 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dusty
Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 1264
Location: East Texas
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 5:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
The shadowy conspiracy theory gathers more evidence. The CIA connection.
Good link.
Dusty
Last edited by dusty on Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:19 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Uisguex Jack
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 Jul 2004
Posts: 613
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's interesting to see Patrick Langs name in there. I spent a hour yesterday going thru three year old transcripts from the 'news hour with Jim Leher'
Lang has been making waves and predicitons for three years straight now and he is allmost invariably wrong. I was unable to find the exact transcript, however just before we went into Baghdad he predicted massive cassulties and a months long battle.
What I did notice was a patern in all the transcripts I did find. There is a rhythem and patern to these 'roundtable' discusions of the 'News hour' show.
They regulary pass the focus of attention to Col. Lang to emphisize that something Bush or Rumsfeld has planed is wrong. The thing is in retrospect he, col. Lang was allmost always wrong.
In one instance he actually was giving a near 'blueprint' to the forces of Saddam Hussein in how to most effectively cut off the supply lines to the troops who had just made the greatest millitary advance in written history.
The plot does thicken.
I'll keep looking for links on the Leher news hour show... to include here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Makes me wonder where these 11 were and why no outcry 2 years ago. 
_________________
Clark County Conservative |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rdtf
CNO
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 2209
Location: BUSHville
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That other guy - Larry Johnson, I think - ex CIA guy on these news programs all the time - is really ticking me off with his big mouth too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shawa
CNO
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rdtf wrote
| Quote: | | That other guy - Larry Johnson, I think - ex CIA guy on these news programs all the time - is really ticking me off with his big mouth too. |
Larry Johnson was a brilliant analyst (NOT).
60 days before 911 he wrote this article in the New York Times, stating that the TERRORIST THREAT WAS DECLINING!!
From Free Republic:
| Quote: | The Declining Terrorist Threat
By Larry C. Johnson
July 10, 2001
WASHINGTON - Judging from news reports and the portrayal of villains in our popular entertainment, Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism. They seem to believe that terrorism is the greatest threat to the United States and that it is becoming more widespread and lethal. They are likely to think that the United States is the most popular target of terrorists. And they almost certainly have the impression that extremist Islamic groups cause most terrorism.
None of these beliefs are based in fact. While many crimes are committed against Americans abroad (as at home), politically inspired terrorism, as opposed to more ordinary criminality motivated by simple greed, is not as common as most people may think. At first glance, things do seem to be getting worse. International terrorist incidents, as reported by the State Department, increased to 423 in 2000 from 392 in 1999. Recently, Americans were shaken by Filipino rebels' kidnapping of Americans and the possible beheading of one hostage. But the overall terrorist trend is down. According to the Central Intelligence Agency, deaths from international terrorism fell to 2,527 in the decade of the 1990's, from 4,833 in the 80's.
Nor are the United States and its policies the primary target. Terrorist activity in 2000 was heavily concentrated in just two countries -- Colombia, which had 186 incidents, and India, with 63. The cause was these countries' own political conflicts.
While 82 percent of the attacks in Colombia were on oil pipelines managed by American and British companies, these attacks were less about terrorism than about guerrillas' goal of disrupting oil production to undermine the Colombian economy. Generally, the guerrillas shy away from causing casualties in these attacks. No American oil workers in Colombia were killed or injured last year.
Other terrorism against American interests is rare. There were three attacks on American diplomatic buildings in 2000, compared with 42 in 1988. No Americans were killed in these incidents, nor have there been any deaths in this sort of attack this year.
Of the 423 international terrorist incidents documented in the State Department's report "Patterns of Global Terrorism 2000," released in April, only 153 were judged by the department and the C.I.A. to be "significant." And only 17 of these involved American citizens or businesses.
Eleven incidents involved kidnappings of one or more American citizens, all of whom were eventually released. Seven of those kidnapped worked for American companies in the energy business or providing services to it -- Halliburton, Shell, Chevron, Mobil, Noble Drilling and Erickson Air-Crane.
Five bombings were on the list. The best known killed 17 American sailors on the destroyer Cole, as it was anchored in a Yemeni port, and wounded 39. A bomb at a McDonald's in France killed a local citizen there. The other explosions -- outside the United States embassy in the Philippines, at a Citibank office in Greece, and in the offices of Newmont Mining in Indonesia -- caused mostly property damage and no loss of life. In the 17th incident, vandals trashed a McDonald's in South Africa.
The greatest risk is clear: if you are drilling for oil in Colombia -- or in nations like Ecuador, Nigeria or Indonesia -- you should take appropriate precautions; otherwise Americans have little to fear.
Although high-profile incidents have fostered the perception that terrorism is becoming more lethal, the numbers say otherwise, and early signs suggest that the decade beginning in 2000 will continue the downward trend. A major reason for the decline is the current reluctance of countries like Iraq, Syria and Libya, which once eagerly backed terrorist groups, to provide safe havens, funding and training.
The most violent and least reported source of international terrorism is the undeclared war between Islamists and Hindus over the disputed Kashmir region of India, bordering Pakistan. Although India came in second in terms of the number of terrorist incidents in 2000, with 63, it accounted for almost 50 percent of all resulting deaths, with 187 killed, and injuries, with 337 hurt. Most of the blame lies with radical groups trained in Afghanistan and operating from Pakistan.
I am not soft on terrorism; I believe strongly in remaining prepared to confront it. However, when the threat of terrorism is used to justify everything from building a missile defense to violating constitutional rights (as in the case of some Arab-Americans imprisoned without charge), it is time to take a deep breath and reflect on why we are so fearful.
Part of the blame can be assigned to 24-hour broadcast news operations too eager to find a dramatic story line in the events of the day and to pundits who repeat myths while ignoring clear empirical data. Politicians of both parties are also guilty. They warn constituents of dire threats and then appropriate money for redundant military installations and new government investigators and agents.
Finally, there are bureaucracies in the military and in intelligence agencies that are desperate to find an enemy to justify budget growth. In the 1980's, when international terrorism was at its zenith, NATO and the United States European Command pooh-poohed the notion of preparing to fight terrorists. They were too busy preparing to fight the Soviets. With the evil empire gone, they "discovered" terrorism as an important priority.
I hope for a world where facts, not fiction, determine our policy. While terrorism is not vanquished, in a world where thousands of nuclear warheads are still aimed across the continents, terrorism is not the biggest security challenge confronting the United States, and it should not be portrayed that way.
Larry C. Johnson is a former State Department counterterrorism specialist. |
"TERRORISM IS NOT THE BIGGEST SECURITY CHALLENGE CONFRONTING THE UNITED STATES" ????
This so called COUNTERTERRORISM SPECIALIST wrote this pap 60 days before the horror of the 911 attack on our country!!!
And it seems he still has his head up his rear!!
_________________
“I love the man that can smile in trouble, that can gather strength from distress, and grow brave by reflection. ‘Tis the business of little minds to shrink; but he whose heart is firm, and whose conscience approves his conduct, will pursue his principles unto death.” (Thomas Paine, 1776) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rdtf
CNO
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 2209
Location: BUSHville
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Thanks Shawa for that! The MSM - all of them - need to see this and stop paying him as a consultant. I had no idea until now that he was a liberal p.o.s. loser. I'm pi$$$d. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dusty
Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 1264
Location: East Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Betcha they won't stop paying him and interviewing this 'expert' even if they know this.
His views are the ones they want us to believe. Anything but the truth.
Truth doesn't 'fit' their agenda.
Dusty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GM Strong
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 18 Sep 2004
Posts: 1579
Location: Penna
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
davman
Lieutenant
Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Posts: 205
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 8:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It is almost, if not, always ex-CIA "analysts" that attack the president. They were treated like gold during the Clinton administration, while operations officers were treated like the red headed step children! This is what wrought 9/11. Now that we have a president that realizes we need to put more emphisis on human intelligence, and not leave our security in the hands of arrogant analysts, like Larry Johnson, they are angry, and in attack mode. I know we have some good analysts, and they are necessary, but it is in our best interest not to have people like him around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coldwarvet
Admiral
Joined: 03 Jun 2004
Posts: 1125
Location: Minnetonka, MN
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | There are thousands of U.S. intelligence officers who work at a desk in the Washington, D.C., area every day who are undercover as Plame was when her identity was leaked, the 11 former officers said in a three-page statement. |
And how many officer opinions did the media ignore in order to find the eleven opinions they were looking for? Like the handful of Kerry's band of brothers the media embraced while ignoring the majority of those who served with Kerry who had a different opinion.
CWV
_________________
Defender of the honor of those in harms way keeping us out of harms way.
"Peace is our Profession"
Strategic Air Command - Motto
USAF 75-79 Security Police |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
post#40 on this Freeper thread
poster has excerpted several links re the CIA connection
intersting read...
| Quote: | | The farcical Plame/Wilson assault on Karl Rove is a shot across the bow of the White House. The spook bureaucracy is fighting for its perks, hand-in-hand with the Democrats and the media. This is exactly the same iron triangle that destroyed Richard Nixon. |
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Uisguex Jack
Rear Admiral
Joined: 26 Jul 2004
Posts: 613
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Kate, that 'freeper' thing does look interesting.
From just before the end of post#40: | Quote: | | Another explanation was provided by a former senior C.I.A. officer. He had begun talking to me about the Niger papers in March, when I first wrote about the forgery, and said, “Somebody deliberately let something false get in there.” He became more forthcoming in subsequent months, eventually saying that a small group of disgruntled retired C.I.A. clandestine operators had banded together in the late summer of last year and drafted the fraudulent documents themselves. |
At some point in time some one also created the 'Dan Rather' papers.... with the ever so lovely superscript fonts.
If one were to suppose the bulk of this #40 post is accurate, and if one were to suppose the Rather and Niger documents came if not from the same source, a very closely related source..... Then it is likely that between those involved in this Junta/Cabal some folks would have been pretty pissed when the Rather Gate thing blew up by way of incompetent forgery.
The NSA should have a way of forensically tracking down just exactly who, when and where all this is being operated from.
A good time to lower Jamie Gorreleck's 'straw wall' of seperation between criminal and intellegence investigations.
I personally tend to think none of this is coincidence and is dirrectly related to this national review piece, which brought me here in the first place:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pacepa200402260828.asp |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dusty
Admiral
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 1264
Location: East Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You can bet your bipey it's not coincidence. It's part of a conspiracy and each must play his/her part. A conspiracy bound together and actions generated not by face to face meetings but by ideology. But a conspiracy nontheless.
Uisguex Jack wrote:
| Quote: | | I personally tend to think none of this is coincidence and is dirrectly related to this national review piece, which brought me here in the first place: |
Dusty |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
