This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Not ISIS? Saudi Arabia To Execute & Display Beheaded Body Of Political Activist In Public "Crucifixion"
Submitted by Mike Krieger via Liberty Blitzkrieg blog,
One of the ways that the U.S. government most clearly expresses its deep dedication to global human rights, democracy and decency across the globe is via its unwavering support for the feudal, inhumane tyrannical monarchy of Saudi Arabia. A monarchy that also increasingly seems to have played a key role in the attacks of September 11, 2001.
The Saudis have received a lot of bad press as of late due to it consistently breaking its own records for beheadings, but sometimes a simple beheading isn’t sufficient. In a punishment known as “crucifixion,” the executed person’s beheaded body is placed on public display for three days. Currently facing this fate are three political activists, including two children. We learn from Reprieve.org that:
Saudi Arabia has been urged to spare the lives of two juveniles and an ageing political activist, after plans emerged to execute at least one of them this Thursday (14th).
Sheikh Nimr Baqir Al Nimr, a 53-year old critic of the Saudi regime, and two juveniles, Ali Mohammed al-Nimr and Dawoud Hussain al-Marhoon, were arrested during a 2012 crackdown on anti-government protests in the Shiite province of Qatif. After a trial marred by irregularities, Mr Al Nimr was sentenced to death by crucifixion on charges including ‘insulting the King’ and delivering religious sermons that ‘disrupt national unity’. This week, it emerged that the authorities plan to execute him on Thursday, despite protests from the UN and Saudi human rights organizations.
The planned execution of Mr Al Nimr has prompted fears for the safety of the two juveniles, who were both 17 when they were arrested and eventually sentenced to death on similar charges. Both teenagers were tortured and denied access to lawyers, and faced trials that failed to meet international standards. All three prisoners, including Mr Al Nimr, have not yet exhausted their legal appeals.
Saudi Arabia has carried out executions at an unprecedented rate since the coming to power of King Salman in 2015. On May 6th 2015, the Kingdom carried out its 79th execution of the year, and it is already close to surpassing its 2014 total of 87 executions. Human rights organization Reprieve has urged the European Union to intervene with Saudi Arabia to prevent the killings.
It isn’t clear whether or not this execution has happened. As Vox notes:
Saudi Arabia is set to behead a man and publicly display his headless body (a practice called “crucifixion” in Saudi law) — for nothing more than speaking his mind. Sheikh Nimr Baqir al-Nimr, an internationally respected Shia cleric, was sentenced to death for “disobeying the ruler,” “inciting sectarian strife,” and “encouraging, leading and participating in demonstrations.” His actual crime: participating in nonviolent protests and calling for the fall of the house of Saud.
It’s not clear when the Saudis plan on executing al-Nimr: the country has a habit of both postponing executions and carrying them out without very much warning. But the case illustrates a basic fact about one of America’s closest allies in the Middle East: its system of capital punishment is one of the cruelest on earth.
Meanwhile, publicly at least, the U.S. government remains as committed to the Saudis as ever. We learn the following from National Journal:
CAMP DAVID, Md.—Of the six Arab leaders invited to the summit, one was too busy, two called in sick, and a fourth skipped it to go to a horse show instead.
The Gulf Cooperation Council conference was nevertheless “the beginning of a new era of cooperation,” President Obama declared Thursday after a daylong series of meetings.
Obama laid out five points of agreement among all the countries, top among them a commitment by the United States to respond to an “external threat” to any of the nations’ territorial integrity, which could include the use of military force, as well as the development of a ballistic-missile defense for the Gulf nations. “And let me underscore, the United States keeps our commitments,” Obama said.
The Saudi highlight reel is a long one.
Here are a few examples:
The New York Post Reports – FBI is Covering Up Saudi Links to 9/11 Attack
New Saudi King Unveils Internal Power Shake-up in Desperate Pivot Toward Increased Authoritarianism
Already 45 Beheadings in 2015 – Saudi Arabia on Pace to Easily Beat 2014’s Decapitation Level
Saudi Arabia Sentences 3 Lawyers to Jail for Tweets
Record Beheadings and the Mass Arrest of Christians – Is it ISIS? No it’s Saudi Arabia
How the NSA is Actively Helping Saudi Arabia to Crackdown on Dissent
Saudi Arabia Passes New Law that Declares Atheists “Terrorists”
»
- 54025 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
NOW I understand why America is the Saudi’s bitch!
And This:
Saban: Hillary Clinton is ideal candidate for Israel-
-
Billionaire philanthropist and media mogul speaks to 'Post' in preview of interview to be published in full as part of the paper’s annual ranking of Top 50 most influential Jews in the world.'The Jerusalem Post's' top 50 most influential Jews o...
Israeli media magnate Saban hints Clinton opposes Ira...
A United States led by Hillary Clinton would be “great” for Israel, Haim Saban said in an exclusive interview with The Jerusalem Post. In the interview, which will be published as part of the newspaper’s annual ranking of the Top 50 most influential Jews in the world, Saban declined to provide specifics on Clinton’s diplomatic policy for the region but said, “We have yet to see all of Hillary’s detailed positions, and I will not give anything away. However, one thing I know: Hillary will be great for Israel.”
The billionaire philanthropist and media mogul, whose financial backing is seen as a crucial to Clinton’s candidacy, said, “Hillary has been a steadfast defender of Israel’s interests. She will be a fantastic president for the US, an incredible world leader and one under whom the relationship with the US and Israel will be significantly reinforced.”
I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do... www.jobs-review.com
I never understood why we didnt invade Saudi Arabia after 9/11 and hang the entire Saudi Royal Family and the Wahhabi clerics. Pretty obvious who the real enemy is.
is that sarcasm? If not, the reason why Saudi Arabia wasn't invaded is probably because they had nothing to do with 9/11. Somehow murkins believe the military has super secret weapons, rayguns, super detectors, super duper computers, super stealth stuff that is 40, 60, 100 years ahead of everyone else, yet despite this super duper super secret mega power abilities, some drunken flight school failures managed to hijack 4 planes with box cutters and crash them into 3 buildings with the entire US military unable to do anything to stop them ( although them being told to stand down, may have contributed to the problem )
If it wasn't sarcasm, I would really like to know who the real enemy is.
You point is idiotic. Iraq and Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11 and they got trashed. The Taliban offered to hand over Osama if they caught him (he was Saudi like the majority of the so called 'pilots'). The idea that a bunch of idiots that could not even control light aircraft could fly jet airliners in a way that exceeds the capabilities of experienced commercial pilots is absurd.
Whether or not we hang them, me thinks the house of saud is on it's way out anyway. The more regimes resort to this type of thing, the more desperate they are getting. You won't be able to keep the peasants happy with petro dollar scraps forever, and when it happens, all those thousands of princes will likely have their heads on pikes, unless they are lucky enough to fly to London or the US first.
I down voted you for impersonating Carl no matter what you have to say, boi.
Fuck Saudi Arabia. The bullshitiest nation on the planet.
They do have all the lubricants to get fucked, proper.
i do hope you are right. the saudis are scum. which is as good a word as any to describe most arab culture
The misinformation of the site is legend. The Taliban positively affirmed bin Laden was under their protection after 9/11 a n refused to give him up. There are HUNDREDS od stories on this. Here's one:
https://badgerherald.com/news/2001/09/30/taliban-confirms-pro/
And this statement "The idea that a bunch of idiots that could not even control light aircraft could fly jet airliners in a way that exceeds the capabilities of experienced commercial pilots is absurd." is absurd. It's not real hard to point an aircraft at a large fixed abject and fly into it. 19% of even more poorly trained Japnese pilots in WWII managed to hit smaller moving and maneuvering targets ptotected by vast anti-aircraft defenses and fighter protection.
Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over | World ...
Without Evidence, the Taliban Refuses to Turn Over bin Laden
U.S. Rejects New Taliban Offer - ABC News abcnews.go.com › Internationalhe United States today rejected yet another offer by Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden for trial in a third country if the U.S. presents evidence against bin Laden and stops air attacks.
President Bush reiterated the position the U.S. has held since fingering bin Laden and his al Queda organization as masterminding the for the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
"There's no need to discuss it," Bush said. "We know he's guilty. Just turn him over. … There's nothing to negotiate about. They're harboring a terrorist and they need to turn him over."
The U.S. military, at times joined by British forces, has been conducting air strikes on targets in Afghanistan for over a week as part of the administration's efforts to capture bin Laden and his associates.
"There's no discussions. I've told them what they need to do," Bush said today, hammering away at the same theme he has often repeated over the last month. "When I said no negotiations, I meant no negotiations."
For the U.S. to halt the bombing, Bush said, the Taliban must turn over bin Laden and the members of his al Qaeda network hiding in Afghanistan, destroy any terrorist camps and release any "hostages" they may hold.
More than 5,000 people died when two hijacked airliners slammed into the World Trade Center towers, another was was flown into the Pentagon and a fourth crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. Investigators identified 19 Arab men as the alleged hijackers on the four planes.
Taliban Deputy Prime Minister Haji Abdul Kabir told reporters in Jalalabad, Afghanistan that the regime was willing to turn over bin Laden to a third country that would never "come under pressure from the United States," according to The Associated Press.
U.S. officials have dismissed statements from the regime, which has at various times claimed bin Laden had left the country, was hiding in a location unknown even to the Taliban, was "under the control" of the regime and was free to lead a jihad or holy war from the country.
U.S Strikes; Al Qaeda Threats
U.S. jets reportedly hit targets in the Afghan capital of Kabul and three other cities today. Eyewitnesses tell ABCNEWS that tonight's attacks appear to be targeted at the Taliban's front lines. Jets hit military targets in southern Kandahar, Herat in western Afghanistan and Jalalabad to the east.
The latest wave of attacks came after al Qaeda, bin Laden's organization, warned top U.S., British and Israeli leaders that their "blood will be avenged" and advised Muslims in America and Britain to stay out of high rises and planes.
In a videotaped statement aired Saturday by Qatar's Al-Jazeera satellite channel, al Qaeda spokesman Sulaiman Abu Ghaith threatened retaliation for the military assault on Afghanistan. Ghaith singled out President Bush; his father, former President George H.W. Bush; former President Bill Clinton; British Prime Minister Tony Blair; and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Al Qaeda, Ghaith said, declares that those men "are the top Zionists and crusaders criminals who committed the worst atrocities against the Muslim Umma [nation]: killing millions of innocent Muslim women, men and children. Their blood will be avenged from these criminals."
The Bush administration called the threats "just more propaganda."
‘He Is Invisible’
---
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUdJ41J_L8o
Wow.... apparently you have a reading comprehension problem. The story you quote is AFTER the US started military action. The story I gave is BEFORE. Even in the story you quote, even after the US starts attacking the Taliban, the Taliban still refuses to turn over bin Laden to the US. Their stipulation is they afe willing "to turn over bin Laden to a third country that would never "come under pressure from the United States,"" And what country might that be? They are already dropping bombs on one country demanding bin Laden be given over to them. It's really a county of the Taliban's choosing, but it is certainly NOT, by the very stroy you quote, willingness to turn bin Laden over to the US.
Please learn how to fucking read and try thinking.
You said they refused to turn him over, unqualified by whether or not bombing had commenced. in five seconds i found 3 links proving you wrong, not all of which you read.
You mincing faggot.
Counterpunch..............don't confuse him with the facts.........he's on a roll............
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8lT1o0sDwI
To walk as if wearing a pair of invisible high heels.
Mincing
Never saw that beautiful instrument wear high heels.
2015 new things are learned
That anyone on this site could still believe the official 911 story just boggles my mind. It's very disheartening. Those who believe Saudi Arabia was the mastermind need to peel back another layer of the onion. Who benefitted from the attacks? Don;t forget Silverman doubled the insurance right before the attacks and the dancing Israelis. This was a saudi/mossad/Neocon cooperative effort.
You should read the book: Heart of a Solider by James Stewart. How ironic this person was a life long mercanry fighting for years in Afrghanistan against the Ruskies. He knew Osama's movements and offered to help lead the military to find him back before 9/11 but was denied. Interesting book.. This person died in the 9/11 attacks working for JPM in security and knew another attack was going to happen just not the timing. This book is about this persons life starting off as a fighter in Vietnam than going about anywhere there was a war and they needed mercenaries. So it's not some 9/11 inside job book but raises some interesting questions on why didn't they allow him to take out Osama after it was apparent he was trying to formulate attacks against the U.S.
"The idea that a bunch of idiots that could not even control light aircraft could fly jet airliners in a way that exceeds the capabilities of experienced commercial pilots is absurd."
They were not a bunch of idiots, they went to flight school. They could control light aircraft. On 9/11 they controlled heavy aircraft.
They didn't fly the airliners in a way that exceeds that of experieinced commercial pilots.
Flying a plane in a reckless manner is not flying in a way that exceeds that of experienced commercial pilots. It is flying a plane in a manner below that of experienced commercial pilots.
Besides the fact that Boeing twin engine planes can't fly at 568 MPH at sea level........
A lot of the dimwit, ignorant whackadoodles on thes site confuse "operating speed" with maximum speed. There is a vast difference. For example, the maximum operating speed for your car on a section of I-40 may be 65 MPH, but your car can probably do much better than that if you care to press the peddle down. However, operating in excess of 65 MPH is not considered oeprationally safe or not economical. If the aircraft are at MAX thrust and descending, it can certainly exceed 360 MPH.
One reason for operating speed limitations is to allow safe maneuvering. Ever notice those yellow signs on the side of the road giving safe speeds on curves, for instance? If a pilot pulls a sharp turn in excess of the speed he risks loss or aerodynamic control, structural damage, and in extreme cases, failure. Commercial airliners are given failrly substantial safety margins over their normal (or maximum) operating speeds. Many of these limitations are also added simply to extend the life of the aircraft so they do not have to undergo extensive and very costly life-extension programs and are not safety related.
Please see the Boeing 787 wing break test video. There is no way the aircraft would be flown any where close to the "breaking point." The video demonstrates the aircraft's physical capabilities in excess of operating restrictions. Operating restrictions (pilot controled) and onboard systems will limit the aircraft operation to avoid stress damage, but the aircraft can perform much greatly in excess of "operatinal limits" which are NOT actual pyhsical limits.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ai2HmvAXcU0
Another example, please watch this video of a Boeing 707 doing a barrell roll. This is FAR OUTSIDE of its "maximum operating limits" and would never be done in commercial service, but the aircraft can do it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KNbKFMBsQE
Bottom lineoperating limits and physical limits are NOT the same. Operating limits are printed into flight manuals and coded into flight control computers, but the actual physical limits are far in excess of those.
Let the down arrows against truth, reason, and common sense commence!
you are correct about that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L978nIT-AY4
entirely wrong about newbie pilots barely trained on prop plane 'easily' hitting anything, most especially the approach taken to hit the Pentagon - which was opposite to approach and near ground level.
And neither those planes, nor the small amount of jet fuel that remained to burn inside the towers would have done any damage to those core columns. It's not even close.
The pilots only had to be able to set the course on the very accurate auto pilot. They were not hand flying anything. Setting up the auto pilot course is not very difficult.
They learned how to set the autopilot to hit a structure, based on their training in prop planes? the approach to the pentagon in particular was both advanced and bizarre.
You are too stupid to be a hasbara troll.
Come over from drudge, with your muzzie this and that faggotry?
You're too goddamned ignorant to bother with, and I bet your face is covered in acne and Cheetos dust.
Lol.
It always intrigues me how it is that the vast majority of those supporting the official conspiracy theory are in fact hasbara trolls or have more loyalty to Israel than the country they might have grown up in. Why it it so especially important to these people that the official version must stand and any questioning of that crushed?!
I really don't know where these people come from, but they frighten me, nonetheless. And more mis-information about the training levels of the 9/11 hijackers. For example, Atta earned his instrument rating, and then a commercial pilot's license, both significant accomplishments which require a fairly high degree of competency, and had extensive training time in a 767 simulator. He was not "some idiot" who could barely fly a small single engine aircraft.
The problem about what these folks question is they have wild and looney ideas based on mis-information, selected and distorted mis-information, wild and impossible ideas, and ignorance of physics, and devoid of logic.
You may want to also consider why the "truthers" are so hell-bent on denying evidence and logic to believe incredible fantasy.
And more willful misinformation or ignorance:
"And neither those planes, nor the small amount of jet fuel that remained to burn inside the towers would have done any damage to those core columns. It's not even close."
In fact, both aircraft that hit the twin towers took off from Logan (Boston) for a flight to Los Angeles, so BOTH would have a great deal of fuel onboard, probably over 10,000 gallons, each, when they hit the towers.
And again, THOUSANDS of example of "newbie" pilots being able to hit smaller, moving and maneuvering targets protected by dense air defense and fighter cover exists from the Kamakazi attacks in WWII. About 19% of attacks under these conditions were successful. These guys had a MUCH tougher job than the 9/11 hijackers.
But, then again, as stated in another post, the 9/11 hijakers were not "newbie" pilots, either, as you claim. For example. Atta had both his instrument rating and commercial pilot's license, accomplishments that require a fair degree of demonstrated skill and experience (at least 250 hours of flight time), and, with his instrument rating, made him one step away from being a qualified airline pilot. The only real difference is total flight time required - an airline pilot needing at least 1,500 hours of flight time to sit in the left seat. He also had a fair amount of time in a 767 simulator which is required for "type certification." With tyoe certification he would have been qualified to sit in the right-hand seat to build flight experience for his airline license.
Ignore evidence all you want. i know you will.
at 5k a 747 has max operating velocity of 350 kts (~400 mph). You really need the rudder to stay on to turn and stuff ....
Same-ol BS. Saudi played a role in 911 but..... not one mention of Israhell.
Innocent people die while the true shitheads of the world live a privileged life and play sport with the "little" people.
Fuck you assholes!!! Maybe one day soon, the little people will hold your fucking lives in their hands.
Given the same choice, but knowing full well of your guilt..... I wonder how they'll vote at "your" continued existence.
"Besides the fact that Boeing twin engine planes can't fly at 568 MPH at sea level........"
Planes fly above sea level. That is why it is called flying. At sea level, one is floating.
Can I have some of what you are smoking dude. it must be fine. Loony .. because we had a hand in 911 does not mean the Saudis did not .. your hatred of the MIC is getting in the way of the facts .. the Saudis have had inordinate influence on US policy . same as Israel . they have spent money for decades grooming these loons .. exactly how much they are responsible for 911 and how much we are . is anyone's guess. . but the fact is .. the Saudis have been funding the nuts for decades.. and look up the Saudi Express . prior to 911 the Saudis did not need much of a background check to get a visa.. they just got a rubber stamp .. war is a racket and our foreign policy is often run or influenced by foreign govt. more than it is by our own best interests.
>>I would really like to know who the real enemy is. <<
Well, let me tell you who the #1 enemy is - it is the Owners of the Big Bank corporate fronts that control the definition and issuance of currency and credit to governments, businesses and citizens.
If you want to anser cui bono of 911, all you have to do is repeat "supranational banking cartel owners."
And yes, the false 911 narrative financed by this supranational banking cartel is trivial to expose, as is there their debt based monetary fraud. In all honesty, the 911 false narrative requires a bit more knowledge than the 5th grade math debunking of a debt based monetary system.
It is still pretty simple. Force = mass X acceleration or F+MA.
The net accelration of the top portion of WTC us the force of gravity minus any resistive forces (crushing concrete, bending beams, etc...).
So, follow the steps of the false narrative's gravity led collapse.
1. The top section of the building is stationary and in place.
2. The supports directly below the top section of the building give way and the top portion of the building starts accelerating down.
3. At some point, the top portion of the building crashes into the still stable and supported structure below it, thereby creating an ADDITIONAL COUNTER FORCE TO GRAVITY THAT DIDN'T EXIST PRIOR TO IMPACT.
4. Consequent to the impact of the lower section of the building, the force acting on the top section of the building would lessen and so would its acceleration. In other words, the top section of the building WOULD DECELERATE.
If you are having trouble visualizing this, check to see if you have Orwellian crimestop engaged (look it up!).
If no crimestop is engaged, then check out David Chandler's excellent expose on this exact topic:
What A Gravity Led Demolition Looks Like
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8
The takeaway here is quite simple... The top portion of the WTC building in question didn't decelerate, THEREFORE, IT NEVER HIT THE BUILDING BELOW IT, BY DEFINITION.
BY.
DEFINITION.
The Banbkster false narrative is physically impossible, therefore, it didn't happen. 2+2=4, not 5.
As for proving debt money systems are a fraud, consider the following applied 5th grade math (but check your Orwellian crimestop... I know Masters in finance and economics that can't grasp this 5th grade math...
If I lend you $20 @ 5% interest, in one year you own me $21 due to double entry bookkeeping adjustments that add $1 interest liability to your balance sheet and $1 interest asset to my balance sheet. Everything balances at $21, so the interest is created to make the debt payment possible. Lots of people don't comprehend how this works and they trip up under the false notion the interest owed isn't created. It is... BUT... THE LENDER CONTROLS IT.
So, in one year, you have $20, you owe me $21 and, based on my sole discretion, I held onto that $1 and didn't make it availabel to you.
You know that house you put up for collateral? How about that car? if it was student loan debt, I lobbied government to make it non dischargeable and I get to double or triple your debts BECAUSE I WON'T LET YOU PAY ME BACK.
That is fraud... IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PAY UNLESS THE CREDITOR ZEROS OUT THEIR MONEY AND THEY ARE TOO BUSY LOOTING EVERYTHING, NAILED DOWN OR NOT, TO CONSIDER DIVESTING OF EVERYTHING.
Oh, and the whip cream on top is a "bailout."
A "bailout" is when I loan you $20 @ 5% interest, stick the proceeds in my corporate front pocket, and send you a bill for $21 in a year EVEN THOUGH YOU DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY OF THE MONEY THAT WAS CREATED BY THE DEBT GENERATION.
AND I TELL YOU I'M DOING IT FOR YOU... TO SAVE YOUR ECONOMY.
Being nescient or ignorant comes with some very severe penalties over time. The 1940s Germans lost 1/3 of their population and the 2/3 that survived live like chit.
All because they were gullible chumps.
What will the Debt Money Tyrant Supranaitonal Banking Cartel decide to do with us?
Stay tuned!
yes.
it is.
https://archive.org/details/thedancingisraelison911A chief architect of 9 11, Ehud Barak, interviewed on BBC an hour after attacks
tough to hide body language and microexpressions when you are so overjoyed with a successful op...
Counterpunch is a Fool.
Augustus is a Zionist propaganda organ.
Careful, Joshua. I might get to thinking you're trying to hurt my feelings.
"I never understood why we didnt invade Saudi Arabia after 9/11 and hang the entire Saudi Royal Family and the Wahhabi clerics. Pretty obvious who the real enemy is."
Shouldn't the Dancing Mossads" be dealt with first?!
Liberty is a demand. Tyranny is submission.
Funny, much of the Islamic world would agree!
911 was a Mossad operation from start to finish. Even the FBI managed to catch four of the Mossad agents taking a group selfie of themselves from the New Jersey shoreline, against the background of the demolshised WTC. Unfortunately, the agents were returned to Israel after a few months instead of being prosecuted.
Most of the Saudi citizens accused by the FBI as being responsible had hard alibis elsewhere at the time. Yet another smokescreen ...
Your income has been duly noted in the records of the Ministry of American Prosperity. Thank you for your cooperation!
For $7K a month?!! - Dude it is not worth it after the King of Saud gives you herpes cause he popped your ass.. Let them stick to banging goats k?
Obama's reaction to the beheadibgs: "Winning!"
Just wait till after the elections are suspended.... I'll have a little more flexibility.
Look how far we've come.
We really know how to pick "friends," no?
When I read the headline and saw the accompanying picture, I had a brief moment of hope. Then I realized that 'political activist' and 'community organizer' probably aren't same in Saudi Arabia.
"its system of capital punishment (beheading) is one of the cruelest on earth.
Bring back the guilliotine, the most humane device for decapitating heads of state and their corrupt, arristocratic enablers.
It was, in fact, so efficient that 1 in 10 didn't die from shock. Their eyes still blinked; their mouths still moved for a minute or so after their heads parted company from their bodies. Creepy, huh? Anne Bolyn was beheaded by a French swordsman and his blade must have been very sharp because witness accounts testify that she blinked and tried to speak when the headsman took her head up by the hair and held it up. Margaret Pole was not so fortunate; she got the ax. The first blow hit her shoulder and it took another 10 blows to do the deed. Its said that after the 1st blow she got up from the block and ran, pursued by the bumbling headsman.
It's same same...but different.
Citing Vox? LMFAO.
Not only is Vox a joke, the article is a replay from an Iranian news source. Iranian propaganda played to damage Saudis. Will ther be or not be an execution? It was supposed to be carried out last week.
Anyone can also find some information on the Iranian eecutions. Stonings and beheadings are common in that country with the mad mullahs.
Yes, the old look at these Saudi Squirrels! and not these Iranian Squirrels! trick.
Of course governmental hangings (by a crane) for being ghey might seem kinda over-the-top to most of the world but not in either one of these squirrel cages called Saudi Arabia or Iran...
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=06b_1362712471
...everyone turns out for the public spectacle.
...everyone turns out for the public spectacle.
yes, look at the Iranian pigeons, not the Israeli pigeons - they are so civilized! They sit, like gentlemen, in chairs sipping tea as they politely cheer on war crimes!
Israel creates hell on earth for Palestinians "White Phosphorus" CNN Confirms Israel Use Of White Phosphorus Israelis gather on hillsides to watch and cheer as military ... Israeli soldiers claim Palestinian civilians were targeted ... Why So Many Palestinian Civilians Were Killed During Gaza ...---to anticipate the canned hasbara response....
Israel's Latest Assault on Gaza: The Lie of Who Started It ... Who Started 'the Cycle of Violence' in Palestine? - Antiwar ... The Truth About Cease-fire Violations Between Israel and ...now, antiwar is no SITE "Intelligence" Group, still, they link to lots of primary sources, unlike SITE, which was able to 'find' videos no one else could.
SITE Intelligence Group - WikispooksCounterpuke = Muzzie Propagandist.
Why don't you volunteer to stand watch over Arafat's remains until he arises to continue his slaughter. did he really finally die?
I don't deal in propaganda. i deal in empirically verifiable facts.
You avoid them, which is why you don't dare read the links provided.
Hasbara done rot your brain, nephew.
Counterpunch,
In your response to me you went from the verifiable fact of two sovereign states (the Saudis and Iranians) mixing law with religion to legitimize domestic mass murder...to the Palestinians & Israelis (two different sovereign states) fighting against each other over land to make what point again?
Its two completely separate things, its your brain that is rotted.
I'm gonna pass on returning any insult because even though I disagree with you a fair bit I generally enjoy your posts.
But I'll also take a pass on explaining why dropping burning phosphorus on crowds of civilians is not the hallmark of a civilized, modern nation state.
Both the Sunni and Shia versions of Mohammadians are returning to their roots. They are no longer influenced by the civilizing cultures of Colonialism. They will be back to living in the mud walled cities in another 100 years.
I aint no Mohammadian (who uses those words anyways??) but my fore-fathers stank like garlic on a good day. Did yours bathe in rose water or milk?
Haha you a fellow Uke?
Valerie Jarrett must have a Sunni contingent here just to neg negative information about Iran.
How about this? Fuck Iran, it's homo fascist mullah's, and their idiotic populace that puts up with it.
I think you mean Shiite, not Sunni. Iran and Iraq are majority Shia.
Hasbara fail. This account is as Ziopathic as your others.
Dirty vermin
Allies of the "free" world lol. What a fucking joke it all is.
Wow, pretty disturbing ghoulish type actions, how else should I react?
My first impulse was to get out my shovel and start digging a moat around my home. Why don't we just take their fucking oil and kill the royalty.
My take is that the House of Sodomy is able to keep the slave labor coming in better than any other occupier could.
The House of Sod recruits poor muslims around the world to work on their oil rigs. They have both the cheapest and most predictable labor costs any corporation could ever imagine. The poor are promised well-paying jobs but once they get there, the poor are enslaved --- never to be heard again.
Optics matter. If Arabia was occupied by "non-muslims" then I would suspect the labor costs of extracting the oil would rise unpredictably and there would not be cheap oil as we know it.
Yet I am suspect that this is even just now being conveniently brought to light, this has already been happening for a while anyway which is a pretty sad reflection of our humanity.
Ok everyone just relax. There will be no killing in the US by the government directed on it's own subjects except if you are Muslim then there will be killing, lots of it. Sorry.
To the USA I say only this.....you are known by the company you keep.
SA is a shit hole ruled by inbreds. Offically. Religion...ahh...so peaceful.
Much better to just torture people endlessly in black prisons.
Get a grip , Uncle Scam does far worse every single day, and they can't claim a perverted religius
belief as justification.
None of this about religion, its about power.
Not exactly true. There is a religion and it is the religion of the state - the centrally planned everything where the right man/whoaman in charge can make life better for everyone as long as he/she relies on the bestest experts. Of course, life is not so much better for those who must be imprisoned or executed for not playing along but they don't count. When man believes he can create heaven on earth you better bet it will be one hell of a time.
"Islam - A religion of peace."
"America - defending freedom."
Whatever.
My standard line (which I shall dutifully repeat here again), whenever anything regarding Saudi 'law', or 'religion', or 'Allah', or 'respect' thereof is concerned:
Do the Saudi's perform these acts of righteousness Before or After being serviced by Swedish whores...?
Before and after!
Hypocrisy is a drug; reference U.S. government, banks, and corporations/insurers.
Mohammadians consider all women as second class status only here to service men. Nothing wrong with paying sweedish whores, male or female. It is a bit better than putting them in slavery in the harem.
Hassidic Jews consider all women as second class status only here to service men. So what's your point zino-boi? Sowing hatred, confusion and dsinformation? You're worth every shekel.
They import their sex slaves from the Philippines promising a well paid job as a maid until the unfortunate girl is in their clutches (she still has to clean the house).
The Zionist highlight reel is a long one. Masters of Deception by Zander C. Fuerza
9-11/Israel did it - Wikispooks
http://www.bollyn.com/solving-9-11-the-bookBollyn talk - well worth watching
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXKdLciIf9k
******************************************************
“The machiavelian threefold game of the neoconservatives ...******************************************************
On returning from Mecca the Sunni Muslim is entitled to adopt the name El Hadji. This prestige enables him to have another 10 or 20 slaves sleeping on his porch.
When i see Africans praying 5 times a day in Arabic (clueless of the language ) i want to BREAK THEIR FUCKING NOSE.
Bless 'em
"What a great idea. Wonder if I can somehow convince 30% of the population that white people are political activists worthy of crucifixion? Oh, wait a minute... then no one will be left to work and provide welfare for my people."
-Obama
Glass the place over....
I am sure the Torturer and Chief Obama will support Saudia Arabia in aquiring the Presidency of the UN Human Rights Commision. They deserve one and other.
It's all downhill from here for the next de evolution of homo sapien.
Military troops can no longer hide their murders under the propaganda of a United States of America military uniform when they are supporting murder for world terrorists; terrrorists that took down the World Trade Centers, and murder children in public. If you happen to read this Mr. and Ms. US-mercenary-for-scum, then know what you are doing. Somebody call the police. The US military has been taken over by a bunch of dress wearing rapists.
This regime will be protected by the United States government, doesn't matter what they do.
Saudi Arabia won't exist in 10 years.
Saudi-Israelia, Amerika's 51'st state
September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL)*****
February 1982: Article in Israeli Journal Says Israel Should Exploit Internal Tensions of Arab StatesThe winter issue of Kivunim, a “A Journal for Judaism and Zionism,” publishes “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties” by Oded Yinon. The paper, published in Hebrew, rejects the idea that Israel should carry through with the Camp David accords and seek peace. Instead, Yinon suggests that the Arab States should be destroyed from within by exploiting their internal religious and ethnic tensions: “Lebanon’s total dissolution into five provinces serves as a precedent for the entire Arab world including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and the Arabian peninsula and is already following that track. The dissolution of Syria and Iraq later on into ethnically or religiously unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the Eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the primary short term target. Syria will fall apart, in accordance with its ethnic and religious structure, into several states such as in present day Lebanon.” [Kivunim, 2/1982]
Entity Tags: Oded Yinon
Timeline Tags: Alleged Use of False Flag Attacks
Autumn 1992: Influential Neoconservative Academic Advocates Breaking Up Middle Eastern Countries, Including Iraq
Bernard Lewis. [Source: Princeton University]Princeton University professor Bernard Lewis publishes an article in the influential journal Foreign Affairs called “Rethinking the Middle East.” In it, he advocates a policy he calls “Lebanonization.” He says, “[A] possibility, which could even be precipitated by [Islamic] fundamentalism, is what has late been fashionable to call ‘Lebanonization.’ Most of the states of the Middle East—Egypt is an obvious exception—are of recent and artificial construction and are vulnerable to such a process. If the central power is sufficiently weakened, there is no real civil society to hold the polity together, no real sense of common identity.… Then state then disintegrates—as happened in Lebanon—into a chaos of squabbling, feuding, fighting sects, tribes, regions, and parties.” Lewis, a British Jew, is well known as a longtime supporter of the Israeli right wing. Since the 1950s, he has argued that the West and Islam have been engaged in a titanic “clash of civilizations” and that the US should take a hard line against all Arab countries. Lewis is considered a highly influential figure to the neoconservative movement, and some neoconservatives such as Richard Perle and Harold Rhode consider him a mentor. In 1996, Perle and others influenced by Lewis will write a paper for right wing Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu entitled “A Clean Break” that advocates the “Lebanonization” of countries like Iraq and Syria (see July 8, 1996). Lewis will remain influential after 9/11. For instance, he will have dinner with Vice President Cheney shortly before the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Some will later suspect that Cheney and others were actually implementing Lewis’s idea by invading Iraq. Chas Freeman, former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, will say in May 2003, just after the invasion, “The neoconservatives’ intention in Iraq was never to truly build democracy there. Their intention was to flatten it, to remove Iraq as a regional threat to Israel.” [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 330-337]
Entity Tags: Chas Freeman, Bernard Lewis, Richard Perle, Harold Rhode, Richard (“Dick”) Cheney
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
July 8, 1996: Neoconservative Think Tank Advocates Aggressive Israeli Foreign Policy
Richard Perle. [Source: Public domain]The Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, an Israeli think tank, publishes a paper titled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” [Washington Times, 10/7/2002; Chicago Sun-Times, 3/6/2003] The paper, whose lead author is neoconservative Richard Perle, is meant to advise the new, right-wing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Other authors include:
influential neoconservative academic and former Bush adviser Richard Perle, primarily responsible for the content of the paper;
Meyrav Wurmser, the future director of the neoconservative Hudson Institute’s Center for Middle East Policy;
her husband David Wurmser, the future chief adviser for Middle East policy for future vice-president Dick Cheney;
neoconservative Douglas Feith, who will be the prime architect of the Iraq war;
and a number of lesser-known neoconservatives, including James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Jeffrey T. Bergner, Jonathan Torop, and Robert Loewenberg.
Rebuilding Zionism by Abandoning Past Policies - It advocates making a complete break with past policies by adopting a strategy “based on an entirely new intellectual foundation, one that restores strategic initiative and provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism.…” [Guardian, 9/3/2002]
Aggressive, Militant Israeli Policy towards Arab Neighbors - Much along the lines of an earlier paper by Israeli Oded Yinon (see February 1982), the document urges the Israelis to aggressively seek the downfall of their Arab neighbors—especially Syria and Iraq—by exploiting the inherent tensions within and among the Arab States. The first step is to be the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. A war with Iraq will destabilize the entire Middle East, allowing governments in Syria, Iran, Lebanon, and other countries to be replaced. “Israel will not only contain its foes; it will transcend them,” the paper says. [Perle, 7/8/1996; Guardian, 9/3/2002; Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 3/19/2003] Iraq is first on the list of nations to be transformed. Saddam Hussein must be overthrown, the authors say. But Iraq has long served as a counterweight to the Shi’ite theocracy of Iran; with the two at loggerheads, neither could pose as serious a threat to Israel as it could if not opposed by the other. To counter this, Perle and his co-authors propose restoring the Hashemites (an ancient Arab dynasty; King Faisal I of Iraq was a Hashemite) to power. Instead of the largely Shi’ite Iraqis aligning themselves with their fellow Shi’a in Iran after Hussein’s overthrow, the Hashemite government would align itself with the pro-Western Jordan, long a Hashemite regime. Unfortunately, the authors propose no plan to actually make such an extraordinary regime succession happen, nor do they seem concerned with some Iraqi Shi’ites’ alignment with Islamist terrorists or with many Shi’ites’ close ties to Iran. [Unger, 2007, pp. 145-148]
Abandoning Oslo Accords, Militant Palestinian Policy - Other suggestions for Israel include abandoning the Oslo Accords, developing a foreign policy based on a traditional balance of power strategy, reserving its right to invade the West Bank and Gaza Strip as part of a strategy of “self-defense,” abandoning any notion of “land for peace,” reestablishing a policy of preemptive strikes, forging closer ties to the US while taking steps towards self-reliance, and seeking an alternative to Yasser Arafat as leader of the PLO. [Perle, 7/8/1996]
'Seeds of a New Vision' - All these questions need not be answered right away, according to co-author Meyrav Wurmser. The document is “the beginning of thought,” she says, “… the seeds of a new vision.”
Similar to American Christian Right's Vision - According to author Craig Unger, the ideology of “ACB” is, in essence, a secularized version of the theology of the American Christian Right. Christian Zionists insist that Jews were ordained by God to reclaim the Biblican land of Judea and Samaria in the West Bank; the paper asserts that claim as well. The paper echoes Christian fundamentalists by demanding “the unconditional acceptance of Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension.” Perle and his fellow neoconservatives want to push the boundaries even further: the Bible can be interpreted to countenance Jewish dominion over all or parts of Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, and even Saudi Arabia. Thusly, the authors claim that Israel and the US, by waging war against Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, would reshape the “strategic environment” in the Middle East and greatly expand Israel’s influence in the region.
Influence in Upcoming Bush Administration - Perle will later become chairman of President Bush’s influential Defense Policy Board and will be instrumental is moving Bush’s US policy toward war with Iraq after the 9/11 attacks, as will Feith and the Wurmsers. [Unger, 2007, pp. 145-148]
Entity Tags: Richard Perle, Robert Loewenberg, Meyrav Wurmser, Jonathan Torop, Richard V. Allen, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Benjamin Netanyahu, David Wurmser, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, Jeffrey T. Bergner, Douglas Feith
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, US International Relations, Neoconservative Influence
Late Summer 1996: Neoconservatives Push for War with Iraq, Reshaping of Middle East to Favor Israel
After Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the United States (see July 8-10, 1996), US neoconservatives mount an orchestrated push for war against Iraq and an overall reshaping of the Middle East (see July 8, 1996). At first, the offensive takes place in the pages of US newspapers and magazines. William Kristol and Robert Kagan write articles for the magazines Foreign Policy and the Weekly Standard; syndicated columnists Charles Krauthammer and A. M. Rosenthal use their columns to push the idea; Zalmay Khalilzad and Paul Wolfowitz pen op-eds for the Washington Post; “Clean Break” co-author David Wurmser writes op-eds for the Wall Street Journal and publishes a book, Tyranny’s Ally, in which he proposes that the US use its military to literally redraw the map of the Middle East (see Late Summer 1996). Neoconservatives are transforming Christian evangelicals’ argument that Americans are God’s “chosen people” into secular terms, and argue in their op-eds and articles that it is, in author Craig Unger’s words, the US’s “moral duty to project that greatness throughout the world—using American military power, if necessary.” [Unger, 2007, pp. 148-149]
Entity Tags: Robert Kagan, A. M. Rosenthal, Benjamin Netanyahu, David Wurmser, Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay M. Khalilzad
Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence
1997: Neoconservative Advocates Forcible, Bloody Retaking of Palestinian Land by Israel
Neoconservative Douglas Feith writes a position paper entitled “A Strategy for Israel.” Feith proposes that Israel re-occupy “the areas under Palestinian Authority control” even though “the price in blood would be high.” [Commentary, 9/1997; American Conservative, 3/24/2003; In These Times, 3/13/2007] Feith is the co-author of the 1996 position paper “A Clean Break” (see July 8, 1996), which advocates a similar aggressive posture for Israel. [In These Times, 3/13/2007]
Entity Tags: Douglas Feith
Timeline Tags: Neoconservative Influence
January 30, 2001: First National Security Council Meeting Focuses on Iraq and Israel, Not Terrorism
The Bush White House holds its first National Security Council meeting. The focus is on Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. [Bamford, 2004, pp. 261] This meeting sets the tone for how President Bush intends to handle foreign affairs. Counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke wants to focus on the threat from al-Qaeda and Islamist terrorism, especially in light of the recent attack on the USS Cole (see October 12, 2000). But Bush isn’t interested in terrorism. [Unger, 2007, pp. 201]
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict to be 'Tilted Back Towards Israel' - Instead, Bush channels his neoconservative advisers, particularly incoming Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz (see February 18, 1992 and April-May 1999), in taking a new approach to Middle East affairs, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Referring to President Clinton’s efforts to make peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, Bush declares: “Clinton overreached, and it all fell apart. That’s why we’re in trouble. If the two sides don’t want peace, there’s no way we can force them. I don’t see much we can do over there at this point. I think it’s time to pull out of the situation.… We’re going to correct the imbalance of the previous administration on the Mideast conflict. We’re going to tilt it back towards Israel.” His view is that the Israeli government, currently headed by Ariel Sharon, should be left alone to deal as it sees fit with the Palestinians. “I’m not going to go by past reputations when it comes to Sharon. I’m going to take him at face value. We’ll work on a relationship based on how things go.” Justifying his position, he recalls a recent trip he took to Israel with the Republican Jewish Coalition. “We flew over the Palestinian camps. Looked real bad down there.… I don’t see much we can do over there at this point.” Secretary of State Colin Powell, surprised by Bush’s intended policy towards the 50-year old Israeli-Palestinian conflict, objects. According to Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neil, Powell “stresse[s] that a pullback by the United States would unleash Sharon and the Israeli army.” When Powell warns the president that the “consequences of that [policy] could be dire, especially for the Palestinians,” Bush shrugs. “Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things,” he suggests. [Bamford, 2004, pp. 265-266; Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004] In this and subsequent meetings, Bush’s National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, “parrot[s]… the neocon line,” in author Craig Unger’s words, by discussing Iraq. “Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region,” she says, clearly alluding to regime change and overthrow in that nation (see March 8, 1992, Autumn 1992, July 8, 1996, Late Summer 1996, Late Summer 1996, 1997-1998, January 26, 1998, February 19, 1998, September 2000, Late December 2000 and Early January 2001, and Shortly after January 20, 2001). [Unger, 2007, pp. 201]
Possible WMD Sites in Iraq Spark Bush to Order Plans for Ground Assaults - The meeting then moves on to the subject of Iraq. Rice begins noting “that Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region.” She turns the meeting over to CIA Director George Tenet who summarizes current intelligence on Iraq. He mentions a factory that “might” be producing “either chemical or biological materials for weapons manufacture.” The evidence he provides is a picture of the factory with some truck activity, a water tower, and railroad tracks going into a building. He admits that there is “no confirming intelligence” on just what is going on at these sites. Bush orders Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Hugh Shelton to begin preparing options for the use of US ground forces in Iraq’s northern and southern no-fly zones in support of a native-based insurgency against the Hussein regime. [Bamford, 2004, pp. 267; Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004] Author Ron Suskind later sums up the discussion: “Meeting adjourned. Ten days in, and it was about Iraq. Rumsfeld had said little, Cheney nothing at all, though both men clearly had long entertained the idea of overthrowing Saddam.” Defense Intelligence Agency official Patrick Lang later writes: “If this was a decision meeting, it was strange. It ended in a presidential order to prepare contingency plans for war in Iraq.” [Middle East Policy Council, 6/2004]
Regime Change Intended from the Outset - US Secretary of the Treasury Paul O’Neill, later recalls: “From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go.… From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime. Day one, these things were laid and sealed.” O’Neill will say officials never questioned the logic behind this policy. No one ever asked, “Why Saddam?” and “Why now?” Instead, the issue that needed to be resolved was how this could be accomplished. “It was all about finding a way to do it,” O’Neill will explain. “That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this.’” [CBS News, 1/10/2004; New York Times, 1/12/2004; Guardian, 1/12/2004; Vanity Fair, 5/2004, pp. 234] Another official who attends the meeting will later say that the tone of the meeting implied a policy much more aggressive than that of the previous administration. “The president told his Pentagon officials to explore the military options, including use of ground forces,” the official will tell ABC News. “That went beyond the Clinton administration’s halfhearted attempts to overthrow Hussein without force.” [ABC News, 1/13/2004] Unger later writes, “These were the policies that even the Israeli right had not dared to implement.” One senior administration official says after the meeting, “The Likudniks are really in charge now.” [Unger, 2007, pp. 201]
Funding the Iraqi National Congress - The council does more than just discuss Iraq. It makes a decision to allow the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an Iraqi opposition group, to use $4 million to fund efforts inside Iraq to compile information relating to Baghdad’s war crimes, military operations, and other internal developments. The money had been authorized by Congress in late 2004. The US has not directly funded Iraqi opposition activities inside Iraq itself since 1996. [Guardian, 2/3/2005]
White House Downplays Significance - After Paul O’Neill first provides his account of this meeting in 2004, the White House will attempt to downplay its significance. “The stated policy of my administration toward Saddam Hussein was very clear,” Bush will tell reporters during a visit to Mexico In January 2004. “Like the previous administration, we were for regime change.… And in the initial stages of the administration, as you might remember, we were dealing with desert badger or fly-overs and fly-betweens and looks, and so we were fashioning policy along those lines.” [New York Times, 1/12/2004]
Entity Tags: Richard B. Myers, Hugh Shelton, Paul O’Neill, George W. Bush, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, George J. Tenet, Condoleezza Rice, Craig Unger, Iraqi National Congress
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion
Shortly After September 11, 2001: Pentagon Officials Wolfowitz and Feith Set Up Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group
David Wurmser (left) and Michael Maloof (right). [Source: ThinkProgress.org (left) and PBS (right)]Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith set up a secret intelligence unit, named the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group (CTEG—sometimes called the Policy Counterterrorism Evaluation Group), to sift through raw intelligence reports and look for evidence of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. [Risen, 2006, pp. 183-184; Quarterly Journal of Speech, 5/2006 ]
Modeled after "Team B" - The four to five -person unit, a “B Team” commissioned by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and modeled after the “Team B” analysis exercise of 1976 (see November 1976), is designed to study the policy implications of connections between terrorist organizations. CTEG uses powerful computers and software to scan and sort already-analyzed documents and reports from the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and other agencies in an effort to consider possible interpretations and angles of analysis that these agencies may have missed due to deeply ingrained biases. Middle East specialist Harold Rhode recruits David Wurmser to head the project. Wurmser, the director of Middle East studies for the American Enterprise Institute, is a known advocate of regime change in Iraq, having expressed his views in a 1997 op-ed piece published in the Wall Street Journal (see November 12, 1997) and having participated in the drafting of the 1996 policy paper for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (see July 8, 1996). F. Michael Maloof, a former aide to Richard Perle, is also invited to take part in the effort, which becomes known internally as the “Wurmser-Maloof” project. Neither Wurmser nor Maloof are intelligence professionals [Washington Times, 1/14/2002; New York Times, 10/24/2002; Mother Jones, 1/2004; Los Angeles Times, 2/8/2004; Reuters, 2/19/2004; Quarterly Journal of Speech, 5/2006 ] , but both are close friends of Feith’s.
Countering the CIA - Since the days of Team B, neoconservatives have insisted the CIA has done nothing but underestimate and downplay the threats facing the US. “They have a record over 30 years of being wrong,” says Defense Policy Board member Richard Perle, who adds that the CIA refuses to even allow for the possibility of a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda—one of the topics that most interests Wurmser and Maloof. [Unger, 2007, pp. 226-227]
Finding Facts to Fit Premises - Maloof and Wurmser set up shop in a small room on the third floor of the Pentagon, where they set about developing a “matrix” that charts connections between terrorist organizations and their support infrastructures, including support systems within nations themselves. Both men have security clearances, so they are able to draw data from both raw and finished intelligence products available through the Pentagon’s classified computer system. More highly classified intelligence is secured by Maloof from his previous office. He will later recall, “We scoured what we could get up to the secret level, but we kept getting blocked when we tried to get more sensitive materials. I would go back to my office, do a pull and bring it in.… We discovered tons of raw intelligence. We were stunned that we couldn’t find any mention of it in the CIA’s finished reports.” Each week, Wurmser and Maloof report their findings to Stephen Cambone, a fellow member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC—see January 26, 1998) neoconservative and Feith’s chief aide. George Packer will later describe their process, writing, “Wurmser and Maloof were working deductively, not inductively: The premise was true; facts would be found to confirm it.” CTEG’s activities cause tension within the intelligence community. Critics claim that its members manipulate and distort intelligence, “cherry-picking” bits of information that support their preconceived conclusions. Although the State Department’s own intelligence outfit, the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), is supposed to have access to all intelligence materials circulating through the government, INR chief Greg Thielmann later says, “I didn’t know about its [CTEG’s] existence. They were cherry-picking intelligence and packaging it for [Vice President] Cheney and [Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld to take to the president. That’s the kind of rogue operation that peer review is intended to prevent.” A defense official later adds, “There is a complete breakdown in the relationship between the Defense Department and the intelligence community, to include its own Defense Intelligence Agency. Wolfowitz and company disbelieve any analysis that doesn’t support their own preconceived conclusions. The CIA is enemy territory, as far are they’re concerned.” Wurmser and Maloof’s “matrix” leads them to conclude that Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and other groups with conflicting ideologies and objectives are allowing these differences to fall to the wayside as they discover their shared hatred of the US. The group’s research also leads them to believe that al-Qaeda has a presence in such places as Latin American. For weeks, the unit will attempt to uncover evidence tying Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks, a theory advocated by both Feith and Wolfowitz. [Washington Times, 1/14/2002; New York Times, 10/24/2002; Mother Jones, 1/2004; Los Angeles Times, 2/8/2004; Quarterly Journal of Speech, 5/2006 ; Unger, 2007, pp. 226-227]
Denial - Defending the project, Paul Wolfowitz will tell the New York Times that the team’s purpose is to circumvent the problem “in intelligence work, that people who are pursuing a certain hypothesis will see certain facts that others won’t, and not see other facts that others will.” He insists that the special Pentagon unit is “not making independent intelligence assessments.” [New York Times, 10/24/2002] The rest of the US intelligence community is not impressed with CTEG’s work. “I don’t have any problem with [the Pentagon] bringing in a couple of people to take another look at the intelligence and challenge the assessment,” former DIA analyst Patrick Lang will later say. “But the problem is that they brought in people who were not intelligence professionals, people were brought in because they thought like them. They knew what answers they were going to get.” [Unger, 2007, pp. 226-227]
Dismissing CIA's Findings that Iraq, al-Qaeda are Not Linked - One example is an early CTEG critique of a CIA report, Iraq and al-Qaeda: Interpreting a Murky Relationship. CTEG notes that the CIA included data indicating links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and then blast the agency for “attempt[ing] to discredit, dismiss, or downgrade much of this reporting, resulting in inconsistent conclusions in many instances.” In CTEG’s view, policy makers should overlook any equivocations and discrepancies and dismiss the CIA’s guarded conclusions: “[T]he CIA report ought to be read for content only—and CIA’s interpretation ought to be ignored.” Their decision is powered by Wolfowitz, who has instructed them to ignore the intelligence community’s view that al-Qaeda and Iraq were doubtful allies. They also embrace the theory that 9/11 hijacker Mohammad Atta met with an Iraqi official in Prague, a theory discredited by intelligence professionals (see December 2001 and Late July 2002). Author Gordon R. Mitchell refers to the original Team B in calling the critique “1976 redux, with the same players deploying competitive intelligence analysis to sweep away policy obstacles presented by inconvenient CIA threat assessments.” In 1976, the Team B members were outsiders; now they are, Mitchell will write, “firmly entrenched in the corridors of power. Control over the levers of White House bureaucracy enabled Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to embed a Team B entity within the administration itself. The stage was set for a new kind of Team B intelligence exercise—a stealth coup staged by one arm of the government against the other.” [Quarterly Journal of Speech, 5/2006 ; Agence France-Presse, 2/9/2007]
Stovepiping Information Directly to White House - The group is later accused of stovepiping intelligence directly to the White House. Lang later tells the Washington Times: “That unit had meetings with senior White House officials without the CIA or the Senate being aware of them. That is not legal. There has to be oversight.” According to Lang and another US intelligence official, the two men go to the White House several times to brief officials, bypassing CIA analysts whose analyses they disagreed with. They allegedly brief White House staffers Stephen Hadley, the deputy national security adviser, and Lewis “Scooter” Libby, chief of staff for Vice President Richard Cheney, according to congressional staffers. [Washington Times, 7/29/2004] In October 2004, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) will conclude, “[T]he differences between the judgments of the IC [intelligence community] and the DOD [Department of Defense] policy office [CTEG] might have been addressed by a discussion between the IC and DOD of underlying assumptions and the credibility and reliability of sources of raw intelligence reports. However, the IC never had the opportunity to defend its analysis, nor point out problems with DOD’s ‘alternative’ view of the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship when it was presented to the policymakers at the White House.” Levin will add, “Unbeknownst to the IC, policymakers were getting information that was inconsistent with, and thus undermined, the professional judgments of the IC experts. The changes included information that was dubious, misrepresented, or of unknown import.” [Quarterly Journal of Speech, 5/2006 ]
Passing Intelligence to INC - According to unnamed Pentagon and US intelligence officials, the group is also accused of providing sensitive CIA and Pentagon intercepts to the US-funded Iraqi National Congress, which then pass them on to the government of Iran. [Washington Times, 7/29/2004] “I knew Chalabi from years earlier,” Maloof later recalls, “so I basically asked for help in giving us direction as to where to look for information in our own system in order to be able to get a clear picture of what we were doing. [Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress] were quite helpful.” [Unger, 2007, pp. 226-227]
CTEG Evolves into OSP - By August 2002, CTEG will be absorbed into a much more expansive “alternative intelligence” group, the Office of Special Plans (OSP—see September 2002). Wurmser will later be relocated to the State Department where he will be the senior adviser to Undersecretary Of State for Arms Control John Bolton.(see September 2002). [American Conservative, 12/1/2003; Mother Jones, 1/2004; Quarterly Journal of Speech, 5/2006 ]
Public Finally Learns of CTEG's Existence - Over a year after its formation, Rumsfeld will announce its existence, but only after the media reveals the existence of the OSP (see October 24, 2002).
Entity Tags: Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group, David Wurmser, Donald Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith, F. Michael Maloof, Harold Rhode, Lewis (“Scooter”) Libby, Gordon R. Mitchell, ’Team B’, Stephen J. Hadley, Paul Wolfowitz, Greg Thielmann, Richard Perle
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
February 21, 2002-March 4, 2002: Former Ambassador Visits Niger to Investigate Allegations that Iraq Attempted to Purchase Uranium
Joseph Wilson. [Source: public domain]The CIA sends Joseph C. Wilson, a retired US diplomat, to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from that country (see February 13, 2002). The CIA pays Wilson’s expenses for the trip, but does not pay him in any other respect. The identity of the party who requests the mission is later disputed. While Wilson will claim the trip was requested directly by Dick Cheney’s office, other sources will indicate that the CIA had decided (see February 19, 2002) that a delegation to Niger was needed in order to investigate questions raised by one of Dick Cheney’s aides (see (February 13, 2002)). [New York Times, 5/6/2003; Washington Post, 6/12/2003 ; Independent, 6/29/2003; New York Times, 7/6/2003; US Congress, 7/7/2004]
Reason behind Request - Former CIA analyst Melvin Goodman will later note that “Wilson was asked to go to Niger for one specific purpose. It was the CIA’s idea to get Cheney off their backs. Cheney would not get off their backs about the yellowcake documents. They couldn’t get Cheney to stop pressing the issue. He insisted that was the proof of reconstitution of [Iraq’s nuclear] program.” [Dubose and Bernstein, 2006, pp. 214]
Normal Skepticism - Wilson goes into the situation with a healthy dose of skepticism. “My skepticism was the same as it would have been with any unverified intelligence report, because there is a lot of stuff that comes over the transom every day,” he will recall in 2006. Wilson knows nothing of the influence of the Pentagon neoconservatives (see July 8, 1996, January 26, 1998, July 1998, September 2000, Late December 2000 and Early January 2001, Shortly after January 20, 2001, and Shortly After September 11, 2001) or the growing rift in the intelligence community over the reports: “I was aware that the neocons had a growing role in government and that they were interested in Iraq,” he will recall. “But the administration had not articulated a policy at this stage.” He is not given a copy of the Niger documents before leaving for Africa, nor is he told of their history. “To the best of my knowledge, the documents were not in the possession of the [CIA] at the time I was briefed,” he will recall. “The discussion was whether or not this report could be accurate. During this discussion, everyone who knew something shared stuff about how the uranium business worked, and I laid out what I knew about the government in Niger, what information they could provide.” With this rather sketchy preparation, Wilson leaves for Niger. [Unger, 2007, pp. 240; Wilson, 2007, pp. 113] Wilson’s wife, senior CIA case officer Valerie Plame Wilson, will later write, “He figured that if the vice president had asked a serious and legitimate question, it deserved a serious answer and he would try to help find it.” [Wilson, 2007, pp. 111]
No Trouble Finding Information - Wilson, who knows the Nigerien government and many of its officials, has little trouble finding the information he needs in the following week. In 2006, he will recall: “Niger has a simplistic government structure. Both the minister of mines and the prime minister had gone through the mines. The French were managing partners of the international consortium [which handles Niger’s uranium]. The French mining company actually had its hands on the project. Nobody else in the consortium had operators on the ground.” Wilson also personally knows Wissam al-Zahawie, Iraq’s ambassador to the Vatican who supposedly negotiated the uranium deal with Niger (see February 1999). Wilson will later observe: “Wissam al-Zahawie was a world-class opera singer, and he went to the Vatican as his last post so he could be near the great European opera houses in Rome. He was not in the Ba’athist inner circle. He was not in Saddam [Hussein]‘s tribe. The idea that he would be entrusted with the super-secret mission to buy 500 tons of uranium from Niger is out of the question.” [Unger, 2007, pp. 240-241] Wilson meets with, among other officials, Niger’s former minister of mines, Mai Manga. As later reported by the Senate Intelligence Committee (see July 9, 2004), Manga tells Wilson “there were no sales outside of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) channels since the mid-1980s,” and he “knew of no contracts signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of uranium.” Manga says a “French mining consortium controls Nigerien uranium mining and keeps the uranium very tightly controlled from the time it is mined until the time it is loaded onto ships in Benin for transport overseas,” and, “it would be difficult, if not impossible, to arrange a special shipment of uranium to a pariah state given these controls.” [CounterPunch, 11/9/2005]
Meeting with US Ambassador - Wilson arrives in Niger on February 26, two days after Marine General Carlton W. Fulford Jr.‘s meeting (see February 24, 2002) with Nigerien officials. Wilson first meets with US Ambassador to Niger Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, a veteran Foreign Service official, whom Wilson will later describe as “crisp” and well-informed. Over tea in the US Embassy offices in Niamey, Niger’s capital, Owens-Kirkpatrick tells Wilson that she has already concluded that the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq are unfounded. “She had already debunked them in her reports to Washington,” Wilson will later recall. “She said, yeah, she knew a lot about this particular report. She thought she had debunked it—and, oh, by the way, a four-star Marine Corps general had been down there as well—Carlton Fulford. And he had left satisfied there was nothing to report.” [Wilson, 2004, pp. 20-22]
Details of Alleged Uranium Production - Niger extracts uranium from two mines, both located in remote locations in the Sahara Desert. It takes well over a day to drive from the mines to Niamey. The mines are owned by a consortium of foreign companies and the Nigerien government, and managed by a French mining company, COGEMA. Because of a recent upswing in the production of Canadian uranium, Niger’s uranium is mined at a net loss, and its only customers are consortium members. Wilson will later write, “[T]he Nigerien government has sold no uranium outside the consortium for two decades.” If Iraq had bought 500 tons of uranium, as the story is told, that would have represented a 40 percent production increase. “There is no doubt,” Wilson will later write, “that such a significant shift from historic production schedules would have been absolutely impossible to hide from the other partners, and most certainly from the managing partner, COGEMA. Everyone involved would have known about it.” Any Nigerien government decision to produce such an amount of uranium would have involved numerous government officials and many well-documented meetings. Because the transaction would have been to a foreign country, Niger’s Foreign Ministry would also have been involved in the decision. To sell Iraq uranium during that time would have been a violation of international law and of UN sanctions against Iraq, a weighty decision that would have ultimately been made by the president of Niger in conjuction with the foreign minister and the minister of mines. Such a decision would have been published in the Nigerien equivalent of the Federal Register and would have dramatic tax and revenue implications. The unexpected huge infusion of cash from the sale would have had a strong impact on the Nigerien economy, and would have been much anticipated and talked about throughout the Nigerien business community. [Wilson, 2004, pp. 22-25]
Off-the-Books Production Virtually Impossible - It is conceivable that such an enormous operation could have been conducted entirely “off the books,” Wilson will write, but virtually impossible to pull off. True, a military junta was in power at the time of the alleged sale, one that felt no responsibility or accountability to the Nigerien people. But even a secret transaction would have been impossible to conceal. Such a transaction would have involved thousands of barrels of clandestinely shipped uranium, extensive and complex adjustments to shipping schedules, and other ramifications. “It simply could not have happened without a great many people knowing about it, and secrets widely known do not remain hidden for long. And again, COGEMA, as the managing partner, would have had to know and be complicit.” Add to that Niger’s dependence on US foreign economic aid and its unwillingness to threaten the loss of that aid by secretly shipping uranium to a country that the US considers a dangerous rogue nation. All told, Wilson concludes, the possibility of such a clandestine operation is remote in the extreme. [Wilson, 2004; Wilson, 2004]
1999 Meeting with Iraqi Official - While speaking with a US Embassy official, Wilson learns about a 1999 meeting between the embassy official and an Iraqi representative in Algiers, perhaps in concert with a similar meeting between Iraqi officials and Niger’s prime minister (see June 1999). [Wilson, 2004, pp. 27-28]
Confirmation that Allegations are Unrealistic - After spending several days talking with current government officials, former government officials, and people associated with the country’s uranium business, Wilson concludes the rumors are completely false. He will later call the allegations “bogus and unrealistic.” [Washington Post, 6/12/2003 ; Knight Ridder, 6/13/2003; Independent, 6/29/2003; New York Times, 7/6/2003; CBS News, 7/11/2003; Vanity Fair, 1/2004; Wilson, 2004, pp. 20-28, 424; Vanity Fair, 5/2004, pp. 282; Wilson, 2007, pp. 113]
Entity Tags: Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, Wissam al-Zahawie, Carlton W. Fulford, COGEMA, Mai Manga, Valerie Plame Wilson, Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf, Melvin A. Goodman, Central Intelligence Agency, Richard (“Dick”) Cheney, Joseph C. Wilson
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Niger Uranium and Plame Outing
May 2002: Wilson Breaks Decade-Long Silence to Speak out against Iraq War
Former ambassador Joseph Wilson participates in the annual conference of the American Turkish Council. One of the keynote speakers is Richard Perle, the neoconservative head of the Defense Policy Board and the chief author of the 1996 position paper “A Clean Break,” which argued for the forcible redrawing of the political map of the Middle East (see July 8, 1996). In 1996, Perle had called for the overthrow of the Iraqi government. At the conference, Perle makes the same call. Wilson will later recall being deeply troubled by Perle’s “fire and brimstone” speech. The next afternoon, when Wilson is scheduled to speak, he voices his concerns over Perle’s position. Although he had journeyed to Niger to learn the truth or falsity about the Iraq-Niger uranium claims (see February 21, 2002-March 4, 2002), he has not spoken publicly about Iraq in over a decade. He does so because he urgently feels that Perle’s views need to be countered. “No decision is more important than that to send a nation’s sons and daughters to a foreign land in order to kill and perhaps die for their country,” he will write. “As a democracy, we are all participants in that decision. Not to speak out would amount to complicity in whatever decision was taken.” Wilson tells the assemblage that “if we were prepared to entertain the possibility that in coming year Iraq might be reduced to a chemical, biological, and nuclear wasteland, then we should march in lockstep to the martial music played by Perle; if not, we should think about alternatives to war.” His partner at the podium, former Turkish military commander Cevik Bir, is, Wilson will recall, “even more strident than me in his opposition to military action.” The audience, “largely American and Turkish businessmen, [largely] agreed with us,” Wilson will recall. For his part, Perle has long since departed the conference. Wilson will later write: “As I discovered while debating the issue, the prowar advocates were little inclined to listen to the views of others. They had made up their minds long ago, and now it was a matter of ramming their agenda through the decision-making process.” [Wilson, 2004, pp. 291-292]
Entity Tags: Richard Perle, American Turkish Council, Joseph C. Wilson, Cevik Bir
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Niger Uranium and Plame Outing
February 28, 2003: Wilson Explains ‘Shock and Awe’ Strategy, Rationale for ‘Re-growing the Middle East’
On PBS’s NOW with Bill Moyers, former ambassador Joseph Wilson explains why he does not believe the administration’s impending war with Iraq is necessary or warranted. Wilson, as he has said before (see February 13, 2003), is for aggressive, coercive inspections and what he calls “muscular disarmament.” But, Wilson says, President Bush does not want a disarmed Saddam Hussein: “I think he wants a dead Hussein. I don’t think there’s any doubt about it.” Bush is giving Iraq no incentives to disarm because he is not interested in disarmament, he wants nothing less than to overthrow Hussein. “I think war is inevitable,” he says. “Essentially, the speech that the president gave at the American Enterprise Institute (see February 26, 2003) was so much on the overthrow of the regime and the liberation of the Iraqi people that I suspect that Saddam understands that this is not about disarmament.”
'Shock and Awe' - Moyers asks Wilson about the US tactic of “shock and awe” that he has heard is being considered for the opening strikes of the US invasion (see March 19, 2003). Wilson says: “From what I understand about shock and awe, it will be a several day air assault in which they will drop as much ordinance in four or five days as they did during the 39-day bombing campaign of the Gulf War.… Missiles, bombs, precision bombs. I believe the president and our military officials, when they say they will do everything to minimize casualties to the civilian population. But it was difficult to imagine dropping that much ordinance on a population of four million people without having a lot of casualties that are unanticipated. A lot of civilian casualties.” Wilson is pessimistic that even such a massive opening assault might, as Moyers asks, touch off a rebellion against Hussein or a mass retreat and exodus of Hussein’s ground forces. While “you might well have a bloody uprising in Baghdad in which pits essentially the Iraqi population against the Republican Guard in Saddam’s palace, I think far more likely, is that most Baghdadis will just simply go into hiding and try and avoid getting hit by this American ordinance and/or getting killed by the Republican Guard.”
Redrawing the Map of the Middle East - Wilson believes that one of the biggest reasons why Bush is invading Iraq instead of working to disarm the Iraqi regime is because Bush is committed to what he calls “re-growing the political map of the Middle East.” He explains: “[T]hat basically means trying to install regimes in the Middle East that are far more friendly to the United States—there are those in the administration that call them democracies. Somehow it’s hard for me to imagine that a democratic system will emerge out of the ashes of Iraq in the near term. And when and if it does, it’s hard for me to believe that it will be more pro-American and more pro-Israeli than what you’ve got now.” Wilson says that Bush is implementing plans drawn up in the 1990s by neoconservatives such as Richard Perle (see July 8, 1996), which provide “the underpinning of the—of the philosophical argument that calls for basically radically changing the political dynamics in the Middle East and… to favor American national security interests and Israeli national security interests which are tied.”
Recipe for Anti-American Demagoguery - Such a grand agenda will be far more difficult to implement than Perle, Bush, and others believe, Wilson says. “I’ve done democracy in Africa for 25 years,” he says. “And I can tell you that doing democracy in the most benign environments is really tough sledding. And the place like Iraq where politics is a blood sport and where you have these clan, tribal, ethnic and confessional cleavages, coming up with a democratic system that is pluralistic, functioning and, as we like to say about democracies, is not inclined to make war on other democracies, is going to be extraordinarily difficult.” Wilson provides the following scenario: “Assuming that you get the civic institutions and a thriving political culture in the first few iterations of presidential elections, you’re going to have Candidate A who is likely going to be a demagogue. And Candidate B who is likely going to be a populist. That’s what emerges from political discourse. Candidate A, Candidate B, the demagogue and the populist, are going to want to win elections of the presidency. And the way to win election is enflame the passions of your population. The easy way for a demagogue or a populist in the Middle East to enflame the passion of the population is to define himself or herself by their enemies. And the great enemy in the Middle East is Israel and its supplier, the United States. So it’s hard to believe, for me, that a thriving democracy certainly in the immediate and near-term and medium-term future is going to yield a successful presidential candidate who is going to be pro-Israel or pro-America.”
Losing Focus on al-Qaeda - Wilson believes that the US has lost its focus on pursuing Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. “The game has shifted to Iraq for reasons that are confused to everybody,” he says. “We have been sold a war on disarmament or terrorism or the nexus between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction or liberation. Any one of the four. And now with the president’s speeches, you clearly have the idea that we’re going to go in and take this preemptive action to overthrow a regime, occupy its country for the purposes, the explicit purposes of fostering the blossoming of democracy in a part of the world where we really have very little ground, truth or experience. And, certainly, I hope along with everybody that the president in his assessment is correct. And that I am so wrong that I’m never invited to another foreign policy debate again.… Because if I am right, this could be a real disaster.” [PBS, 2/28/2003; Wilson, 2004, pp. 320-321]
Entity Tags: Richard Perle, George W. Bush, Bush administration (43), Bill Moyers, Saddam Hussein, Joseph C. Wilson
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Niger Uranium and Plame Outing
March 2007: Journalist Calls Neocon Policy Paper ‘A Playbook for US-Israel Foreign Policy During Bush-Cheney Era’
Craig Unger. [Source: David Shankbone/Public Domain]Author and journalist Craig Unger writes that the 1996 Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies policy paper, “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” (see July 8, 1996), was “the kernel of a breathtakingly radical vision for a new Middle East. By waging wars against Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon, the paper asserted, Israel and the US could stabilize the region. Later, the neoconservatives argued that this policy could democratize the Middle East.” Unger’s thoughts are echoed by neoconservative Meyrav Wurmser, an Israeli-American policy expert who co-signed the paper with her husband, David Wurmser, now a top Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney. Mrs. Wurmser (see March 2007) calls the policy paper “the seeds of a new vision.” While many of the paper’s authors eventually became powerful advisers and officials within the Bush administration, and implemented the policies advocated in the paper in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the paper’s focus on Iran has been somewhat less noticed. Former Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, for whom the paper was written, has observed, “The most dangerous of these regimes [Iran, Syria, and Iraq] is Iran.” Unger writes, “Ten years later, ‘A Clean Break’ looks like nothing less than a playbook for US-Israeli foreign policy during the Bush-Cheney era. Many of the initiatives outlined in the paper have been implemented—removing Saddam [Hussein] from power, setting aside the ‘land for peace’ formula to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon—all with disastrous results.” [Vanity Fair, 3/2007]
Entity Tags: Richard (“Dick”) Cheney, David Wurmser, Craig Unger, Saddam Hussein, Bush administration (43), Hezbollah, Meyrav Wurmser, Benjamin Netanyahu, Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, US International Relations, Iraq under US Occupation, Neoconservative Influence
February 19, 2009: Perle Denies Any Neoconservative Influence in Bush Administration
In a speech at the Nixon Center, neoconservative guru Richard Perle (see 1965 and Early 1970s) attempts to drastically rewrite the history of the Bush administration and his role in the invasion of Iraq. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank writes that listening to Perle gave him “a sense of falling down the rabbit hole.” Milbank notes: “In real life, Perle was the ideological architect of the Iraq war and of the Bush doctrine of preemptive attack (see 1987-2004, Late December 2000 and Early January 2001, March, 2001, Shortly After September 11, 2001, September 15, 2001, September 19-20, 2001, November 14, 2001, November 14, 2001, November 18-19, 2001, May 2002, August 16, 2002, November 20, 2002, January 9, 2003, February 25, 2003, and March 27, 2003). But at yesterday’s forum of foreign policy intellectuals, he created a fantastic world in which:
Perle is not a neoconservative.
Neoconservatives do not exist.
Even if neoconservatives did exist, they certainly couldn’t be blamed for the disasters of the past eight years.” [Washington Post, 2/20/2009]
Perle had previously advanced his arguments in an article for National Interest magazine. [National Interest, 1/21/2009]
'No Such Thing as a Neoconservative Foreign Policy' - Perle tells the gathering, hosted by National Interest: “There is no such thing as a neoconservative foreign policy. It is a left critique of what is believed by the commentator to be a right-wing policy.” Perle has shaped the nation’s foreign policy since 1974 (see August 15, 1974, Early 1976, 1976, and Early 1981). He was a key player in the Reagan administration’s early attempts to foment a nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union (see Early 1981 and After, 1981 and Beyond, September 1981 through November 1983, May 1982 and After, and October 11-12, 1986). Perle denies any real involvement with the 1996 “Clean Break” document, which Milbank notes “is widely seen as the cornerstone of neoconservative foreign policy” (see July 8, 1996 and March 2007). Perle explains: “My name was on it because I signed up for the study group. I didn’t approve it. I didn’t read it.” In reality, Perle wrote the bulk of the “Clean Break” report. Perle sidesteps questions about the letters he wrote (or helped write) to Presidents Clinton and Bush demanding the overthrow of Saddam Hussein (see January 26, 1998, February 19, 1998, and September 20, 2001), saying, “I don’t have the letters in front of me.” He denies having any influence on President Bush’s National Security Strategy, which, as Milbank notes, “enshrin[ed] the neoconservative themes of preemptive war and using American power to spread freedom” (see May 1, 2001), saying: “I don’t know whether President Bush ever read any of those statements [he wrote]. My guess is he didn’t.” Instead, as Perle tells the audience: “I see a number of people here who believe and have expressed themselves abundantly that there is a neoconservative foreign policy and it was the policy that dominated the Bush administration, and they ascribe to it responsibility for the deplorable state of the world. None of that is true, of course.” Bush’s foreign policy had “no philosophical underpinnings and certainly nothing like the demonic influence of neoconservatives that is alleged.” And Perle claims that no neoconservative ever insisted that the US military should be used to spread democratic values (see 1965, Early 1970s, Summer 1972 and After, August 15, 1974, 1976, November 1976, Late November, 1976, 1977-1981, 1981 and Beyond, 1984, Late March 1989 and After, 1991-1997, March 8, 1992, July 1992, Autumn 1992, July 8, 1996, Late Summer 1996, Late Summer 1996, 1997, November 12, 1997, January 26, 1998, February 19, 1998, May 29, 1998, July 1998, February 1999, 2000, September 2000, November 1, 2000, January 2001, January 22, 2001 and After, March 12, 2001, Shortly After September 11, 2001, September 20, 2001, September 20, 2001, September 20, 2001, September 24, 2001, September 25-26, 2001, October 29, 2001, October 29, 2001, November 14, 2001, November 20, 2001, November 29-30, 2001, December 7, 2001, February 2002, April 2002, April 23, 2002, August 6, 2002, September 4, 2002, November 2002-December 2002, November 12, 2002, February 2003, February 13, 2003, March 19, 2003, December 19, 2003, March 2007, September 24, 2007, and October 28, 2007), saying, “I can’t find a single example of a neoconservative supposed to have influence over the Bush administration arguing that we should impose democracy by force.” His strident calls for forcible regime change in Iran were not what they seemed, he says: “I’ve never advocated attacking Iran. Regime change does not imply military force, at least not when I use the term” (see July 8-10, 1996, Late Summer 1996, November 14, 2001, and January 24, 2004).
Challenged by Skeptics - Former Reagan administration official Richard Burt (see Early 1981 and After and May 1982 and After), who challenged Perle during his time in Washington, takes issue with what he calls the “argument that neoconservatism maybe actually doesn’t exist.” He reminds Perle of the longtime rift between foreign policy realists and neoconservative interventionists, and argues, “You’ve got to kind of acknowledge there is a neoconservative school of thought.” Perle replies, “I don’t accept the approach, not at all.” National Interest’s Jacob Heilbrunn asks Perle to justify his current position with the title of his 2003 book An End to Evil. Perle claims: “We had a publisher who chose the title. There’s hardly an ideology in that book.” (Milbank provides an excerpt from the book that reads: “There is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or holocaust. This book is a manual for victory.”) Perle blames the news media for “propagat[ing] this myth of neoconservative influence,” and says the term “neoconservative” itself is sometimes little more than an anti-Semitic slur. After the session, the moderator asks Perle how successful he has been in making his points. “I don’t know that I persuaded anyone,” he concedes. [Washington Post, 2/20/2009]
'Richard Perle Is a Liar' - Harvard professor Stephen Walt, a regular columnist for Foreign Policy magazine, writes flatly, “Richard Perle is a liar.” He continues: “[K]ey neoconservatives like Douglas Feith, I. Lewis ‘Scooter’ Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, and others [were] openly calling for regime change in Iraq since the late 1990s and… used their positions in the Bush administration to make the case for war after 9/11, aided by a chorus of sympathetic pundits at places like the American Enterprise Institute, and the Weekly Standard. The neocons were hardly some secret cabal or conspiracy, as they were making their case loudly and in public, and no serious scholar claims that they ‘bamboozled’ Bush and Cheney into a war. Rather, numerous accounts have documented that they had been openly pushing for war since 1998 and they continued to do so after 9/11.… The bottom line is simple: Richard Perle is lying. What is disturbing about this case is is not that a former official is trying to falsify the record in such a brazen fashion; Perle is hardly the first policymaker to kick up dust about his record and he certainly won’t be the last. The real cause for concern is that there are hardly any consequences for the critical role that Perle and the neoconservatives played for their pivotal role in causing one of the great foreign policy disasters in American history. If somebody can help engineer a foolish war and remain a respected Washington insider—as is the case with Perle—what harm is likely to befall them if they lie about it later?” [Foreign Policy, 2/23/2009]
Entity Tags: Richard Perle, Jacob Heilbrunn, Lewis (“Scooter”) Libby, George W. Bush, Douglas Feith, Dana Milbank, Bush administration (43), Stephen Walt, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Burt
Timeline Tags: Events Leading to Iraq Invasion, Neoconservative Influence
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=western_support_for_islam...
counterpunch
thank you, this is why ZH is such a great site, and you, CP/HD, are doing such important work.
stop the long posts dick
counterpuke,
Were your children successful when wearing bombs in blowing up Israeli school busses?
You mad, hasbro?
fractal rabbi house of saud
temporal illusions
what lieth within the cube.
king salman is it
solomon is it
an mi6 cia demon king
jewish royalty is it
energy harvest ing projects
a saturnick transfer neutrino negative is it
satan connection
nuclear is it
seal of solomon all satan is it
controlling demons A
demon core nuclear is it
a cube on a rabbi head
must hurt
a cube in mecca medina what energy power
a cube in un prayer room ohh dear
electric cull poor tesla
blood is it masonic
salman yer say
not king solomon
this is not a jewish issue
whatever
Jibberish Macht Frei .... afraid to reveal your twisted thoughts in plain English ? I accuse you of "Faux Gravitas" !
nice avatar mosher
no twisting jitterbugging or mossad dancing here
silverstein
The Saudi ruling elites have very heavy sin.
SA beheading, USA electric chair'ing or lethal injection'ing...
Why you get all surprised, boys ?
Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel's targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi'ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north. It is possible that the present Iranian-Iraqi confrontation will deepen this polarization.
The entire Arabian peninsula is a natural candidate for dissolution due to internal and external pressures, and the matter is inevitable especially in Saudi Arabia. Regardless of whether its economic might based on oil remains intact or whether it is diminished in the long run, the internal rifts and breakdowns are a clear and natural development in light of the present political structure.
- A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eightiesfrom...
“The machiavelian threefold game of the neoconservatives”
Sudan's President claims CIA and Mossad 'stand behind' Isis and Boko HaramGood ol' Jonestown speculates that CIA is behind ISIS and leaves out Mossad. And The City. Some decent comments...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfBBF4_hkDQ
Your hours and hours of efforts to source quotes from Muzzie crackpots are evident.
If you shake hands with a Christain White Person, does it really make your dick drop off?
The US supports Saudi Arabia because of democracy. Move along.
Look, Saudia Arabia has about the moral authority of Nazi Germany. EXCEPT they have oil and price it in dollars in exchange for US military hardware. So important is this relationship that we even overlook the fact that their citizens knocked down two towers in New York. Enough said.
It was 3 towes, the Saudis were patsies, and elements of the US and Israeli neocon/Likudnik governments were responsible. Israel had much to gain, S.A. did not, and the evidence already provided in links and quotes may not amount to a smoking gun, but it is substantially more than evidence provided re Saudi official complicity.
Of course, if you're sufficiently brainwashed by msm, which, I promise you, employs brainwashing techniques, so as to blame SA because the religious fanatics who liked to drink and smoke and fornicate were Saudi, but refuse to even consider Israeli/sayanim/neocon means, motive, opportunity, etc. - then you can not see what is right in front of you.
The question only you can answer is whether you are willing and able to look at all the evidence and follow wherever it leads.
if you concur that those responsible deserve punishment, then you should consider carefully whether SA or Israel has been the larger beneficiary, whose 'agents' were all over the us gov, and whose devotees wrote policy papers advocating that which we see unfolding in Iraq, Syria, and beyond.
No one is suggesting that Israel's hands are clean of that event. Neither those of the US. And bldg 7 didn't come down because random "office fires" softened all of the steel box columns at the exact same time to the exact same degree causing the entire structure to fail and the building to symetrically collapse into its own footprint at freefall speed, even allowing for the "basement fire / explosion" conjecture. I get that. But nothing has been proven.
SA's moral transgressions I object to here have to do with its treatment of political dissidents and its lack of respect for basic human rights. No ruler or poitical establishment is ever beyond public criticism. Period. Even one that has to deal with the Wahabist lunatics.
It's getting more and more messy out there. Not really strange since what you sow you'll reap, in this body or the next. Indeed, the law of karma. Just look at the amount of crazy, degraded activities going on in the name of "humanism", "democracy" and "equality". Hare Krishna.
Also : Saudis to buy nukes from Pakistan... see : sunday times...
ytf do we support this trash in saudi, we need to overthrow them and put a democracy in there
I agree. If there is one thing America is good at, it's overthrowing evil tyrants and installing Freedom Loving Jeffersonian Democracies all over the globe. We're exceptional at it. That's why all foreign peoples love us.
Still better here bitchez.
forex strong dollar.
"Now take him to be tortured."
https://youtu.be/N_wDqrvMHa0
So long as the beheadings are done in one fell swoop like that of a guillitine, it looks more cruel than it is. Lethal injection takes longer and for all we know, may be more painful. Beheadings are more about scaring the crap out of others that might threaten to do the same stuff as those that are being beheaded.
I've often wondered when contemplating the method I would use on the Wall Street Jews who contrived the Mortgage Banking Crisis, took more than a trillion dollars in fees, "bonuses", salaries, and other self-dealing maneuvers, packaging worthless paper and selling it to the world in the most scandalous, unpunished, rewarded no less, behavior the world has ever known, the true extent of which we will never know because of the bribery by the likes of Lord Blankfein, Dick Fuld, Jimmy Cayne, Alan Greenspan, Tim Geithner, Pete Orszag, Ben Bernanke, Mary Shapiro, J Yell, Jack Lew, and all the other schmucks who remain at large, splashing around in the lap of luxury looking at the rest of the 99% with contempt.
If separating the head from the body of these miscreants would somehow punish them, that even though they are bleeding profusely from the head are there a few seconds b 4 the lights go permanently out, that thay are thinking, "shit, what the hell did I do to deserve this"?
I do believe that there are some seconds that the eletrochemical charge remains alive in the brain long enough that if they saw the rest of their body a few feet away, just bleeding out and then realize their head is not attached to it, that they must experience a horror that renders them into total shock.
I can live with those few seconds as some retribution, as long as they are forced to disgorge ALL the trilions they amassed during their career of bribery, fraud, theft, and likely murder.
The greatest torture for them would be to take their ill gotten gains and burn them slowly before their eyes.
Lot of crap talking people on here tongiht. If you were in Saudi Arabia you wouldn't be talking smack, or it would be you who were crucified.
Good observation Death by Cold,
Muzzies are now tracking down bloggers and killing them in the streets.
Yeah, but we're not in Saudi so we can talk truthfully without worrying about being picked up by the sand gestapo.
What a stupid comment. We're NOT in Saudi Arabia.
The US should rid itself of lethal injection and start executing the condemned via intact dilation and extraction of the condemn's brain. I have it from no less than the President of the United States that this procedure is painless. Its the same procedure we use in late term abortions. Barack Obama wouldn't support that procedure so ardently if it was painful. But just to be sure, we can poll the condemned after the procedure so we can certify we're getting the same positive testimony as we get from the fully formed babies after they undergo the procedure.
I prefer firing squads. Simple, cheap, reliable, and effective. There is also no shortage of guns in the US, or qualified marksmen - unlike execution drugs, which are manufactured by foreign companies.
"Both teenagers were tortured and denied access to lawyers, and faced trials that failed to meet international standards. All three prisoners, including Mr Al Nimr, have not yet exhausted their legal appeals."
Hahaha, and what is a lawyer worth when you're charged for insulting the King?
The King IS the law. And if he is not the law, its sharia!
American "Exceptional" Hypocrisy
USA and Saudi Arabia are both puppets of the talmud-Zionists. That`s all to know.
Resorting to disgusting public display is a sign The Saudi house of torture and chaos are getting very nervous. Once the populace lose their fear its over these motherf'''''rs.
ISIS and Al Qaeda are based on Saudi ideology.
There's a real nut ball streak on ZH. 911 never happened along with the moon landing? Flying a large jet into a building is well within the reach of minimal flight training directed at minimal manuevers. The rag head probably would have crashed the plane if he attempted a safe landing because THAT takes some extensive expeerience and knowledge. No one who flies has any doubt someone could be taught to grab a stick and learn thrust and rudder pedals and AIM.
Saudia Arabia is wahabbi central and the miserable rags need to drown in thier own piss. Same for the Shia Iran. Oh wait......let's suck thier camel jack and give them a nuke.
Thanks hasbara. Now go off and collect your fee.
Saudi Arabia seem so much worse than Syria or Libya (under Gadhafi).
Proving there is nothing new under the sun.
Again.
The New York Post Reports – FBI is Covering Up Saudi Links to 9/11 Attack
New Saudi King Unveils Internal Power Shake-up in Desperate Pivot Toward Increased Authoritarianism
Already 45 Beheadings in 2015 – Saudi Arabia on Pace to Easily Beat 2014’s Decapitation Level
Saudi Arabia Sentences 3 Lawyers to Jail for Tweets
Record Beheadings and the Mass Arrest of Christians – Is it ISIS? No it’s Saudi Arabia
How the NSA is Actively Helping Saudi Arabia to Crackdown on Dissent
Saudi Arabia Passes New Law that Declares Atheists “Terrorists”
Impose Sanctions for crimes against Humanity, Or do the Bankers that control the Politicians not want to loss profits that control their bonuses? The American way is Failing and their dumbed down population can not see it coming.
There will be a point when the avenue of escape is "MOAR WARS"
The IMF, UN, and Nato are implemented to Condition and Control, which when the population is starved will find many to join the Rank and File. A march to the death. No one will win in a Nuclear Conflict.
Bait and switch. The Saudis provided money and patsies. The real work was done by Ziocons in America with the help of Mossad.
Public executions as such aren't barbaric. On the contrary, that's how they should be done. Let people bring the children. Sell them tickets. Let them see justice done.
Give the scum of the earth reason to think twice before raping a white woman or murdering a shopkeeper for refusing to give them credit for cheap malt liquor---or counterfeiting or stiffing depositors on gold and silver coin left in their care.
The real problem here is that the House of Saud have permission to kill people who are a threat to their rule, or for no reason at all, because they enjoy the grace and favour of our masters. Our masters trust the Saudis. Jews and Christians aren't to be allowed to take out the trash. Given carte blanche to rid their countries of arselifting swine, they might start in on banksters. Can't have that.
obamao would do this to his foes if he could get away with it-it's the commie/facsist way!
Them ruling Saudi Monarchs must be Bolsheviks.
Why isn't the US pressuring SA on their human rights violation? Isn't that one of which we're fighting in the ME to preserve?
The NWO should just nuke the palaces at this point. Why don't they move in and take them over. Nobody would complain and the NWO NATO states are about to have big trouble with their own citizens so why not? If there is to be war then let's take over the mid east starting with Israel and then Saudi Arabia next. Nuke em Dukem. I'm ready to fight. I can't wait for the collapse any longer.
why saudi arabia dont want to attack israel?
They've had a productive working relationship for many years.
I spent some time in Riyadh when I was a kid because my dad was working over there on engineering projects. Then, it was just a sprawling low rise bunch of buildings with bits of modernity for contrast. The Saudi people were generally nice in town and we were invited to the homes of the hoi polloi, but when you went outside the city, it would be hard to find a more backward rabble of filthy xenophobic retards on the planet. A place of stark contrasts. I remember that their women stank of piss in the crowded soukhs and wondered whether these fat waddling ninjas just relieved themselves as they walked in their volumious black robes.
Anyway, this "Kingdom" is the source of the worst of all the cliches and stereotypes of Islam in the form of Wahabists. You will find genial, sophisticated muslims, secularists and intelligent people everywhere else in the region like Syria, Iraq (before the Americans made it a shithole) and Iran - people who are mostly the same as everyone else - but in Saudi Arabia, our supposed closest ally, everything I loathe about extremists and statists have come to fruition thanks to the legacy of the fucking CIA and the US State Dept nurturing the religious nutjobs to fight against the atheist communists during my lifetime.
This disgusting regime is an insult to humanity as a whole, in almost the same category as that other evil thieving warmongering middle eastern state called Israel. It is a dangerous path to start imagining whether the world would be a better place if certain people were removed from it, but by everything I hold dear I reckon future generations would benefit greatly from their demise along with most of the political whores on our side.
"in Saudi Arabia, our supposed closest ally, everything I loathe about extremists and statists have come to fruition thanks to the legacy of the fucking CIA and the US State Dept nurturing the religious nutjobs to fight against the atheist communists during my lifetime."
So the religious nut jobs are fighting against atheist communists? Who are the atheist communists? Obama? Valerie Jarret?
What an idiotic rambling post of a delusional mind.
That would be the Soviets. You're either too young to remember the Afghan war in the 80's when the Soviets were running things and the CIA was busy recruiting all the Islamic nutjobs in the world to fight them or you're an amnesiac. Either way, thanks for your input.
+100
Echoes my own (much more limited) experience of that hell hole.
exactly the kind of question the press should also ask: why do we "support the feudal, inhumane tyrannical monarchy of Saudi Arabia"?
great post ZH
Stop looking to the press.
Educate yourself.
The 'spiritual' home of the Religion Of Peace.
Figures.
It has become clear that the US government does what it's told. If it doesn't, KSA simply starts selling oil in currencies other than the dollar. Why else would the US support the useless war in Yemen.