Friday, September 19, 2008

FALSE-FLAGGING IRAQ? {MASTERLIST}


Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
June 26 2009


Main Incident: September 19 2005 - arrest of Britons accused of terrorist plans
Other Alleged Incidents: Various times from invasion in 2003 to present
Alleged provocateurs: Military forces of United States and United Kingdom, perhaps Israel
Casualties: Unknown
Outcome: Varied
Investigations: A bit fishy

I’ve been in a bit of a time-warp this year, looking to the past with its protective shield of years and of secrets already revealed. Suspicious events in the present are by comparison more threatening, playing out quite directly in the now – I started out my research into false-flag operations and such with current events and questions about September 11 – After my long awkward dance with “9/11 Truth” I don’t feel like trying to re-approach that pivot, but rather the period just this side of it, the resultant War on Terror/World War IV/Long War/War of Many Names era.

The most visible battleground for this so far has been the cities of Iraq, out of which have emerged allegations of - and perhaps evidence for –Coalition forces using false flag terrorist attacks blamed on insurgents. This would apparently be intended to help keep occupied Iraq just that way. There are questions all along about motives and evidence, and I’m just on the outer edge of the fray. Since I’m not afraid of finding nothing awry – I hope not to in this case – I’ll look at it as an alleged pattern worthy of examination. This post will organize others exploring charges allegations and evidence. Primarly I’m looking at issues surrounding the 9/19 2005 incident involving the British army and Basra police, but will explore other avenues as well.

The Posts:
9/19 Basic Gist and Graphics

9/19 The First Half: The Arrest

On the Soldiers' Mission

Thursday, September 11, 2008

TERROR OF 9/99 {masterlist}

This post is to organize all those related to the "Terror of 9/99," the series of apartment bombings in Russian cities in 1999 that triggered the Second Chechen War and paved the way of Vladimir Putin to the Presidency. Since the beginning, Putin's career has been shadowed by widespread suspicion that Putin or an ally, not Chechen terrorists, was actually behind the bombings. like the hardcore 9/99 Truthers, I believe the Russian state was behind the campaign, though the full story is certainly more complex. I sense weird forces at work.

Notes on terminology/weird thoughts about weird coincidences:
9/99 is itself not a universally accepted name for the episode, but I took it up due to its catchiness and similarity to the branding of 9/11, which helps me illustrate my argument about that event. I first saw the term on the English-language Russian site Terror-99. I'm not sure, but I would guess that this site excellent and damning website is supported by Boris Berezovsky and other questionable anti-Putin characters - so while their facts seem fairly solid and the case itself is remarkably easy to make, I question their true motives. I also got a bit of a chill one day when I realized recently that 9/99 upside down is 666, the mark of the Beast. I don't believe in such nonsense, but many others do, and some have gone to pains to avoid the branding. Wikipedia's "Russian Apartment Bombings" page mentions the number "9/99" only in the sources, referring to the above website. A Google search of "9/99" shows a few sources, including me, and "terror of 9/99" reveals only Terror99.ru and myself. (Gulp). I'm on Putin's radar with the illicit inverted 66/6.

But what else could he expect? A series of bombings with 300 dead as they slept, dated 9/4, 9/9, 9/13, and 9/16 - with no precise date, we could pick the midpoint between the two middle bombings (which is reasonable since these happened in the capital and killed the most) - but that gives us 9/11, which doesn't have the same emergency implications as it does in America and it was left unused for the Americans' use two years later. But it wasn't about a single day, but rather a month, that bleak and nervous September as block after block was demolished - Black September 1999 - the Terror of 9/99 on the precipice of the Millenium. Some say it was Putin's 666 devil deal for power, the most logical name for it has that built right in, and if he did it himself, he had to have known this would happen. Couldn't it have waited 'till October?

Oh well - I guess as in America people see what they want to - those predisposed to see fire and horns see that, the rest who can't stomach the thought and face the obvious would argue Putin couldn't or wouldn't do that. Facts are of secondary nature to such strongly held beliefs and rarely can do much to change them. But it's worth a try.


Aftermath of 9/13 in Moscow, New President Putin resolute in January, Russian troops re-enter Grozny in October - kind of the wrong order I guess but you get the picture.

Wikipedia entry: Russian Apartment Bombings. They cite September 8 for the first bombing in Moscow, but I stick to the date from the Terror 99 site, which is from Russian Primary sources. Plus 9/8 throws off the spooky 9/11 hinge point.

- 9/99 part I: Putin's Godsend

- 9/99 part II: The Ryazan Incident - The Bombing that didn't Happen?

- 9/99 part III: The Investigation - The official investigation, PR campaign, the Kovalev Commission, its supporters, and its troubles. people die here.

- 9/99 part IV: The Conspiracy Theory - an "independent" investigation formed in London, pushed by exiled oligarchs, KGB/FSB defectors, and US Seantors. More people die here, and Europe is thrown into a subcontinent-wide radiation scare.

Monday, August 4, 2008

GULF OF TONKIN INCIDENT {MASTERLIST}

Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
Started June 2 2009
incomplete


Incident: Reported attack on USS Maddox and USS Turner Joy by North Vietnamese forces, Tonkin Gulf Vietnam, August 4 1964
Casualties: Zero dead, zero injured. Ships unharmed.
Official explanation: North Vietnamese attack that simply missed time and again for hours.
Outcome: The alleged attack led to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution is Congress, and escalation of U.S. involvement in the Vietnam conflict. Some may have actually believed it, but by now at least few do.

The Posts:
- Attack Reports: The words on which a case for war hangs. "Many doubts" are just ignored.
- Desoto Patrols Explained: The mission that had the ships there at that time - two-part or three-part mission?
- The President's Haste: When you see someone running this quick across the frozen pond, you can bet they know just how thin the ice really is.
- Tonkin Gulf Opinions: And this is probably my last post on the subject.

Sunday, August 3, 2008

NATO’s SNEAK-BEHIND ARMIES {MASTERLIST}

Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
First Posted July 29 2009


Incident: Various acts of terrorism in Europe, 1947-1990.
Casualties: Uncertain but hundreds at least
Official explanation: Some Right-Wing extremists barely connected to NATO’s stay-behind armies and acting without authorization. Riiiiight…


Due to the complexity of the topic, I’ve been reluctant to delve right into the “Operation Gladio” story, regarding NATO’s controversial stay-behind armies of the Cold War and their related groups and activities. The common name was but the active branch in Italy, the first revealed in mid-1990, due to intensive investigations stemming from a decade of deadly violence there. The picture at top is based on the seal of Gladio; the original text means "in silence we defend freedom." My version says "Silently we subvert Democracy."

It was told how this secret army Gladio had been operating since the mid-1940s with counterparts in every European country west of the Iron curtain, with the exception of Ireland and Iceland. Other nations were alarmed and started investigating throughout the 1990s and beyond. Different names, dates, and arms cache locations surfaced, as did different strategies from the silently abandoned to verging on civil war, as in Italy. Old mysteries finally made sense, while key secrets were left still concealed in each nation.

The networks themselves were in little doubt then, and none now; establishing a stay-behind army, capable of resisting a Soviet occupation, had always been a precondition for NATO membership. What might seem prudent in the face of a possible thrust beyond the Iron Curtain, also created dangers; the sabotage, infiltration, and assassination skills they learned could either go to waste waiting for a day that never came, or they could be employed, as they were, to create a “strategy of tension.” Under this concept, mysterious acts of violence were blamed on the Left’s radicals, but were carried out by Right-wingers using the hidden stay-behind arsenals and protected by state apparatus and the CIA to escape and strike again. Dropped charges over unsolved attacks came down like steady like the pitter-patter of rain drops during the Cold War decades.
The suspicious pattern led many to conclude, well prior to 1990, that larger forces behind these terrorists manipulating the political process – sneaking behind the democratic governments of Europe. The stance professed by insiders has been innocence and/or ignorance – the armies were meant to remain inactive until the doomsday invasion, and most did, but if not, then the zealots in the network got carried away. The violence was never the plan, but just happened - and was exploited in its effects, covered-up, at least tacitly encouraged, and continued widely almost until the 1990 revelations.

In 2005 Swiss researcher Dr. Daniele Ganser released a deeply-researched book on the subject NATO’s Secret Armies outlining the patterns of allegation, evidence, and mystery. Dr. John Prados of the American National Security Archive, who had tried unsuccessfully to get related files from the CIA, wrote the foreword. Undermining the ignorance construct, Prados noted:
“[N]etworks created to be quiescent became activists in political causes as a rule and not an exception [...] At a minimum Dr Ganser's record shows that capabilities created for straightforward purposes as part of the Cold War ultimately turned to more sinister ends,” leaving him wondering if it were “the United States itself, Britain, France, Italy, and others who should be on the list of state sponsors” of international terrorism.

My normal M.O so far has been to focus on a narrow event and study detailed evidence to narrow down the options that make most sense. In this case the mind boggles at how wide the roster of evidence would be – sixteen nations, four-and-a-half decades, lots of remaining secrets and uncertainties, the relative inaccessibility of primary sources… no way can I cover the whole subject in adequate depth – I will simply try to cover some general patterns and examine a few key periods/events/concepts, in hopes of shedding some new light on something.

THE POST(S)
> Forty-Three Years of Deceit: A detailed "general rundown" of the mysterious events attributed to the sneak-behinds.
(a few are coming)

Sunday, June 8, 2008

USS LIBERTY INCIDENT {MASTERLIST}


Incident: Attack on USS Liberty by Israeli Defense Forces, Navy and Air Force, off occupied Sinai, June 8 1967
Casualties: 34 killed, 171 injured, from a crew of 297 plus small contingent of civilian linguists. Narrowly avoided sinking, with perhaps 100% fatality. Liberty totaled beyond desire for repair and sold for scrap. Official explanation: communications blunders by US, mistaken identity by the IDF. Hardcore factor on a 1-10 scale: 187.

An introduction to "my inquiry," some notes on methodology, general opinions and areas of interest, etc...

The Posts so Far
"Investigation"
OFFICIAL INVESTIGATIONS: We start with Cristol's mythic thirteen and whittle it down... Israel has not been absolved by any meaningful investigation.

Aerial Surveillance:
- Blind Tracking the Liberty: The apparent, intense aerial surveillance of the Liberty and the IDF's professed ignorance of the ship make strange bedfellows.
- Aircraft Photo Analysis: On the photo of an apparent surveillance craft taken from Liberty's deck. Type of plane and time of day are the areas of inquiry.

- USS Liberty Flag thoughts: Why the ship's American flag is not my main issue, but worth at least fifteen observations.

Air Attack:
Air Attack Transcripts as published by Jerusalem Post, for reference.
Unable to Pursue: Myth: fighters were called in only because the target was (reported as) too fast. Reality: air attack was planned from the beginning.

Telex and Tapes: A four-part series regarding different versions of the IDF communications surrounding the air attack.
Part One: The supposed recording of the attack pilots ordered to attack despite seeing the U.S. flag. I'm agnostic, it's an interesting issue.
Part Two: What the men who recorded the American intercepts recall - again, flag and attack at the same time.
Part Three: What the Israeli recordings show - no flag report 'til well after the attack, tho lots of "Americans" mentioned prior to that.
Part Four: What the NSA claims to have - something's missing here.

"Misidentification"
"What is this? Americans?" Regarding a line spoken at IDF HQ, just before the attack started. What is this, a warning?
Boat-to-Boat Recognition: The Liberty spots the MTBs and vice versa. Lots of detail - from radar returns to the flag sighting and all the miscommunication and heedless aggression in between.
Liberty Mis-identification, Encore: The context of the MTB ID - erasing the "CTR" - but only for ten minutes!

THE GHOST SHIP SERIES
The One That Got Away? Introducing the 2nd ship story line as encountered via Michael Oren. What's with these clues pointing to another vessel provoking the IDF into attacking the nearby scapegoat?
Mystery Ship Inquiry: Relating to the above, a long list of raw quotes from IDF reports and others, with brief pithy comments.
USS Liberty Logs Analysis and other primary sources - emphasis on relation to the second-ship story line.

Graphics/Maps

Video: USS Liberty, Dead in the Water

Discussions I'm involved in at the JREF forum:
Roundhead's USS Liberty thread
UNLoVed Rebel's "injustice or propaganda" thread

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

THE LUSITANIA {masterlist}

The sinking by German submarine of the HMS Lusitania in early 1915 was the formative event in drawing the United states into World War I. Like other such events, the deadly U-boat attack off the Old Head of Kinsale has been haunted from the beginning by allegations of conspiracy. And like so many others, sadly, the suspicions are well-founded and probably true.

This post is to organize all the sub-posts on the subject. No posts are up yet but are in the works. Most of my information is from Colin simpson's 1972 book "The Lusitania: Finally, the Startling Truth about One of the Most Fateful of All Disasters of the Sea." {Boston, Little and Brown, First American Edition, 1973}

HMS Lusitania Facts:
Premier ocean liner of its times, the "Greyhound of the Sea." Operated by the British Cunard shipping line, named for a province of Spain under the Roman Empire, it was first launched on June 7 1906. Nearly 800 feet long, capable of carrying 2200 passengers, a crew of 850, and hundreds of tons of supplies at a top speed of 26.7 knots. Early in World War I the ship was lent out to the British war effort against Germany; she made a regular circuit to New York and back, carrying supplies from the US under its "arsenal of Democracy" policy. This violated a German blockade, and repeated warnings from the German end were buried as the ship entered on its final voyage in May 1915 and sailed right into a German trap, the path to which had been cleared and paved by the British Navy, in hopes of drawing America into the war. On May 7 the Lusitania was sunk by German U-Boat at a cost of 1,200 lives, many American, many wealthy and prominent. There was further delay before the US entered the Great War - internal disputes and the 1916 election had to pass first, but it was the Lusitania barbarity that was always the political and emotional underpinning of America's campaign in Europe.

Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania

Thursday, March 13, 2008

OPERATION NORTHWOODS {masterlist}

This post is to organize all posts dealing with Operation Northwoods, the 1962 military plan to basically committ acts of terrorism and blame Castro's Cuba to trigger war and regime change there. It was pitched to President Kennedy's people but was never implemented and covered up until 2001.

I'll start with chapter I of my book "Scenario 12-E: the philosophy, the technology, and the cover story behind Shadow 9/11," a short chapter posted in three parts. Given the importance of the Northwoods precedent, there will eventually be more material added later.

“Casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.” - Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1962

Sections:
I: Lemnitzer the Landmine: 1960-63, the Joint Chiefs and the White House in tense times.

II: Special Distribution: The Plan: Operation Northwoods, its ominous recommendations, Lemnitzer's pitch and the immediate aftermath (ie Lemnitzer tansferred and the affair covered up).

III: Northwoods 2001? The curious revelation of Northwoods decades later and just months before 9/11 and the Acting JCS Chairman caught in the thick of it.

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

REMEMBER 2/27: THE REICHSTAG FIRE {masterlist}

This post will organize and link to the several posts needed to convey the subtance, contzt, and effects of the Reichstag Fire in Berlin, Germany, February 27 1933. Initially blamed on Communist radicals hoping to conquer Germany from within, the burning of the government's meeting place was later found to have been engineered by the Nazis themselves. The fire shocked the nation and served as an enabling act for Chancellor Adolph Hitler to tighten his and his cronies' grip on power and begin the march towards the Third Reich, the Holocaust, and World War II.

- Desperate Times/The Gathering Storm: 1933 Germany: aftermath of World War I, the great depression, increasing resentment and nationalism, and the Rise of Hitler.

- The Revolution Bursts Into Flames: To quote rapper Paris, "See the Reichstag Burn, see the public buy it."

- Shadow 2/27, Skeptics, and the verdict of History

- Gleichschaltung - Consolidating Power

And the rest is history...

Friday, February 15, 2008

USS MAINE {MASTERLIST}

Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
May 3 2009


Incident: Sinking of USS Maine by disputed cause, Havana Harbor, Cuba, Feb 15 1898
Commanding Officer: Captain Charles D. Sigsbee
Arrived Havana Harbor Jan 24 1898, three weeks before exploding there.
Casualties: 274 US servicemen killed, from a crew of 363. Maine instantly totaled and quickly sunk.
First official explanation: Spanish/Cuban naval mine, detonating onboard ammunition.
Outcome: The sinking triggered the Spanish-American War, announcing the U.S as a major, maritime, neo-imperial power.
Investigations: Two military courts of inquiry, 1898 and 1911. Second sunk the remains in deep water. First private investigation by deep-water guy Adm. Rickover, 1976. No congressional investigations.

I'm sort of opening this "inquiry," but not planning much work at the moment. I felt I needed at least two posts on the subject, and then a masterlist. Considering the mechanical aspects (inward vs. outward blast) are still being hotly debated over a century after the fact, I think I'll be sidelining this. For now anyway, my focus is on the more circumstantial aspects - who benefits? (Clue - first name starts with a "T," last name ends with "velt.") Perhaps more than any other case in American history, the overwhelming weight of logic makes a true false flag operation, at the lest, far too likely to just toss aside. Certainly the Pax Americana owes a tremendous debt to the hands or fates that caused that blast.

One concrete question I'm curious about is how much ammunition was or should have been aboard.

- Remember the Maine, Forget the Treachery My original thesis-like speculative essay thing, and starting point.

- USS MAINE PRELUDES: WAR PLANS A new post simply compiling some external sources on the pre-1898 plans to seize Spanish holdings.

Thursday, February 8, 2007

Lusitania Teaser

Just in case anyone's paying attention and concerned I've abandoned this 'blog. I've been focussing on the Frustrating Fraud and with real life lately. Soooo... I don't have time to put together a proper post on the Lusitania like I'd intended, so here is a teaser, a few notes end excerts from Colin Simpson's 1972 The Lusitania.

Among the players we'll be looking at:
- Alfred Booth: Cunard Chairman
- George Booth: Deputy Director-General of the Ministry of Munitions, 1914-1919
- William Jennings Bryan: US Secretary of State 1914-1915
- Winston Churchill: First Lord of the Admiralty as of 1911, apparently among the prime, if not the prime, architect, of the British end of the Lusitania disaster set-up.
- Captain “Fairweather” Dow: demanded more coal in Dec 1914, took his case right to the Admiralty
- Lord Fisher, Churchill’s First Sea Lord: retired in 1911 – warnings to Churchill (p 31). Letter to Tirpitz March 1916: “I don’t blame you for the submarine business, I’d have done exactly the same myself.” (p 14).
- Captain Guy Gaunt: naval Attache at the British Embassy in Washington, “Hall’s deputy in America.”
- Capt. Reginald Hall: Director of British Naval intelligence as of Oct. 1914.
- Col. Edward M. House – proto-National Security Advider to President Wilson
- Robert M. Lansing: Advisor to the State Dept. on foreign territorial disputes and an errand boy for Wilson when Secretary of State Bryan wasn’t cooperative enough – uncle to Allan and John Foster Dulles, a chief architect of the American end of the Lusitania disaster set-up.
- US President Woodrow Wilson: Apparently down with the set-up but playing ambassadorial 14-points-compatible kind of plausible deniability.

Operation run from American end by Morgan interests working with Lansing, Edward Stettinius and representatives from “naval and military ordnance officers … attached to the British Consulate in New York.” [56] – “It is difficult to reconcile President Wilson’s well-publicized idealism and neutrality with his sanctioning of the Morgan operation.” [p51]

February 19 1913 – Cunard shipping line chairman Alfred Booth is called before Board of Admiralty, chaired by Lord Winston Churchill, and informed that the company’s deal with London to support the war effort was to be honored; effective immediately, their ships, including the Lusitania, were to be fitted with removable cannons and set to shipping war materiel and other aid across the Atlantic to create a semi-covert Anglo-American supply chain. At this point, Churchill told Booth that war was expected with Germany by September 1914. (p 25) War was finally declared on August 4 of that year, just after the German invasion of Belgium and a few weeks ahead of time.

By December 1914 – “Naval Intelligence was intercepting almost every German signal […] a stroke of good fortune had provided the admiralty with the official German naval codes and by the end of February 1915 Marconi had perfected a method of radio direction finding. […] by the end of January 1915, Hall was able to to advise the admiralty of the departure of each U-boat as it left for left for patrol.” [65]

On Churchill's book "The World Crisis:"
Simpson's excerpts: “The distinction between politics and strategy diminishes as the point of view is raised. At the summit true politics and strategy are one. The maneuver which brings an ally into the field is as serviceable as that which wins a great battle. The maneuver which gains an important strategic point may be less vauable than that which placates or overawes a dangerous neutral.” (35)
“The first British countermove, made on my responsibility […] was to deter the Germans from surface attack. The submerged U-Boat had to rely increasingly on underwater attak and thus ran the greater risk of mistaking neutral for British ships and of drowning neutral crews and thus embroiling Germany with other Great Powers.” (36)
Simpson: “The neutral to be “placated or overawed” was the United States. Churchill’s strategy was to goad the Germans into a confrontation with it, and by doing so he hoped at the very least to neutralize pro-German sentiment in America and to consolidate his source of supply.” (35-36)

Other moves by Churchill’s Navy to further increase such risks: - ignoring the long-established international “Cruiser Rules,” ordering all British ships to paint out their names an port of registry – fly neutral flags while in British waters (US flag usually) – mistreatment of U-Boat crews captured, denial of POW status, Churchill’s policy “prisoners should be taken as prisoner or shot, whichever is the most convenient.” made surrender of U-boats less likely and fighting more so – “the introduction of mystery” or Q-ships-military ships disguised as civilian (as of feb 1915) - one infamous reported Churchill policy: “in all actions, white flags should be fired upon with promptitude.” (37)

You can surely get the drift already...

Tuesday, February 6, 2007

THE BUSH FAMILY 12/7-9/11 CIRCUIT {masterlist}

In the course of my research on 9/11, the "new Pearl Harbor," and its namesake original, I stumbled across an intriguing confluence of events suggesting the crafting of a backdrop "New Day of Deceit" myth - whether intentional or not - by the people surrounding George Bush sr. This became one of my favorite discoveries, and along with an earlier and sinister "perfect Bush circle" surrounding America's entry into WWII, here is the double loop in chart form I did up as a circuit board. Beneath that, find a brief explanation for the elements of the chart and the connections between them. Follow the link for more detailed sub-potst.


The Elements of the Chart:
President (FD) Roosevelt, Secretary of War Henry Stimson, and possibly Roosevelt's adviser and ambassador W. Averell Harriman (among others) acted on the Japan provocation plan put forth by Lt. Commander Arthur McCollum at the Office of Naval Intelligence. The eight-point plan solidified existing intentions to bring down the Pearl Harbor attack and give the US an excuse to officially enter the Second World War on the side of the British and the Soviets. In addition to fighting the Nazis and their Japanese allies, the attack allowed the creation of an enduring "military-industrial complex" among its other profound transformationsof American society and economy with effects up to the present time.

War Secretary Stimson meanwhile was a friend of the Bush family, originally headed by Samuel Bush, a muscleman who helped make sure weapons were shipped right for the World War I effort, a sort of proto-military-industrial complex/Merchants of Death kind of guy. By 1940 the family was headed by Samuel's son Prescott, a businessman and senator who maintained ties with Stimson. Bush was also a business partner in Averell Harriman's investment banking firm, involved along with Harriman's brother in the subsidiary Union Banking Corp. that was helping finance the Nazi war machine via Fritz Thyssen until forcibly shut down in late 1942.

Among those young Americans by then called to service in the War effort unleashed by 12/7 was Prescott's son George H.W. Bush (named after Prescott's father-in-law and Harriman-related business partner George Herbert Walker). Another young recruit, Robert Stinnett, served together with Bush in the same aerial reconnaissance unit on the USS San Jacinto. Whatever connections they formed were nurtured with Stinnett's authoring of "George Bush, his WWII Years" in 1990, used as a GOP fundraiser for Bush's re-election campaign in 1992. (hence the link from Stinnett to Bush as president). Stinnett dropped hints about his coming Pearl Harbor thesis in this paen, and after visiting Bush in the oval office, his investigation (coincidentally?) skyrocketed and formed into the groundbreaking Dec. 7 1999 Day of Deceit, which for the first time cited McCollum's plan and in my opinion finally gutted the official story, a victory he started rehashing every December 7 with a reminder article - they provoked and allowed what could well be called a "catastrophic and catalyzing event."

Ironically, Day of Deceit was first published just as the Project for the New American Century was getting serious with its military ambitions, in September 2000 prominently noting the utility of a "new Pearl Harbor," just months after Stinnett had re-defined the term to mean a provoked event designed to transform american opinion. This group is dominated by former Bush sr functionaries (Cheney et al, the hawk "renegades" we're told) and was forming the advisory basis for the presidency of Bush's son. Then they oversaw the most spectacularly acute failure of defense in American history - a new Pearl Harbor in spades - after alleged intense provocations in Afghanistan in mid-2001. Will a McCollum memo from January 2001 surface one day?

A curious and perhaps telling footnote to all this is Stinnett's about-face on Pearl Harbor in the period after 9/11. Perhaps it's simply a coincidence, but as questions over what Bush knew began to arise in 2002, Stinnett's argument and questions changed significantly, no longer mentioning the McCollum memo or provocation. There seems to be no problem with the solidity of his case, so why the back-off? Did someone get a pang of "degrees of separation anxiety?" If this sound silly to you, just take another look at that circuit board above and think about it. It's gotta mean something.

Perhaps the crafting of an ephemeral, controllable, limited-time-only official conspiracy theory? In what context could it possibly make sense to imply that they provoked and allowed the attack? Are they pleading to a lesser crime since they know they physically did it themselves? Is the New Day of Deceit designed to cover for Shadow 9/11 by providing a more logical explanation for the attack's success that still keeps external terrorists center stage?

Monday, January 1, 2007

12/7 part VI: THE PEARL HARBOR SMOKING GUN

Former post pulled 3/19/09

This was a badly flawed piece, mostly from relying too heavily on Stinnett (whose book is largely bunk) and from general ignorance. The McCollum memo is still a vital piece of evidence, however, and now has a much better analysis that can be seen here. Please check it out.

NEVER MIND: STINNETT DROPS THE ISSUE

PROVOCATION ERASED, MCCOLLUM MEMO RE-CRYPTED
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic/The 12/7-9/11 Treadmill
December 26 2006


Day of Deceit author Robert Stinnett is a research fellow at the Independent Institute, an Oakland, CA-based conservative libertarian, anti-big government think tank. In addition to hosting Stinnett and his Pearl Harbor case and publishing books like “Against Leviathan,” they also feature as a fellow 9/11 skeptic and former Reagan economist Paul Craig Roberts. Via the Institute, Stinnett started to repeatedly explain and promote his arguments from Day of Deceit, starting with an event in May 2000 called “Pearl Harbor: Official Lies in an American War Tragedy?” [1] Later that year he wrote a commentary published to mark the 59th anniversary of “December 7, 1941: A Setup from the Beginning.” This piece explicitly mentioned “McCollum’s secret memo dated October 7, 1940, and recently obtained through the Freedom of Information Act.” He cited its eight points, the “centerpiece” of which was “keeping the might of the U.S. Fleet based in the Territory of Hawaii as a lure for a Japanese attack.” In this original piece, he listed two specific questions “at the top of the foreknowledge list: (1) whether President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his top military chieftains provoked Japan into an “overt act of war” directed at Hawaii, and (2) whether Japan’s military plans were obtained in advance by the United States but concealed from the Hawaiian military commanders, Admiral Husband E. Kimmel and Lieutenant General Walter Short so they would not interfere with the overt act.” [2] That is, the failure to intercept warnings was intentional and secondary to the provocation.

Robert Stinnett, if I'm not mistaken, at the White House in 1990
This December 2000 piece set a trend for anniversary commemorative articles. On the 60th anniversary of Pearl Harbor and just three months after 9/11, he published “Pentagon Still Scapegoats Pearl Harbor Fall Guys.” Again he posed the same two questions – was it provoked, and did they intercept messages. Again he made largely the same arguments as the previous year, prominently mentioning and explaining his exclusive evidence, the McCollum memo. [3]

But then something changed in 2002, curiously at just the same time the post-9/11 world and its questions of what Bush knew began to sink in. We can see a shift in direction in that his speech that year was five days early, on December 2. Still boldly titled “The Pearl Harbor Deception,” it was different in two ways than his presentations before 9/11 – First, his two questions had changed, now omitting provocation. “Two questions about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor have ignited a controversy that has burned for 60 years: Did U.S. naval cryptographers crack the Japanese naval codes before the attack? Did Japanese warships and their commanding admirals break radio silence at sea before the attack?” the second change I noticed is the lack of any reference to McCollum’s memo; he was leaving out what was the core of his argument, the primary thing that made it HIS argument. He was surrendering his edge. [4]

This was followed quickly by “The Truth about Pearl Harbor,” a January 30 2003 debate held at the Institute between Stinnett and foreknowledge denier Stephen Budiansky. It should be easy enough for Stinnett to win, since Budiansky argued the government line by citing only the old evidence, almost strictly code breaking (which he wrote the “complete” book on, as well as a book called “Closing the Door on Pearl Harbor”). Stinnett could have sunk Budiansky’s argument by illustrating the secondary nature of foresight when one is actively provoking something. Yet he did not, and played Budiansky’s game, keeping the very boring and tedious debate at the level of codes and of personal attacks over credibility. His presentation seems to consist of his December article, a word search of which shows that the name McCollum pops up, but only as a “James A. McCollum” cited as a source in the debate on code-breaking. The date of the memo, its author, its eight points, are totally absent. The words “provoke,” “provocation,” and various synonyms reveal nothing but the admission in the opening remarks by David Theroux that Stinnett had previously argued that “U.S. government leaders at the highest level not only knew that a Japanese attack was imminent, but that they had deliberately engaged in policies intended to provoke the attack.” In his “presentation” that day, Stinnett made no such argument. [5]

I'm sure he had very good reasons for the shift in course, but I can't say for sure what these are. It could be a case of someone finding out that the McCollum memo was maybe a forgery, forcing Stinnett to back off from it pending an investigation. I haven't heard of anyone from the swollen ranks of the 12/7 coverup apologists pointing this out, however, and to the best of my knowledge, the memo remains solid. The reason for dropping the issue could also be someone suffering "degrees of separation anxiety" and urging Stinnett to back off the hard case and leave Pearl Harbor intact.

He did, however, intriguingly point out in this twice-presented piece that “immediately after Day of Deceit appeared in bookstores in 1999, NSA began withdrawing pre-Pearl Harbor documents from the Crane Files housed in Archives II. This means the government decided to continue 60 years of Pearl Harbor censorship. As of January 2002, over two dozen NSA withdrawal notices have triggered the removal of Pearl Harbor documents from public inspection.” How ironic then that at about this same time Stinnett also started to censor himself. Though his book is still available and not removed from view at all, it’s as if Stinnett is trying to forget his core argument, or at least to stop reminding anyone of it. According to the Independent Institute’s website, Stinnett has written no more commentaries and given no more presentations in the four years since his forfeited debate with Budiansky. He seems to have retired from his pre-9/11 mission, and as far as I can tell he’s not spoken or typed the name Arthur McCollum since December 2001.

sources:
[1] independent Institute. Research Fellow: Robert B. Stinnett. http://www.independent.org/aboutus/person_detail.asp?id=514
[2] "December 7, 1941: A Setup from the Beginning." December 7, 2000. Robert B. Stinnett. Honolulu Advertiser. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=103
[4] "Pentagon Still Scapegoats Pearl Harbor Fall Guys." December 7, 2001. Robert B. Stinnett. Providence Journal. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=400
See [1].
[5] "The Truth About Pearl Harbor: A Debate." January 30, 2003 Robert B. Stinnett, Stephen Budiansky. http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=445
[6] http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=103

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

NORTHWOODS III: NORTHWOODS 2001?

An informed citizenry being central to a working democracy, we were never informed of Northwoods; neither Lemnitzer nor McNamara burst Americans’ bubble by publicizing this in any way and it remained a dirty little secret at the time and for decades to come. The memo was in fact ordered destroyed and erased, but somehow one copy survived in an archive somewhere. It was finally declassified in the mid-1990s, apparently part of the post-Oliver Stone “JFK” conspiracy craze that forced Clinton’s hand to release a number of Kennedy-era secret papers.

In April 2001 this copy made it to the eyes of the public in the pages of the massive Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency. Its author James Bamford has worked for ABC World News Tonight as senior Washington Investigative Reporter, and had already written his groundbreaking The Puzzle Palace (1982), the first book published about the hitherto top-secret National Security Agency. Worried about the NSA’s unveiling to the eyes of the world, the Reagan administration initially blocked the book’s publication. But it was finally published and Bamford was in fact invited back for more, with Body of Secrets again primarily about the now less-secret NSA. The chapters are named after parts of the body, with the Northwoods-related chapter being “Fists.” Bamford included this JCS plot, not even part of the NSA anatomy, to illustrate tensions between Lemnitzer’s military plan for Cuba and the slicker approach of NSA and CIA-types, which was more favored by Kennedy.

So clearly the JCS had “quietly slipped over the edge,” but the sole existing evidence of that slippage, the one salvaged copy of Operation Northwoods, sat just as quietly for decades until April 2001, just five months before the September 11 attacks, offering a strangely-timed glimpse into the dark machinations of Lemnitzer’s Joint Chiefs.

Submitted for your approval (props to Serling): On the morning of September 11 2001, Vice-Chairman Richard Myers was standing-in as JCS Chairman, his boss having departed that very morning for pre-arranged business in Europe. Myers took the helm in the same post once held by Lemnitzer just as the day’s Joint Chiefs-NORAD war game “Vigilant Warrior,” and the first hijacking of the morning, began. As Mike Ruppert explains in his 2004 Crossing the Rubicon, it seems any war game with the word “warrior” attached involved “live-fly” planes, possibly drones, feigning hijack symptoms. Two days after this curious confluence of events, Myers was promoted to permanent JCS Chairman, as previously scheduled.

This doesn’t necessarily prove anything, but it’s interesting to note that McNamara and Rumsfeld are two very different people. And clearly, Myers will now be on board to defend the official story of 9/11. He found himself in a curious spot (an integral part of the chain of command in emergencies like 9/11) at a curious time (five months after Northwoods was first publicized and minutes before the attacks began). Thus whether he was involved with the operation or not, he may be the first to go down if the official story should collapse; so far he has done nothing to upset that official story.

But Northwoods proposed limited and tightly-controlled fake attacks, mostly in remote military installations, along the lines of a scaled-down Pearl Harbor. It did not promote multiple simultaneous fake attacks ranging over the northeastern U.S. mainland, nor planes flying into the military’s own headquarters, nor skyscrapers imploding and blanketing Manhattan in concrete and bone dust. Lemnitzer probably did not envision the “helpful” casualty lists to take seven to ten pages of U.S. papers, nor for the “wave of national indignation” to be of such tsunami proportions. Northwoods provides just a hint of Shadow 9/11 – bigger, uglier thinking and better technology would be required to pull off such a spectacular brand of inside job, and the stakes would have to be bigger than Cuba.

9/99 part II: THE RYAZAN INCIDENT

The deadly string of apartment block bombings could have been worse. Amid this climate of crisis, on September 22 at 9:15 pm, an alert citizen of Ryazan coming home from work watched three people load several large bags of powder from a mysteriously marked car into the basement of his apartment building. He called it in to local police, and the Interior Ministry's UVD division in Ryazan confirmed the worst fears – the bags were filled with the explosive Hexogen, which had taken out the other buildings, and connected to a timer set to spark at 5:30 am. They evacuated the building and defused the bomb without incident, and the near-miss was all the buzz on the morning of the 23rd. This time the car was seen, its passengers identifiable, and the hunt for suspects was on. By the 24th they were reported as cornered, their car found and arrests imminent. [1]

Curiously, new FSB chief Patrushev revealed on the 24th that the bags had contained only sugar and had been planted as a readiness drill to see if people would catch the next attack in time. It was perhaps a ill-advised in its timing, but it was only a drill, and they found the sugar and succeded splendidly. Give yourselves a pat on the back. Of course since the ‘drill’ was an FSB operation, the Chechen "terrorists" who unloaded the bags were actually just FSB employees and so went unmolested as the government closed its case. FSB spokesman Alexander Zdanovich led the media campaign to explain away the incident as the official inestigation confirmed the official story and the official suspects were dragged before a kangaroo court and convicted.

FSB officers went to the building the "drill" was run on: one woman said "several people from the FSB came to see us, led by a colonel. They apologized. They said that they hadn't known anything either." [2] But the FSB later rebuffed lawsuits by people who had heart attacks and suffered long-term stress from the scare. Officially, the Ryazan incident, first framed as a failed attack, has been largely erased. For example, the Wikipedia article sites the duration of the September bombing spree as two weeks - Sept. 4-16. Ryazan is thus not part of it.

On the 23rd, as it still looked like terrorism and with the first air raids commencing in Chechnya, PM Putin stated about the failed "attack:” “As for the events in Ryazan, I don't think there was any kind of failure involved. […] This is absolutely the correct response. No panic, no sympathy for the bandits. This is the mood for fighting them to the very end. Until we win. And we shall win.” [5] He knew by then to start hinting at a readiness drill, but to still keep it vague enough to appear as maybe-terrorism to feed the all-important war drive, which would partly bury the following day's FSB "admission" long enough to let it get obscured beneath the official investigation.

Sources:
[1] Reynolds, Maura. “Ryazan Fears Darker Truth of Bombings.” The Moscow Times. January 18, 2000.
http://eng.terror99.ru/publications/013.htm
[2] “The Ryazan Story.” Excerpts from "Blowing Up Russia: Terror from Within" by Yuri Felshtinsky and Alexander Litvinenko
http://eng.terror99.ru/publications/080.htm
[3] Borisova, Yevgenia. "No Proof Chechens Blew Up Buildings." Moscow Times. March 17, 2000. http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/4174.html
[4] See [3]
[5] See [2]

Saturday, December 16, 2006

2-27 II: THE REVOLUTION BURSTS INTO FLAMES

The Communists certainly would have liked to take over Germany, and some held high positions of power already there – among the country’s rank-and-file, party membership was growing as it did everywhere during the Depression, Capitalism’s darkest hour. While the actual nature of the threat posed is still unclear, it was not nearly as immediate as the Nazis wanted people to believe it was. Goebels wanted to crack down on the Communists and remove the Nazis’ main domestic power rival. As he noted in his diary, “we lay down the line for the fight against the Red Terror.” But the time was not yet ripe; “The Bolshevik attempt at Revolution must first burst into flames.” [1]

Then, just 28 days after Hitler was appointed chancellor, on the night of February 27, the Reichstag, the home of the parliamentary government, was gutted by a massive fire, and Germany would never be the same again. The Reichstag building was empty, in recess since December and awaiting reopening for the election. Hitler was dining with Goebbels when Goebbels (soon to be Propaganda minister) got a call – the Reichstag was on fire. Thinking it an exaggeration, he ignored it at first, but then followed up and found out it was for real. President Hindenburg was dining with Vice-Chancellor Franz Von Papen, just around the corner from the Reichstag at the exclusive Herrenklub and could actually see the glow from the fire. All raced to the scene. Goering was already there, shouting “this is a Communist crime against the new government! This is the beginning of the Communist Revolution! We must not wait a minute. We will show no mercy. Every Communist official must be shot, where he is found.” [2]
The Reichstag burning and the aftermath inside

At 9:15 PM smoke was seen pouring from the building, and ten minutes later, as the first firemen arrived on the scene, the fire was raging out of control. At 9:30 there was a “tremendous explosion” and the huge central chamber was filled with flames. The fire quickly raced out of control, and left standing only a gutted shell of the building. [3] The attack killed no one, but certainly provided a shocking symbol of destruction and national vulnerability that changed the tone of election week dramatically.

Marinus Van Der Lubbe. Picture and info from Wikipedia.
The act of arson was blamed at the time on a young Dutch Communist named Marinus van der Lubbe, arrested dazed and shirtless at the scene minutes after the police arrived. (he apparently used his shirt to start the fire) Wikipedia explains that the 23-year old Van Der Lubbe had “a history of taking responsibility for things he had not done” to spare others. He admitted to starting the massive fire by himself, with only his shirt and some gasoline. That one man was able to ignite such a powerful and explosive fire in the headquarters of the national government, under Goering’s nose but without inside help, seems unlikely. Nonetheless, the mentally ill Van Der Lubbe stubbornly insisted he and he alone was responsible. Ultimately the court proved subservient to the Nazis and the man was convicted, beheaded and buried in an unmarked grave.

But while they bought his admission, Nazi officials refused to believe Van Der Lubbe acted alone. This Goering and the others stressed; after all, this was the “beginning of the Communist Revolution,” so clearly he had to have supporters. A local branch of the Comintern (Communist International) was implicated as the conspiracy probe widened, though the Leipzig Supreme Court was able to establish no connection between the Comintern delegates and the actual crime. [4] But such minutiae escaped much of the German public, for whom the nature of the threat was obvious. The solution – the Nazi way – also became obvious to more people than ever as the March 5 election drew near. Either way, Hitler and his disciples decided, this time they would have their coveted majority. Either he would win, or they would go ahead with their coup.

With this contingency plan in mind, the Nazis played fast and loose with the political rhetoric. On March 3, just two days before the election Goering delivered a rousing campaign speech in which he promised the voters “my measures will not be crippled by any judicial thinking… I don’t have to worry about justice; my mission is only to destroy and exterminate, nothing more! …Certainly I shall use the power of the state and the police to the utmost, my dear Communists, so don’t draw any false conclusions; but the struggle to the death, in which my fist will grasp your necks, I shall lead with those down there – the Brownshirts.” [5] While this likely lost him some Communist votes, he probably had the Brownshirt vote locked up after that speech, and when the election came around, the National Socialist Party managed to take 52% of the seats.

Sources:
[1] Shirer, William. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. New York. Crest Books. 7th Printing. July 1965. Page 267. [2] Page 268.
[3], [4] Swigart, Soren. “The Reichstag Fire.” The World at War. http://worldatwar.net/event/reichstagsbrand/
[5] Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression Volume IV. Document No. 1856-PS. http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/document/nca_vol4/1856-ps.htm

Friday, December 15, 2006

12/7 part I: AMERICA AT A CROSSROADS

As the great ideological struggles of the mid-20th Century began to play themselves out in Europe, the United States was in the midst of the Great Depression, and one had to look no farther than the nearest bread line to get the feeling the old system wasn’t working. But the disaffected nation seemed at cross-odds with itself as to what side, if any, it was on. The country was divided right and left, with growing sympathies towards Stalin and Hitler amid a shrinking but intensifying core of principled isolationists. Wall Street was enamored of the fascists - first Mussolini, then Hitler – and their promises to roll back the influence of Communism in Europe. Moral and material support flowed to the axis, mostly kept secret at the time. A Congressional Committee later uncovered the letters of Col. William Taylor from 1932-33, explaining “German political associations, like the Nazis and others, are nearly all armed with American [guns] The principal arms coming from America are Thompson submachine guns and revolvers. The number is great.” [1] These shipments were largely from Remington, and came at a time when the Weimer Republic was struggling for survival against the Nazis.

In early 1933, just as Hitler’s “National Socialists” finally took over in Germany with their guns and thugs and engineered Reichstag fire, a new U.S. President, Franklin D, Roosevelt, was sworn-in. Upon entering office, Roosevelt established his Socialist-style New Deal, angering the financial establishment. Some factions on Wall Street and in the military with Fascist sympathies in fact allegedly plotted to overthrow FDR in 1934, but this was brought to light and led to a congressional investigation in November into what many called the “business plot” (more below). [2] 1934 was already the year of the “Merchants of Death,” the title both of a book blaming arms-makers for WWI, and the nickname for another Congressional investigation into the munitions industry in question for arming the Nazis and their allies. [3] Under the leadership Gerald Nye and with general counsel Alger Hiss, the committee was in operation through 1936, eventually finding that World War I was not engineered by the munitions industry. [4]

But still, Merchants of Death was soon joined by another pivotal book in redefining WWI: Brigadier General Smedley Butler’s 1935 War is a Racket (“the only one in which the profits arte reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives”). [5] The decorated WWI commander and reformed “racketeer for capitalism” insisted America should simply strengthen its defenses and stay out of the coming war in Europe. Butler, unlike many other isolationists, was not a Nazi sympathizer in any way, but an avowed leftist who believed in “taking Wall Street by the throat” to pay WWI soldiers’ bonus pay. [6] He had also been central in publicizing the alleged “Business Plot” against FDR, having curiously been invited to join it despite his known slant and big mouth.

The Congress seemed dispose to agree with Butler's and the public's sentiment; neutrality acts were passed from 1935-37 and isolationism reigned as Americans struggled to stay out of another engineered World War. But conflict just kept getting more inevitable as the Axis got stronger and bolder - with continued American aid. Munitions assistance was limited after 1934, but the Nazis were in power by then and fully capable of making their own excellent weapons. But financial assistance for Germany’s Third Reich continued from New York by, for example, Chase National Bank of Manhattan, as explained by Charles Higham in Trading with the Enemy (1983). Of course there was Henry Ford, the well-known Nazi supporter and anti-Semite who approved the construction of trucks to assist the German occupation in France through its French subsidiary Opel in 1940-41. [7] The crimes of the Rockefeller-owned Standard Oil of New Jersey in supporting the Reich are epic, assisting the German Army, Navy, and Air Force with their fuel and petrochemical needs through numerous arrangements. Higham summarized: “[T]he heartbreaking truth is that a number of financial and industrial figures of World War II and several members of the government served the cause of money before the cause of patriotism. While aiding the United States’ war effort, they also aided Nazi Germany’s.” [8]

DEHOMAG
Dehomag poster circa 1934 - "Oversight - with Hollerith punchcard machines"
A key technology that helped Nazi Germany be so ruthlessly efficient was provided by International Business Machines (IBM). As Edwin Black illustrated in his 2001 IBM and the Holocaust, the company’s German subsidiary Dehomag manufactured thousands of punch-card machines, proto-computers that greatly sped-up the Reich’s data processing. With full support from and handsome (if complicated) profits to IBM headquarters, Dehomag’s machines were used in everything from a race-based census to tracking materiel for warfare, to the movement of people to concentration camps and gas chambers. The 5-digit prisoner coding system for these machines was in fact the origin of the famous tattoos at Auschwitz. [9] IBM continues to base its own holocaust denials on the argument that Dehomag was no longer connected to IBM at the time, but the factual record Black presented indicates otherwise.

Of course eventuall Germany signed a mutual defense clause with Japan, then Japan was maneuvered into attacking the US, which was soon at war against the Third Reich and set to turning back its grip on Europe. The War triggered an immediate rush to build a mighty war machine on the shoulders of the once-villified “merchants of death” who were able to reform themselves by fighting the Nazis they’d helped build up, and were paid well for their services. It’s not necessarily that Smedley Butler was right and War is simply a racket engineered for profit, but if it were, this is about how it would be done: build up the Axis and withhold from the Allies in phase one, and once a crisis is reached, cut the Axis off (but only at the last possible moment) and start supplying the Allies as they gear up to move in on the worldwide battlefronts created by years of well supplied Axis aggression.

Sources:
[1] Tarpley, Webster G. and Anton Chaitkin. George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography. Chapter - II - The Hitler Project. Accessed online at: http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm
[2] Parfrey, Adam. “How a Military Hero Blew the whistle on Corporate Malfeasance.” Foreword to the 2003 Feral House edition of War is a Racket by Smedley D. Butler (1935) Pages 10-18.
[3] Phillips, Kevin. American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and Deceit in the House of Bush. New York. Viking Penguin. 2004. Page 259.
[4] “Nye Committee.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nye_Committee
[5] Butler, Smedley D. “War is a Racket.” 1935. Re-released under original title with additional material: Los Angeles. Feral House. 2003. Page 23
[6] See [2]. Page 8.
[7] Higham, Charles. Trading with the Enemy: an Expose of the Nazi-American Money plot, 1933-1949. New York, Delacorte Press, 1983. Second Printing.. Page xv.
[8] See [7]. Page xiii.
[9] Black, Edwin. “IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation.” Three Rivers Press. March 2002. Page 352.

Remember the Maine, Forget the Treachery

In 1895, revolutions broke out in both Cuba and the Philippines, then Spanish colonial possessions. The Spanish dispatched General Valeriano “Butcher” Weyler to take over Cuba and suppress the “Insurrectos.” Soon death squads, concentration camps and the like made headlines in the U.S. Both the sugar industry and humanitarian sentiment were upset by this instability, and calls for intervention grew. In 1896, the recently created Office of Naval Intelligence drafted a plan should war with Spain be ignited over these developing issues. The plan recommended simultaneously attacking Spanish colonial holdings in the Philippines and in the Caribbean. The conclusion, apparently, was that the U.S. would win handily and could easily seize these strategic possessions.

In March 1897, President William McKinley was sworn in, replacing Grover Cleveland, who had vowed neutrality in the Cuban affair. McKinley was taunted by the war hawks in government, finance and the media for his own failure to go to war right away. But the gears kept turning at the Navy, under Secretary John Long and his assistant Secretary Theodore Roosevelt; by the end of June, the Navy had adopted the 1896 war plan. In August, Long went on vacation, leaving Roosevelt at the helm. President McKinley invited Teddy for at least two personal discussions, at which time the acting Secretary acquainted the President with the ONI’s suggestions. [1] McKinley was apparently impressed with both Teddy and the plan.

Lacking a pretext for such a war, someone in Navy leadership ordered the state-of-the-art battleship U.S.S. Maine to visit Havana Harbor in December. The mission of the Maine is not entirely clear – some sources say it was to evacuate Americans if war broke out, but others point out that the ship would have little room for evacuees, loaded as it was with tons of ammunition. As George J.A. O’Toole described it: “a friendly visit, the Americans blandly proclaimed; a welcome one, the Spanish replied with frigid propriety.” [2] The Maine’s appearance in late January 1898 was grudgingly accepted in Cuba; it moored for a few uneventful weeks until the night of February 15, when the ship was rocked by two powerful explosions, setting off the ammunition on board, and quickly sunk at a cost of about 260 sailors and officers dead.

After the explosion, the wreck of the U.S.S. Maine in 1900. Credit: Jackson, William Henry, photographer. "Wreck of the U.S.S. Maine." Detroit Publishing Company ca. 1900. Touring Turn-of-the-Century America: Photographs from the Detroit Publishing Company, 1880-1920, Library of Congress.

The 2-15 blast was painted at the time as certain Spanish sabotage, ignoring that Spain had no hope of winning a war and no reason for starting one. Yet the “yellow press,” notably the Hearst papers, hyped-up the celebrated battleship’s destruction into a vicious war drive. The famous cry, of course, was “To Hell with Spain! Remember the Maine!” Some, like Samuel Clemens and Andrew Carnegie, were royally pissed at the nascent U.S. imperialism this “splendid little war” evidenced. But despite the protests, “Butcher” Weyler and the bloody sabotaging Spaniards were easily stopped.

The new American possession of the Philippines soon saw its own, larger butchery under the U.S. Army, and Hawaii was annexed as a coaling station to support the war in the Philippines. Puerto Rico has lobbied to become a state of the Union like Hawaii, but with no Pearl Harbor moment of their own, they languish in a semi-colonial status as a military firing range. Cuba’s fate was left complex, with independence so long as the U.S. Navy could maintain a toehold at Guantanamo Bay, which is still in use despite four decades of Castro’s rule, and has of course been back in the news lately as a “legal Black Hole” for the prisoners of WWIV.

As for the Spanish treachery that “started the game” at Havana Harbor and led to all of this, initial inquiries upheld the official story that the Maine was sunk with a submerged mine, presumably Spanish. In 1912 the ship was moved and sunk in the deeper sea, effectively burying the evidence. It wasn’t until the 1970s that the evidence was again dredged up by Admiral Rickover, whose commission decided the blast was probably caused by a coal-room fire, presumably an accident, that set off the ammunition aboard. This is now the generally accepted theory, but I would note that it was a well-timed accident that the Maine should blow up, of all times and places, right after it had docked in soon-to-be-enemy waters for murky reasons, allowing that two-year-old plan to go into effect to the great benefit of U.S. policy.

Theodore Roosevelt, who had sold the President on this plan, resigned his desk job soon after 2-15, going to Cuba and strenuously getting his picture taken on San Juan Hill with his much-publicized “Rough Riders.” As president McKinley rode his swift and profitable victory into a second term in the 1900 election, Teddy joined him as vice president, sworn-in in March 1901. After McKinley was gunned down by a crazed anarchist six months later, Teddy was speaking softly while carrying the big stick of the U.S. presidency with three and a half years ahead of him and no vice president to worry about.
---
Sources:
[1] O’Toole, G.J.A. "The Spanish War: An American Epic 1898." New York. WW Norton. 1989. Pages 100-102.
[2] See [1] O’Toole. Page 21.

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY: BUSH FAMILY DEEP HISTORY

After the investigative rush of 1934-1936, probes into Nazi-connected activity sloughed-off - but that’s not to say the Nazi support sloughed-off any. But as war neared, Justice Department investigations into “German-connected companies” were re-established by the Roosevelt administration in mid-1941. These went into overdrive after the 12-7 attack and congressional passage of the Trading with the Enemy Act which came within weeks. It was not limited to arms-makers this time.

In March 1942 an additional special Senate committee started hearings on those doing business in Nazi Germany. Within the month, Kevin Phillips explains in American Dynasty, Stimson asked the President “to stop the investigations because they would interfere with companies engaged in the war effort.” The Senate committee apparently was stopped, but other investigations under the Trading with the Enemy Act were unaffected and rolled on. Phillips noted “none of this would have been happy news for Prescott Bush,” who was indeed ‘engaged in the war effort.’ [1]

Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin, in their 1990 classic George Bush: the Unauthorized Biography, capture the irony of the situation seven months later. One of those investigations Stimson had been unable to prevent eventually nabbed his friend’s corporation.

“In October 1942, ten months after entering World War II, America was preparing its first assault against Nazi military forces. Prescott Bush was managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman. His 18-year-old son George, the future U.S. President, had just begun training to become a naval pilot. On Oct. 20, 1942, the U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations in New York City which were being conducted by Prescott Bush. '' [2]

The government took over the Union Banking Corporation (UBC), in which Bush was one of twelve directors. The original order from the alien properties custodian described UBC as “a New York corporation [...] all of which shares are held for the benefit of [...] members of the Thyssen family, [and] is property of nationals [...] of a designated enemy country. '' [3] This “Thyssen family” was in essence Fritz Thyssen, a politically important German steel baron, one of the top players in Germany’s military-industrial complex, and an ardent, two-decade Nazi supporter. He had published a book in 1941 called I Paid Hitler,” admitting he had been funding the Nazi party since late 1923. [4]

Prescott Bush
The Union Banking Corporation, according to Kevin Phillips, was in fact established on Thyssen’s behalf in 1924 by W. Averell Harriman and his partner George Herbert Walker. [5] The framework from which UBC was formed was W.A. Harriman & Co. (later part of Brown Brothers Harriman), a Wall Street investment and banking firm established in 1919. Walker’s son-in-law Prescott Bush, who, like Harriman, was a member of Skull and Bones, was brought in as a junior partner in 1926 and quickly rose in rank to partner. [6] (Note: George H. Walker, it should be noted, was not himself a “bonesman,” but his descendents would be, and Prescott’s son would soon carry the very name “George Herbert Walker” into the society’s ranks.)

Unlike Walker and Bush, Harriman was a Democrat, and had very, very high connections. He would somehow play a pivotal role in the War; President Roosevelt’s personal, unofficial, floating ambassador to Stalin’s Soviet Union and Churchill’s UK. From February 1941 and on, Harriman regularly hobnobbed with the allied leaders under instructions to report directly to the White House, bypassing normal diplomatic channels and Congressional approval. He maintained this special role throughout the war, attending all of the wartime conferences and twice going on missions to arrange increased aid to the Soviet Union. In October 1943 he got his first official appointment as ambassador to the USSR, just one year after the seizure of the Union Banking Corporation that had helped bankroll, among other things, the Nazi’s invasion of Russia. [7] Averell never left the board of Brown Brothers Harriman during this time, remaining a partner until 1946. [8] Yet he was apparently never mentioned in orders against the company’s subsidiaries, which finally had to be closed down by force nearly a year after America entered the war and nearly two years after Harriman himself had entered it.

Tarpley and Chaitkin list the shareholders of Union Banking Corporation mentioned in the October 1942 order. The majority shareholder was E. Roland Harriman, chairman and director of UBC and Averell’s brother. He held 3,991 shares. The authors explain “this is “Bunny” Harriman, described by Prescott Bush as a place holder who didn’t get much into banking affairs; Prescott managed his personal investments” Prescott himself, and all other shareholders besides “Bunny,” held only one token share apiece, presumably to allow them to sit in on decisions but limit their culpability. [9] And isn’t that the magic of a corporation anyway? The list also included two Dutch men (also with one share each) who managed the Nazi end of the business. (The Netherlands was at the time under German occupation.) It was these men’s Dutch bank that nominally “controlled” UBC and also handled Thyssen’s donations to the Nazi party. [10]

According to Kevin Phillips in American Dynasty, Brown Brothers Harriman-Nazi-connected property was seized during the course of late 1942, just as American forces were preparing for major combat in North Africa. These seizures started in August with the Hamburg-Amerika line, partly owned by a corporation controlled by Harriman and Walker. Then there was the seizure in October of UBC’s assets, which netted Bunny Harriman, Prescott Bush, and others as we’ve seen. In November, the last entity, the Silesian-American Corporation, was seized. [11] This was a holding company through which, Tarpley and Chaitkin explain, “the Harriman firms […] bought a one-third interest in the principal German-owned coal and zinc mines in Poland,” the other two-thirds of which were held by Friedrich Flick, another top Nazi industrialist who worked with Thyssen. [12]

The investigative report prior to the government crackdown explained the significance of Brown Brothers Harriman’s role: “Since September 1939, these properties have been in the possession of and have been operated by the German government and have undoubtedly been of considerable assistance to that country in its war effort.” [13]

For its part, the Union Banking Corp., which Prescott Bush had directed since 1934, eventually helped Thyssen finance what would become 30-50% of German national output for various materials (like pig iron, heavy plate armor, and explosives), which were used liberally in the conquest of Europe. [14] Like the others who helped create the formidable Nazi menace America would be forced to fight, Bush was not punished, but rather was rewarded. Prescott Bush somehow went on to be a U.S. Senator (R-CT), and his son a Senator (R-TX), CIA Director and U.S. President, his grandson a Governor (R-TX) and U.S. President… Somehow, what should have been a name that draws spittle to the lips was carried all the way to the White House where it seems intent on staying.

So anyway, the Union Banking Corporation continued operations into late 1941, as Pearl Harbor neared. Both Prescott’s business partner Averell Harriman and his friend Henry Stimson were working personally with FDR as he labored to provoke a Japanese attack and manage America’s entry into the War. It’s also worth noting that all three of these men, Stimson, Harriman, and Bush, shared the bond of secrecy that comes with induction into Skull and Bones. We can neither prove nor rule out that Prescott had, through either of these channels or elsewhere, learned by this time that 12/7 was about to happen under FDR’s provocations – and either way, the attack and America’s entry into the war eventually disrupted his profitable dealings with Thyssen. It can only be wondered what his son George knew or suspected or felt about Roosevelt’s decision as he enlisted to avenge the engineered attack and fight the allies of the man his father had helped get in power. Probably no hard feelings. Business was business after all.

Sources:
[1] Phillips, Kevin. “American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush.” New York. Viking. 2004. Page 39.
[2] Tarpley, Webster G. and Anton Chaitkin. George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography. Chapter - II - The Hitler Project. Accessed online at: http://www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm
[3] See [2].
[4] See [2].
[5] See [1]. Page 180.
[6] “Prescott Bush.” Wikipedia. Accessed September 28, 2005 at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_S._Bush
[7] “W. Averell Harriman.” The Reader’s Companion to American History. Houghton Mifflin. Accessed September 27, 2005 at: http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_040400_harrimanwave.htm
[8] Truman Presidential Museum and Library. “Profile of W. Averell Harriman.” Accessed September 28, 2005 at: http://www.trumanlibrary.org/profile/viewpro.php?pid=87
[9] See [2].
[10] See [1]. Page 180.
[11] See [1]. Page 39.
[12], [13], [14], See [2].

Sunday, December 10, 2006

Wednesday, December 6, 2006

NORTHWOODS II: SPECIAL DISTRIBUTION - THE PLAN

Before all this could come about, there was at least one more major development regarding Cuba that brings us to the central thread of this book. Bamford wrote “although no one in Congress could have known at the time, Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs had quietly slipped over the edge.” [1] They were not through with Cuba - one plan had failed, theirs had not yet been tried. They even had a plan to win public support for this war at all costs, and it was called “Operation Northwoods.” Like the CIA’s Bay of Pigs plan, the roots of Northwoods go back to the twilight of Eisenhower’s term. On January 3, Eisenhower told Lemnitzer and others that, as Bamford explains, “he would move against Castro before [Kennedy’s] inauguration if only the Cubans gave him a really good excuse.” [2] It didn’t happen in time for Eisenhower, but on the 19th, the day before Kennedy was sworn in, new Joint Chiefs chairman Lemnitzer gave his approval to a proposal that would eventually morph into this sinister plan to provide that “really good excuse.” [3]

The origin of the name “Northwoods” is not clear, but is possibly a reference to the London suburb of Northwood, home of the Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ), the British equivalent of the JCS, possibly indicating a British connection or inspiration. In March 1962, Operation Northwoods was completed, and Lemnitzer signed off on it. The “special distribution” document opened:

”As requested by Chief of Operations, Cuba project, the Joint Chiefs of Staff are to indicate brief but precise description of pretexts which they consider would provide justification for US military intervention in Cuba.” [4]


Wikipedia article on Northwoods

Destabilizing or toppling Castro’s regime and the re-subduction of Cuba was still American policy in general, and Northwoods itself was part of a larger, Kennedy-supported “Cuba Project.” But this report went beyond the pale, promoting harassment and a threatening posture to elicit an attack “since,” the memo states, “it would seem desirable to use legitimate provocation as the basis for US military intervention.” [5] But of course Cuba was not Japan, and Castro was not Tojo, and so the report focused more on the backup plans. These were more cynical than anything FDR or Arthur McCollum, the author of his Japan provocation policy, would have dreamed up - if Cuba failed to be provoked into a “mistake,” the JCS proposed providing a pretext themselves in a false flag operation and blaming Cuba for it.

They suggested what they candidly described as a “remember the Maine” incident, the sinking of a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay to be blamed on Castro. Mock attacks on U.S. bases by friendly Cubans dressed as Castro forces, the planting of “plastic bombs” in Miami, Washington, and elsewhere, and even the sinking of a boatload of Cuban refugees (“real or simulated”) were mentioned. In fact, a little death would be useful - the report noted that “casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.” [6] While they never planned to shoot him down themselves, Northwoods did suggest that, should John Glenn’s space capsule accidentally crash as he attempted the first American orbit of the earth, this could be blamed on Cuba as well. [7]

In all, Northwoods offered dozens of variations on the theme, but the ones regarding aircraft bear a look here. For what it’s worth, all these are neatly contained in pages nine to eleven (that is, 9-11). These received extra attention perhaps because they did not involve deaths at all, simply high-tech aerial acrobats and cynical trickery. Point six, for example, mentions use of “an F-86, properly painted” to simulate a Cuban MIG (Soviet-made) fighter jet, and that “reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from US resources in about three months.” It mentioned that the “destruction of U.S. military drone aircraft” by these MIG replicas could look convincingly like a Cuban attack. Keep in mind that drone means remote-controlled and pilotless.

Point eight is especially interesting and elaborate. Here is an extended citation (emphasis mine throughout):

“It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner en route from the United States to Jamaica, Guatemala, Panama, or Venezuela. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan route to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday or any grouping of persons with a common interest to support chartering a non-scheduled flight.

a. An aircraft at Elgin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would then be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Elgin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba, the drone will begin transmitting the international distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal. This will allow ICAO radio stations in the Western Hemisphere to tell the US what has happened to the aircraft instead of the US trying to “sell” the incident.”

Points seven and nine also deal with such aircraft-related deceit. These three pages contain several elements of “silly” 9-11 conspiracy theories, even some of the ones I don’t necessarily buy:

- Destruction of remote control drone jets
- Aircraft “rendezvous,” crossing paths to confuse radar and swap drones for manned flights
- Aliases, false paint jobs, and CIA “proprietary companies” to allow pilots, passengers and planes to “disappear”
- Training missions as cover
- Planted evidence of a nonexistent attack
- Manipulated flight data and radio transmissions
- Remote controlled explosives

All of these were presented as real possibilities in a real and proven JCS-sponsored conspiracy. No theory here. The plan suggested the provocations occur “within the time frame of the next few months” and closed with the recommendation that the entire deal be carried out by the Joint Chiefs themselves. [8] After reviewing the memo, Lemnitzer signed it and pitched it to Kennedy’s military representative, General Maxwell Taylor, on March 13, 1962. What exactly happened during the meeting is unknown, but it only took three days for President Kennedy to inform Lemnitzer that the game was over; there was no longer a possibility of overt U.S. force against Cuba. Still the Joint Chiefs persisted, insisting to Defense Secretary McNamara that the war needed to begin soon. McNamara responded by rejecting nearly everything they sent his way. [9]

Within months, Lemnitzer would be denied another term as chairman and transferred to another job. This was not much of a demotion – he was named Commander of U.S. forces in Europe in November 1962 and was appointed Supreme Allied Commander of NATO the following January. [10] He retired from the military in 1969, and in 1975 was selected by President Ford to serve on the Rockefeller Commission, looking into Rockefeller-connected, illegal CIA projects (like the MK Ultra mind control experiments) overseen by his old partner Allen Dulles at the CIA. [11]

But as for Lemnitzer’s own illegal activities - was Northwoods a unique example, or are such “special distribution” recommendations actually common? The report noted on page four “it is assumed that there will be similar submissions from other agencies and that these inputs will be used as a basis for developing a time-phased plan.” [12] It appears that even as far as this “Cuba Project” was concerned, Northwoods was not alone, and they probably knew this from previous experience - its uniqueness therefore may lie not its existence but in its eventual publication.

In fact Bamford notes Northwoods as a precedent for events to come. On the subject of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the August 1964 alleged attack by North Vietnamese forces on American ships that led to direct U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, he wrote:

“In light of the Operation Northwoods documents, it is clear that deceiving the public and trumping up wars for Americans to fight and die in was standard, approved policy at the highest levels of the Pentagon. […] One needs only replace “Guanantanamo Bay” with “Tonkin Gulf,” and “Cuba” with “North Vietnam.” The Gulf of Tonkin incident may or may not have been stage-managed, but the senior Pentagon leadership at the time was clearly capable of such deceit.” [13]

Bamford described Northwoods as “what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.” [14] But that’s not to stay it didn’t have stiff competition, nor that other nations at other times have not trumped the JCS, nor that the U.S. itself hasn’t trumped this in the period after the book’s release. To act like Lemnitzer and his people invented such cynical thinking is disingenuous – such deceit is standard operating procedure for politicians and leaders worldwide and throughout history. But this report shatters the belief that America is somehow different, protected by a bubble of Democracy.