): http://politics.guardian.co.uk/politicspast/story/0,9061,471383,00.html

The Washington Post on the suicide of Brandy Britton (and a curious admission on their part),01.30.2007: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/29/AR2007012900654.html

The Times on Shaha Ali Riza, March 17, 2005: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article429379.ece

"Complete 911 Timeline": http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline

The L.A. Times' "Wedgwood piece," 04.17.2007: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-wedgwood17apr17,1,4026819.story

and the reply: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-whalen30apr30,0,364571.story?coll=la-opinion-center

"UNDER THE SIGN OF ANDIJAN-Saudi Intelligence Versus the Pentagon: http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=506