AlterPolitics New Post

Debate: Kurt Eichenwald v Ari Fleischer On Bush Admin’s Refusal To Heed CIA Warnings Of 9-11 Attacks

by on Wednesday, September 12, 2012 at 1:45 am EDT in Politics, War On Terror

Former NY Times reporter and bestselling author Kurt Eichenwald wrote a scathing NY Times Op-Ed Tuesday in which he revealed how the Bush Administration refused to heed MANY explicit (previously unknown) warnings of the impending 9-11 attacks.

His information is based upon Presidential Daily Briefings (PDBs) he obtained, which the Bush Admin had refused to release to the 9-11 Commission, and interviews he conducted with intelligence and Bush Admin officials for his new book, 500 Days: Secrets and Lies in the Terror Wars.

Eichenwald stated that the neocons at the Pentagon contested the C.I.A. warning briefs, assuring “the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled,” and that “Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein, whom the neoconservatives saw as a greater threat.”

The C.I.A. responded with an “analysis that all but pleaded with the White House to accept that the danger from Bin Laden was real.” The White House’s refusal to take action lead some officials at the C.I.A. counterterrorism group to contemplate requesting for transfers “so that somebody else would be responsible when the attack took place.”

The Op-Ed created a firestorm in the inner beltway, and the neocon response to Eichenwald was both swift and predictable. 

Immediately after the Op-Ed’s release, former Bush WH Press Secretary Ari Fleischer Tweeted the following,  in an attempt to marginalize Eichenwald as some loony conspiracy theorist:

CNN’s Anderson Cooper invited Eichenwald and Fleischer onto his show tonight to debate the facts underlying Eichenwald’s reporting, but Fleischer predictably resorts to ad hominem attacks, and demands Democrats share the blame for the Bush Admin’s gross negligence:


Welcome To The Police State, Where You Must Fear Your Freedoms

by on Friday, August 10, 2012 at 5:19 pm EDT in Justice System, Occupy Wall Street, Politics, WikiLeaks

Anaheim Military Police – by Tim Pool (UStream)

Since September 11, 2001, discerning Americans have watched in dismay as their government has stripped away their most basic freedoms, and continues to mutate into something resembling a police state.

Sweeping cell phone surveillance is used by all levels of law enforcement. The NY Times recently revealed that an astounding 1.3 million law enforcement demands were made to cell phone carriers last year alone.

The telecom and technology sectors record and store Americans’ text messages, emails, the data they store online, social site user info, internet activity, and cell phone subscriber whereabouts (via cellular GPS technology), and hand this data over to government agencies with alarming regularity.

Private citizens used to be deemed ‘off-limits’ to law enforcement surveillance, unless a judge could be convinced to grant a warrant. This was precisely what separated the United States from the despotic nations of the world. 

But now, all 315 million Americans are subject to warrant-less, Orwellian-style surveillance. The amount of data being collected daily on normal Americans trumps what might have been captured on made members of the Gambino or Genovese crime families just two decades ago. But unlike those notorious Mafiosi of yesteryear, Americans today are not legally protected from overreaching law enforcement, due to the kinds of data now being collected.

Two weeks ago, former NSA Technical Director William Binney shocked attendants at the DefCon hacker conference when he made this revelation:

[T]he NSA was indeed collecting e-mails, Twitter writings, internet searches and other data belonging to Americans and indexing it.

“Unfortunately, once the software takes in data, it will build profiles on everyone in that data,” he said. “You can simply call it up by the attributes of anyone you want and it’s in place for people to look at.”

He said the NSA began building its data collection system to spy on Americans prior to 9/11, and then used the terrorist attacks that occurred that year as the excuse to launch the data collection project.

“It started in February 2001 when they started asking telecoms for data,” Binney said. “That to me tells me that the real plan was to spy on Americans from the beginning.” […]

“The reason I left the NSA was because they started spying on everybody in the country. That’s the reason I left,” said Binney, who resigned from the agency in late 2001.

Now, WikiLeaks and the Anonymous hacktivist collective, have released new information garnered from the Stratfor email hacking of last December, that sheds light on a new secret TrapWire surveillance system. TrapWire was created by a N. Virginia company called Abraxas, whose employee roster “reads like a who’s who of agents once with the Pentagon, CIA and other government entities.” 

Unfortunately, you won’t be able to access the emails at WikiLeaks (or any of its mirror sites) today, because as the whistleblower group began to release the Stratfor emails related to TrapWire, it suddenly came under a uniquely powerful distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attack. The group’s administrator believes the attacks are state-sanctioned, as it is unlike any prior DDoS attack they have experienced. Here are a series of WikiLeaks Tweets from today, regarding the scale of these attacks: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

So what is TrapWire, and why has its leak created such a commotion? According to reporting at RT, TrapWire is a detailed surveillance system that “can collect information about people and vehicles that is more accurate than facial recognition, draw[s] patterns, and do[es] threat assessments of areas that may be under observation from terrorists.” Anything suspect gets input into the system to be “analyzed and compared with data entered from other areas within a network for the purpose of identifying patterns of behavior that are indicative of pre-attack planning.” 

According to the article, this system has been secretly installed in most major cities and around landmarks across the United States, in Canada, and in the UK. Most local police forces are installing their own monitoring software that works in conjunction with TrapWire. Private properties, including casinos, are now signing up to TrapWire. Essentially, it sounds like Big Brother identifying you, watching you, assessing your every move for abnormalities, then indexing your behavior.

With 9-11 as its catalyst, the imperative for 100% terrorist-attack prevention has emerged as the overriding national doctrine. Despite coming at the expense of Americans’ most basic rights, it is one of the few remaining issues that enjoys overwhelming bipartisan support.

Even the disturbing revelations surrounding Obama’s Kill List have provoked little, if any, scrutiny on Capitol Hill or in the mainstream media. As a U.S. citizen, you may now be assassinated by your own government, based on mere suspicion. No warrants, no due process, no trial, no oversight. You merely cease to exist at the mere whim of a single U.S. politician. If that level of despotic power doesn’t encapsulate everything we know to be true about police states, then what does?

Conventional wisdom now has it that to prevent another terrorist attack from occurring somewhere on U.S. soil, everyone should faithfully and obediently submit themselves to the realities of a police state. And to ensure your compliance, the FBI has even attempted to plant fear and suspicion of Americans who stubbornly continue to value their privacy. 

Are you concerned about online privacy? Do you pay cash for your coffee at your local coffee shop? Do you ever shield your laptop screen from fellow coffee shop customers, so that they cannot read your private emails? If you answered ‘yes’ to any of these, the FBI believes you fit the profile of a terrorist, and the agency has distributed flyers to coffee shops around the country asking them to report you. 

In other words, those same terrorists who Americans were told “attacked us for our freedoms,” now just so happen to be the very ones who value those freedoms the most, and act to preserve them. 

To create the intimidation factor required for any self-respecting police state, those who serve in our local police forces are now being militarized for the first time ever, as if the civilian population itself now poses as a national security threat.

Last year, while the occupy movement peacefully protested in cities across the country, a new-militarized police force presented itself, and moved to brutalize protesters exercising their rights to freedom of speech and assembly. It was as if these long-cherished American values had suddenly become viewed by our government as threats to its power. The scores of video footage capturing these egregious acts of brutality — from city to city, in a seemingly coordinated effort — resemble scenes carried out in faraway lands by despotic regimes. 

Here is the reality about freedom: you may have a bill of rights, but if you are brutalized anytime you attempt to exercise those rights, you eventually become intimidated from ever doing so. And that appears to be the new order in America.

The brutality against occupy protesters became such an issue for human rights groups, as well as media groups whose reporters were being assaulted (including NY Times, The Associated Press, The New York Post, The Daily News, Thomson Reuters, Dow Jones & Company, etc.), that even the U.N. felt compelled to intervene. Two U.N. human rights envoys petitioned the Obama Administration to “protect Occupy protesters against excessive force by law enforcement officials.” The White House completely ignored their petition, and did absolutely nothing to reign in, much less condemn, the brutality.

Legal experts from NYU and Fordham University filed complaints with the NYPD, the U.S. Department of Justice and the United Nations, accompanied by a 132 page report entitled Suppressing Protest: Human Rights Violations in the U.S. Response to Occupy Wall Street. The document “catalogs 130 specific alleged incidents of excessive police force, and hundreds of additional violations, including unjustified arrests, abuse of journalists, unlawful closure of sidewalks and parks to protesters, and pervasive surveillance of peaceful activists.” This document barely scratches the surface, since its scope is limited just to the police response in NYC. The group plans to release similar publications for Boston, Charlotte, Oakland, and San Francisco.

For those of you who believe that our nation’s dramatic shift towards a police-state is justifiable, in light of 9-11, you should know that nearly every police-state throughout history became so under the guise of national security threats. Most despotic regimes faced real, perceived, or sometimes manufactured threats to their national security. And most of them could point historians back to their own 9-11-like ‘turning point’.

For example, Adolph Hitler would surely point historians to the burning of the Reichstag building on February 27, 1933 as Germany’s ‘turning point’. He blamed the arson on the Communists (Note: some prominent historians believed the Nazis themselves were responsible for the arson). But regardless of who actually burned Reichstag, the Nazis capitalized on that crucial moment in a way that would forever change the course of history.

They used the shock and fear generated by that event as justification for the Reichstag Fire Decree. This new law suspended basic rights of all Germans and allowed detention without trial. Sound familiar? That was Hitler’s very first step in consolidating his power, and transforming Germany into a despotic regime.

A government shifting towards despotism always works to capitalize on a nation’s fear. It uses that fear as the impetus to strip its citizens of their inalienable rights. And unfortunately, once those rights have been fleeced, it often takes a full-scale revolution or war just to restore them. 

Gov’t Accountability: The Only Antidote To Conspiracy Theories

by on Tuesday, March 9, 2010 at 7:30 pm EDT in Politics

Lately there’s been a deluge of conspiracy theories seeping into the American political discourse.   Outside the JFK Assassination, the 9-11 conspiracy theory is perhaps the most popular of them all.  There are varying themes, depending on who’s doing the advocating.  Some suggest the government actually organized 9-11; others believe the government knew something of an impending attack, but ceased to do anything about it.  Both of these theories are built upon the idea that the attacks were a necessary spark for implementing an ideological shock doctrine (i.e. a precursor to launch a war) .

Disclaimer: for the record, I do not advocate for 9-11 conspiracy theories.  Additionally, I am not a structural engineer, and thus have little knowledge about the validity of their ‘evidence’, other than what I’ve stumbled upon online and seen on television.

However, in an attempt to demonstrate there is some plausibility, at least in part, to their assertions, consider the third building to collapse that day: World Trade Center Building #7:

Building #7 was not hit by any of the planes, but somehow managed to collapse in a perfect free-fall acceleration that afternoon.  The collapse itself has some historic significance:  it is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires — something previously deemed impossible.   That’s the official record — it was brought down by fires — the first of its kind.  The National Institute of Standards & Technology fact sheet highlights this point, as well as some other findings on the collapse of WTC7.

And now the plot thickens, as far as conspiracy is concerned:  The owner of WTC7, Larry Silverstein, stated in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY jointly decided to pull the building:

“I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.’ And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.”

WATCH the clip of the documentary:


I’ve read that for a building to collapse into its own footprint, as WTC7 did, ALL of the load bearing members must fail at the exact same moment — something achieved in controlled demolitions.  Assuming this is true — again, I’m not a structural engineer — there wouldn’t be enough time (in the hours between the plane attacks and building 7’s collapse) to rig such a massive building for controlled demolition.  It would have had to have been rigged with explosives well before the attacks, etc. etc.

See how these conspiracy theories are born?  But Again — just for the record — my knowledge in structural engineering is non-existent, so I can’t guarantee the validity of the statements I’ve made towards that end.  This is merely an attempt to provide a bird’s eye view into a common 9-11 conspiracy theory.

We’ll probably never fully understand all that transpired on 9-11, outside the official record, but as you can see, there are often compelling questions that underline these conspiracy theories; enough to make a reasonable person sit up, scratch his head, and wonder, WTF?  Which, of course, isn’t to say there aren’t legitimate answers out there that could, once and for all, put each and every one of these questions to rest.

This is why it is deplorable when the establishment sets out to destroy the reputation and marginalize anyone who doesn’t mechanically parrot whatever the establishment has deemed the ‘acceptable’ explanation for this Goliath of American disasters. Take Van Jones, who was pushed out of the Administration for having reservations, at one time or another, about 9-11:

Jones, who joined the administration in March as special adviser for green jobs at the CEQ, had issued two public apologies in recent days, one for signing a petition in 2004 from the group that questioned whether Bush administration officials “may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war” and the other for using a crude term to describe Republicans in a speech he gave before joining the administration.

And of course, as these conspiracy theories have spread like wildfire, the Administration has resorted to appointing people, like Cass Sunstein, to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which oversees policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs.  Sunstein advocates for the “cognitive infiltration” of groups who advocate for “conspiracy theories” like the ones surrounding 9/11:

[Sunstein] argued that the government should stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine” those groups.

But doesn’t Sunstein and others miss the point by not addressing the underlying cause of all this paranoia?  The point is that our government consistently acts in ways that erode public confidence in the accountability of government officials. This results in an environment that actually fosters paranoia and suspicion — an environment primed for incubating conspiracy theories.

There would be very few conspiracy theories if the government routinely launched independent investigations in a timely and transparent manner; thereby exemplifying its commitment to the rule of law.  This is about bridging the trust gap between the people and their government.  Attempting to infiltrate American conversations with government shills will only exacerbate public distrust — not quell it.


Despite the fact the WTC Building #7 conspiracy theory has floated around since 9-11-2001, the government actually delayed its investigation of the building for half a decade.  The reason?:  It decided NOT to hire new staff to support such an investigation.  This meant much of the evidence on the ground had been hauled off and disposed of years before the investigation was actually completed, thereby ensuring other independent sources couldn’t verify the government findings:

14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. […]

It is anticipated that a draft report will be released for public comment by July 2008 and that the final report will be released shortly thereafter.  […]

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.

Considering the US government throws money to the wind daily, it would come as a shock to most Americans to learn their government scoffed at hiring new staff members to conduct a thorough and timely investigation into one of the most catastrophic crimes ever committed against the United States of America: 9-11.  Do you see how this plays right into the hands of the conspiracy theorists?  You couldn’t make this stuff up.

And now we have a new President whom we hoped would bridge that trust gap between government and people.  And how has Obama responded?  Whenever he is asked whether he will appoint a special investigator to investigate the most egregious crimes of the Bush administration, including misleading us into an illegal war, torturing detainees, warrantless wiretapping, and the controversial firing of eight U.S. federal prosecutors, he routinely answers:

I prefer to look forward, not backward.

Talk about obliterating the trust between government and people!  But Obama took it yet a step further.  He actually threatened the British government not to allow its High Courts to reveal Bush Administration crimes, and has also intervened to shut down similar lawsuits in US courts.  Did you get that?  President Barack Obama is conspiring with administration and DOJ officials to blatantly cover up Bush Administration crimes.

And yet, isn’t that essentially the cornerstone of 9-11 conspiracy theories? — that the government has allegedly engaged in a conspiratorial cover-up of a heinous crime which members of the political establishment either orchestrated, or knowingly allowed to be carried out?  You don’t need to appoint Cass Sunstein, Mr. President.  You need to appoint special investigators to vigorously enforce the laws of this land.

Conspiracy theories will continue to thrive and flourish as long as accountability remains non-existent in our nation’s Capitol.

What Makes America Safer: Fiscal Stability, Or Chasing 100 Terrorists Around Afghanistan?

by on Friday, December 4, 2009 at 4:53 pm EDT in Afghanistan, Politics, World

In Obama’s Afghanistan speech at West Point, he announced he would be escalating our troop levels in Afghanistan by 30,000-35,000 to ensure those who attacked us on 9-11 are resoundingly defeated.  ABC News notes that Obama conveniently left out a very significant fact, when making his case: A senior U.S. intelligence official told the […]