It's Official - Conspiracy Theories About CIA Are True

Source: blogcritics.org

Written by Mike Green
Published June 23, 2007

The Washington Post has published an article announcing that the CIA plans to declassify decades of “dirty laundry” being referred to as “the family jewels.”

This announcement comes on the heels of numerous books, articles, and blogs that for many years have pointed to nefarious dealings by our government both inside and outside the country. Such conspiracies — conducted at the highest echelon of American leadership — have served to undermine the trust of the American people and endanger our republic from within.

Well, it’s official. With the public admission by the CIA, conspiracy theories about its corruption and the tyranny of the executive branch have finally been proven to be true. It is time for those who have long lambasted the scrutinizers of our government to quietly reflect on how wrong they were in placing complete trust in a lying leadership and to consider how much cover they provided for the “official” stories promoted by the government. Apparently, it is quite possible to carry out elaborate and enormous schemes utilizing thousands of personnel and still keep it secret. The CIA and other secret powers within our government have apparently been doing it for decades!

Vindication
“Conspiracy theorists” can now rejoice and mourn at the same time. The news finally disclosed by the CIA isn’t anything to smile about. Such a declarative statement to the American people ought to conjure the question, “What can we do about it?” The answer, unfortunately, is nothing.

Despite the revelation that the CIA has been involved in “a quarter-century of overseas assassination attempts, domestic spying, kidnapping and infiltration of leftist groups from the 1950s to the 1970s,” the debate will inevitably shift to the necessity of such illegal, immoral and unconscionable activities. There’s little doubt that the many thousands of loyalists to the CIA and other secret elements within the executive branch believed that keeping secrets from the American public was the pinnacle of their patriotic duty. And there is little doubt that today there is much more information has yet to be revealed.

Unconscionable Acts
Overthrowing the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953, considering an overthrow of the government of Italy during the same time frame, plotting the assassinations of various leaders in countries around the globe (remember Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez’ complaints, both past and present?), are all part and parcel of the machinations of an American tyrannical power that has no accountability. It does what it wants and operates how it pleases, despite the laws of man or God.

The likelihood is that the revelation by the CIA will take on a conciliatory tone — appealing to those who believe that America is superior to all other nations — and whatever actions that were used in the past aren’t being used today, but were necessary during a time of imminent danger to the American people.

Power Grab
The reality is that the CIA was born in the aftermath of WWII, and has expanded in scope and authority ever since. It has never been accountable to any authority outside of the executive branch, and has continuously taken the fall for the failure of leaders to recall anything when questioned about clandestine activities. Nevertheless, it has absorbed all criticism simply due to the fact that it cannot be de-funded, disbanded, controlled, or held accountable by the people of this republic. In short, it is its own power, conducting business in secret, establishing its own missions and goals, and operating under its own guidelines.

At the same time, we have Americans touting the value of freedom they unknowingly lost long ago. The freedom to complain to deaf ears isn’t of much value. The freedom to live under powers that cannot be controlled is nice as long as you aren’t the target of those powers. Unfortunately, the American people cannot even claim that.

Clandestine Company
Secret decisions and activities have been conducted in this country upon unwitting subjects since the secret elements within our government were empowered to exist. The Federal Reserve, which isn’t a government entity at all, controls the banking industry. Few Americans understand its history and how it works. Presidential orders and declarations of States of Emergency have served to empower entities within the executive branch to operate outside of legal mandates and in secrecy under the cover of “national security.”

Consider just a few of the known conspiracies by our government: The CDC conducted tests on unwitting black subjects for decades until such experiments were exposed in the '70s. The Pioneer Project was a pet of FDR, which used pilots in the Air Force in a eugenics experiment. Wars in Laos, Cambodia, the Philippines, El Salvador, Guatemala, Panama, and elsewhere were all products of secret decisions and actions taken by unaccountable powers operating under the guise of national security within the executive branch of the American government.

Expanded Power, Limited Liberty
Today, the executive branch has expanded yet again. The CIA being just one of those 16 powers that operate outside the view of the legislative and judicial branches and have no accountability to the American people or the media. The newly installed Department of Homeland Security — spawned from the events of 9/11 — is being used to conduct the next phase of operations by the executive branch, publicly known as the National Continuity Government. The “plan” for this new phase of clandestine operation within the country is due on the president’s desk in August. The declaration of such intent is on the website of the White House, thoroughly ignored by much of the national media.

Bed Partners
The most mournful of all epiphanies is the understanding of how intertwined the government is with media. The interrelationship goes further than who is sleeping with whom or who is married to whom. The national media, both in front of and behind the lens and the pen, is neck-deep in quicksand with the government. Consider that the leader of the executive branch is the President, and he, above all, would be in a position of knowledge about the information now being disclosed by the CIA. And consider the fact that under Bill Clinton the White House spokesman was George Stephanopoulos. Then consider the fact that ABC news, for many years, has featured the same spokesman as its anchor for a political program featuring its best celebrity journalists.

On the flip side of the coin, revered journalist Tony Snow jumps from FOX News into the arms of George W. Bush and becomes his patsy, singing the songs written by the White House in the same choir to which Stephanopoulos once belonged. The conflict of interest doesn’t stop with just these two examples.

9/11: The Role of U.S. Government
Such duplicity provides the backdrop behind the media that completely ignored the glaring contradictions proffered by the government in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Considering that the “war on terror” has become the rallying cry of the government since 2001, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (again) were conducted based upon 9/11 fears, the USA Patriot Act, the Dept. of Homeland Security and the various kidnappings, secret prisons, indefinite unlawful detainments, torture, and murders conducted by secret elements within our government all find their rationale rooted in 9/11. All this has required investigation by the national media and independent appointees by Congress.

But no such investigation was ever made or called for by our mainstream media. Furthermore, the so-called Congress failed as well to conduct its own inquiry and public probe into the executive branch’s numerous contradictions and outright lies regarding 9/11. In the end, both Congress and the national media were relieved to set the onus upon four widows from New Jersey who relentlessly pursued the White House, convincing it into reluctantly convening what was purported to be an “independent” investigation by the 9/11 Commission. The fact that this commission was headed by appointees of the White House and that the executive branch leaders refused to testify in public or under oath (and only to the appointees) apparently raised no eyebrows either in Congress or mainstream media. It seems obvious that the 9/11 Commission was no more “independent” than Tony Snow and George Stephanopoulos have integrity as journalists.

Failed Media
It is no wonder the media refuses to do its job in regard to the single most important event to occur in our lifetime. It is complicit. It was the media that immediately reported Osama bin Laden was responsible for 9/11, regurgitating spoon-fed unsubstantiated propaganda from secret elements within the government. Within 33 minutes of the hits on the twin towers, TV news was blaring it was Osama. The next day we read Osama’s name in the headlines both above and below the fold on the front pages of newspapers across the country.

Today, millions question the government’s version of what happened that day. And despite the fact that the media has no evidence of plane wreckage or bodies recovered in a Pennsylvania field, where a presumed crash took place, it has failed in any follow-up. Despite the fact that the president has made contradictory statements in public regarding what he knew and when he knew it, the press has given him a pass. Despite the fact that the government claims the plane that hit the Pentagon disintegrated after plowing through several layers of reinforced concrete without losing wings or tail (creating a missile-sized hole in each layer), the media has not investigated.

The media was nowhere to be found when the evidence concerning three towers falling into their own footprints was being carted off. And the media ignored streams of molten steel in the basement even though it was there for several weeks. These anomalies and many more make up part of the foundation of distrust of this administration and the government in general. Yet, the mainstream national media, with its constitutional mandate, has also failed the public.

National Dilemma
Since the CIA is coming forward to admit past lies and clandestine activities, the American people perhaps will now take a whole new look at our government. Perhaps now we will no longer cast aspersions upon those who pull back the curtain of deceit and reveal the truth behind a plethora of propaganda. Perhaps we will, as a nation, realize that Congress is also complicit and has failed to act on behalf of the American people.

Perhaps all of this is possible.

But realistically, the CIA’s contriteness will be viewed as past actions that could not, and would not occur today. The same power that reveals it could not be trusted in the past, will be thoroughly trusted today. The positions will have new names and there will be new rhetoric to assuage the conscience of America. And life will go on as it did in the past — with ever-evolving expanding secret powers in the executive branch, the duplicity and complicity of Congress and the media, while Americans boast about living in a land of freedom.

Conspiracy Analysts

It's official, we are no longer to be considered Conspiracy Theorist. Now, we are the people who analysis the conspiracy facts.

For a very

revealing and in depth look at the CIA, you may wish to read Tarpley's and Chaitkin's Chapter -XV- CIA DIRECTOR from George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography --- by Webster G. Tarpley & Anton Chaitkin. I would bet that this chapter is more revealing than anything the CIA may say about itself.....

I hadn't realized .... the whole thing appears to be on the web. I started backwards, reading 'Synthetic Terror' first.... now I'm going back to the first.

url: http://tarpley.net/bushb.htm

Show "Media complicity" by Ningen

"False images" like cartoon airplanes, Ningen?

Don't they ever give you a day off?

Noticed you in the other forum referring to 9/11 as a "surreal" media spectacle. You mean like "TV fakery" surreal?

At this point anyone who treads on that "no plane" garbage is either an idiot or dishonest. From your posts, you don't seem like an idiot. So why do you persist with this dishonesty? And why do you return to the same talking point, even though everyone in this forum flatly refuses to engage it? Only someone trying to disrupt would persist in such a manner.

I didn't say that, simuvac

The "surreal TV spectacle" was a comment of a German law scholar who said that was how 9/11 seemed to her when she saw it on television in Germany.

She did not mean "TV Fakery," and I did not make that claim in my message to the legal listserv.

I was merely pointing out that the event was as mediated for Americans as it was for Germans. The event was even mediated for people in New York, as I have discussed at my blog.

Yes, 9/11 was a TV spectacle, even if you don't believe that images were faked.

Do you know what "spectacle" means?

http://www.bopsecrets.org/SI/debord/1.htm

Once again, the false allegation is made that I am being paid, because I am obviously too smart to actually believe this.

What a sad joke, on me and you. Assuming you are being sincere, of course.

By the way, Simuvac, the innuendo can apply equally to you. What are you doing here on a Sunday afternoon? Is somebody paying you?

To answer your question of why I do this: because I think it is the truth, and that this truth is being purposefully suppressed. Is that your purpose?

+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
http://www.livevideo.com/socialservice
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

I'm quite familiar with Debord, thanks

I'm also quite familiar with your shtick.

There is absolutely no defense of TV fakery. None. It's very simple, really. And yet you repeatedly and subtly imply TV fakery without actually saying the words (as in, "9/11 was a TV spectacle, even if you don't believe that images were faked" -- as if there is another option...). On the surface it sounds like you are talking about some kind of Debordian reality, maybe even referencing Henry Giroux's recent book Beyond The Spectacle of Terrorism. But you're not. Your allusion to Debord is simply a cover for what you say you sincerely believe, and what is plastered all over your website: TV fakery.

Sure, we could talk about the media framing of 9/11. Many scholars have. We could talk about how the media were pumping Bin Laden's guilt before Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. We could talk about the way the mass media used party hacks and military men as "experts" when discussing the attacks on 9/11. We could mention the repetitious use of the image of the collapsing towers, or the video of celebrating Palestinians. We could talk about the fictional films that followed 9/11 and further erased any connection to the Real, or the way in which "based on the 9/11 Commission Report" has become a marker of realism when in reality it is a new fictional genre.

But that's not the kind of spectacle you are talking about, and none of your work references anything that suggests it is. Or have you been holding back your treatise on Jean Baudrillard?

As for why I'm here on a Sunday afternoon: I don't know. I guess I should ask you the same thing. But I won't, because I don't care. What I care about is the intent to spread disinformation like "TV fakery".

"I guess I should ask you the same thing. "

You can ask all you want. That's not what you did, simuvac.

Here's what you said:

"Don't they ever give you a day off?"

You claimed I was here at someone else's bidding, presumably for pay.

And you are again twisting my words. I was explaining what the German scholar might have meant by "surreal TV spectacle," after you hassled me about something I said in another blog. Debord seemed to fit the idea of a mediated reality, so I cited him. My point to the legal listserv was simply that 9/11 was a mediated reality for the vast majority of Americans, just as it was for Germans. I wasn't arguing TV Fakery, and the fact that I believe that does not preclude me from pointing out the media framing you describe well.

I skimmed Giroux's book at the bookstore. I have long admired his work on education, and as I recall he raises some interesting ideas in that book. But he's wrong, because he does not understand or will not acknowledge that 9/11 was a staged event. We all agree that 9/11 is a lie, whether or not we agree that false images were broadcast on 9/11. How sad that one of our most critical scholars reinforces this lie.

On the contrary, there's no evidence that planes hit the Twin Towers:

1. Impossible crash physics, well illustrated by the Purdue animation.

2. Impossible debris location, which Steven Jones has not been able to explain.

3. Witnesses who were in a position to see a plane, but did not.

4. No black boxes for any of the four planes. Pilots for 9/11 Truth has established that the "Flight 77" black box released by NTSB is not real because the data doesn't match impact with the Pentagon.

5. No debris found below the crash sites or evident in the videos. Wheels and fuselage pieces found beyond the towers on impossible trajectories don't count. No plausible debris for any of the four planes.

6. NORAD/NEADS and FAA confusion about whether radar blips were real or "inputs," with NEADS personnel watching CNN per Vanity Fair. No reason to accuse these folks of complicity.

7. Technological possibility (Amato: Lying With Pixels) and military doctrine and practice, as discussed in the Harvard article referenced here:

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/06/dangers-of-disinformation-in-wa...

8. Logistical reasons why planes would not be used:

http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=71

http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-they-didnt-use-757-to-hit-penta...

9. Finally, evidence of faked videos, skillfully compiled in September Clues.

I might add the media framing you describe, and described by the above article, because it shows complicity and forethought. This was the reason I made a simple comment, which you could have ignored or responded to in substance, rather than with slander.

In sum, no evidence that planes hit the World Trade Center, and ample grounds for believing that false images and false blips were broadcast on 9/11.

And yes, I sincerely believe it, which is why I put my name on it. Care to put a name to your slander?

Dwight Van WInkle

I'm still waiting for you to retract your slander

and I'm also waiting for you to address the substance of my arguments, which have been hidden above out of either ignorance or fear.

I've expanded on them here:

http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/06/summary-of-this-blogs-arguments...

Let's be clear what you have done, simuvac

You are accusing me of being dishonest in what I am saying here, and in attempting to disrupt.

You need to back that up. I have identified myself, you have not.

I made a simple comment, relevant to this blog. You have taken it upon yourself to attack me, accusing me of lying and of working for someone.

This is very serious business we are involved in, and I take your behavior very seriously.

In effect, you are accusing me of being an accessory after the fact to murder.

It is you that is purposefully disrupting my presentation of an argument.

Are you trying to suppress this argument? Are you working for someone?

You can help clear this suspicion by identifying yourself and who you work for.

If you are unwilling to do that , which is your prerogative, you need to stop with the baseless allegations.

Otherwise, you are not only a slanderer, you are a coward.

Dwight Van Winkle

ningen vs. simuvac

i disregard anything either one of you say due to your insistence on ruining thread after thread with your stupid arguments. let it go and start following 'the rules.'
__________________________
http://anti-neocons.com/

Moment of Truth?

Does anybody know why the CIA would publish this record of their blunders etc. It seems a little strange.

It is as if to say...

"We're not like that anymore. We don't do those kinds of things anymore. You have nothing to worry about."


Donate To 9/11 First Responders

A supposition;

A 'controlled demolition' to discredit whatever may possibly remain of it? Consider the several ways it is a relatively obsolete institution, both by modern innovation standards, and one with an outdated public profile. Could the "NSA" be next? Certainly, many activities advantageous to spheres of influence will march on, newly spirited back into the shadows like those once upon a time enjoyed by the 'old' NSA.

And chaff. Even considering the enormous dump of information as if little more than a cold pile of shit, the media attention and "conspiracy analyst" time-hog such a pile of poo will consume could also be enormous.

Chaff AND sandbags.