Ex-CIA Robert Baer Questions Use of Torture, Official 9/11 Story

From tonight's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:
(excuse the poor quality)

Link to video: http://www.youtube.com/v/90B-Ii4lz3Q

Olbermann needs to get a

Olbermann needs to get a clue already.

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

From one none too rare perspective...

... in this topsy-turvy world lensed through MSM...

NOT getting kicked in the balls, as hard, is a sign of vast improvement these last several years.

Olbermann included. He said NOTHING but repeat Baer's name immediately after Baer said he questioned his own understanding of 911.

Don't forget Chris... the chasm between what you and I might think of reality vs. what very dangerous millions of "others" might think of it... is still vast. Absolutely VAST. I constantly have to remind myself, when talking constructively with friends and family... how the slightest jump in gears trying to bring in too much info at once... still makes them visibly sick just before they break away for another month, before returning for more.

Olbermann himself may have ties, limitations, and some degree of unnecessary self censorship... but even if ALL those stops were removed by/for him... recall Physiologist Jenkins' comment about the slow-ish pace of awakening that simultaneously eases the stresses that would otherwise put a destructive mob in the street by morning.

Olbermann makes me

pull my hair out. It's like the guy is describing every abuse at Auschwitz, perpetrated against ever last prisoner, but he can't say how/why they are there nor what's going to happen to them. I'm tired of being teased by this guy! Either say it or shut up!

I hear ya...

Intractable frustrations piss me off too because its frustrating when it seems intractable.

Koko, you're commenting on, and in a way asking about, seafaring (surfing) the crest of a wave of change at hand. Slightly too far ahead, and you risk getting your stern swamped and crushingly rolled under. Just slightly too far behind, a genteel breeze can push you off in the backside trough to languish.

If you can figure out how to both feed AND ride the wave, not the wave of fear used by those at the helm today but rather a wave of loving boldness, bravery, courage, fearlessness and valor... you'd have a key answer worth the leadership of humanities best.

If Olbermann isn't the best MK-Cointellingbird-Change-Agent-GateKeeper just posing as a sardonic Leftist to vs. O'Really's Right-y-ness... both working in near perfect harmony to boost the maintenance of the evil side of Hegelian P-R-S at the expense of a truer un-acted-out thesis-antithesis into limited democratic experiments in synthesis... if Olbermann IS NOT that....

I got a dollar that bets he too has a little trouble seeking answers to his own questions, and how to speak, move or act in spite of not having such answers. I still like Kieth, butt Oh'Bill is still an ass.

I agree

to a point... I will never defend O' Reilly who, imo, is nothing more than a 21st century version of Mort Downey w/out the cigarettes and the glow-in-the-dark choppers. Olbermann's deconstruction of Bill O and the Bushies is almost beautiful to listen to at times, but yes, it's also frustrating when you think of the opportunity that could be lost. With Olbermann's wit and compass there is a glaring need for him to do the most obvious thing and that is the deconstruction of the official exposition of events related to the Sept. 11 attacks (especially with the war on terror raging outside our windows /sarcasm).

It seems that you see this more as a course to be charted, while I see this as a closing window that we need to pass through in time. Anyone who's studied Nov. 1963 knows, knows that the WC was a complete fraud. You have a former CIA director on the Commission (a no-no) who had within the last few months been publicly canned and embarrassed by the very man whose assassination he was then supposed to investigate. Way too much to recount here for those who haven't looked at it much, but the majority of the public has never bought the lone-nut theory. And despite the fact that the lone-nut theory has fallen apart, as well as the emergence of much more info over the years, it's still not okay to bring up this topic in public.

Soon, other world events will emerge into the public debate that will make this topic less urgent, or even relevant --not to us maybe. But right now in the home stretch of the Bush presidency, and with an impending power shift in Nov. of next year, there will be a new course charted, and as evidence trickles out over the years and the picture becomes clearer, Bush will be a former president--viewed as much less dangerous--and there will be a call by some "not to dredge up the past" ... that it's more important for the country to look forward (like O'bama is already saying (no to accountability and truth, and yes to ignorance a moving forward--to me it's that kind of attitude that invites corruption). And as ridiculous as this may sound, it certainly worked well against the Kennedy researchers, many of whom were so driven by the need to know that they' ve spent 30 or more years of their life trying to bring the truth to light. Of course the public did get the second hearing in the late 70s which came to the conclusion that there was a probable conspiracy, and that's even after evidence was withheld and more people died just before their testimony. That senatorial committee concluded there was a probable conspiracy to kill the president, the majority of citizens believe it, yet the government's official position has never wavered from 'Oswald acted alone.'

However, after considering that, I still agree that if the campaign is too aggressive or forceful then there will be backlash. I just don't want to see a similar fate for this truth campaign.

Now we're talking!

Yes, I do think about the charts, and the weather, and the fuel supply, and that knocking rod in the eleventh cylinder threatening to snap us dead in the water of stormy seas, if we can't find a minute in safe harbor for repairs and supplies.

Yet steam we must for as you say, I do fully concur
It's like a window of millennial tides into Perth
We missed the last one, few more can be seen, now Fremantle isn't free
Hoist by bloody palm, nauty boys and girls, bail for it all it's worth...

We've got storms behind and storms ahead
And the shoals below are damn sharp.

(I know it's crap prose... but that's not my reason for being here... just read it)

Tele-projecting clever ideas dreamt up to foil an enemy, like publicly speaking (even just here in a silly blog), always runs risk against a foe we'd be fools to underestimate dropping the eaves. But I'll tell you what I'm thinking anyway (ha ha haaa), you meditate on ways and means to test and boost Keith's moral fiber and how he could weave some more of it.

I've got a few of my own ideas, but we'll both implement them UNSPOKEN... NON-coordinated... and simultaneous.

He may still be good for a media hero yet.

(asymmetric warfare's a fucking bitch... isn't, rummy breath?)

Good points, Erin

I guess an inevitable result of every day being All Hallow's Eve is that there are always ghosts lurking. But you gave me an old-fashioned idea in that prose of yours. Of course I will attempt to implement it in an unspoken, non-coordinated, yet simultaneous manner, but I won't promise anything... ; )

Why Choose Torture?

Because people will say anything if they are subjected to enough pain.

"I work for Al Kida"

"I am a terrorist"

"I hate your freedumbs"

If you need people to say things that aren't true, torture is highly effective.

The terrorists in orange suits are part of the script. Torture is an effective way to get the actors to read the lines.

Seems obvious to me.

Chips in the Ice.

Who cares about the quality. This is a great catch. I watch Keith regularly and haven't seen Robert Baer on there that I remember. Hopefully he becomes more of a regular guest. Ever little crack into the mainstream is a reason for hope to me. Thanks for making me aware of this one. Peace.

Email Keith & his producers: Encourage them to have Baer on as a more regular guest etc.


Quality is not important

This is a substance crowd at 911Blogger.com.

Great post!

Great find

Baer has always been an ambiguous figure in my mind, but at least here is clearly saying we can't trust the alleged confession of KSM.

For those of you who have not read the 9/11 Commission Report, you may wish to see page 146 on this subject. That is where the commissioners admit they did not meet the alleged detainees, they were not allowed to submit questions to the detainees, and they were not even allowed to submit questions to the alleged interrogators. In other words, "Here are some stories, America! Enjoy!"

Recommended reading (another case of the "former" official)

Robert Baer, Disinformation, and The Nation
From Jamey Hecht

"Baer's review is a heavy load of condescension, flustered contempt,
false dichotomies, and a few undisputed facts, borne along by that
old workhorse: the claim that elites can't possibly conspire in
something horrible (like the murder of an American President in 1963,
or three thousand people in NYC in 2001) and then execute it, because
(1) too many people would need to know in advance, and (2) once done,
it wouldn't remain a secret. "

Baer is honest, but...

... he needs to have the facts explained to him. For example, in his piece on the CIA OIG report, he writes, of a situation in January 2000 after the CIA had monitored Alhazmi and Almihdhar in Malaysia:
"An FBI agent assigned to the CIA wrote a telex to the FBI about al-Hazmi and al-Midhar but for reasons that are still unclear it was never sent."

The reasons are very clear once you look at who blocked the cable. It was Alec Station deputy chief Tom Wilshire, who repeatedly failed to inform the FBI the hijackers were in the US. For example, he re-read CIA cables about Alhazmi being in the US and Almihdhar having a US visa in May 2001, by which time he had been detailed to the FBI, but he allegedly did not realise there was a US connection he should tell the FBI about because, according to the 9/11 CR, "He was focused on Malaysia." (p. 268). The 9/11 Commission might write that a guy who was deputy chief of Alec Station for two and a half years could not appreciate there was a US connection when there one guy has arrived in the US and the other has a US visa because he is "focused on Malaysia," but Baer is not that stupid. He just needs to have the facts explained to him in a way he can understand. That's all.

btw, Robert Baer committed a false flag attack in the 1980s, framing Hezbollah.

It's in our faces, so don't make excuses for him.

Also important to read the source, just in time for an anniversary, wouldn't you know it.

review | posted September 9, 2004 (September 27, 2004 issue)
Dangerous Liaisons
Robert Baer

"Conspiracy theories are hard to kill. They've dogged virtually every national tragedy in our history, from the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln and John Kennedy to the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor and what David Ray Griffin now claims is our new Pearl Harbor: 9/11. What's different about this conspiracy theory is the degree to which it has been helped along by its main suspect: the Administration of George W. Bush.

"Conspiracy theories are hard to kill."

This is his job. He tells us in the open. He is not our friend even if he agrees with us on issues like torture.

Small correction for Mr. Baer

I believe the New Pearl Harbor claim was more accurately coined by Cheney et al i.e. Project For a New American Century. Important to keep in mind, the 9/11 Truth Movement does not create the conspiracy theories. We merely attempt to correct the original conspiracy theory. Remember this when they throw that bone at us.

You don't read deeply enough, Victronix.

In that quote Baer plugged Griffin's book and gave free publicity to it, not to mention 9/11 truth itself. Why did he do that? Why advertise Griffin's book? If Baer was really part of a conspiracy to "kill conspiracy theories" he would 1) Not mention them - pretend like they don't exist; 2) Accept they exist and laugh them off; or 3) Come out and say "I am an expert on terrorism and conspiracy theorists are completely wrong, here's why...". But instead, Baer says things like "I don't know what happened on 9/11" encouraging people to be skeptical about what they were told. And he mentions a book and author by name. You can find plenty of quotes from him where he seems to be "against" you, but keep in mind that, if you read between the lines, he seems to be exhibiting all the signs of someone who, while not openly admitting it, wants people to question 9/11.

It would not take me long....

To profess I was Bin Laden myself if they started some of the sick fucking things they know how to do after a thousand years of honing the art of torture..

They dose you with high levels of LSD and who knows what other concoctions they have.... Which on its own might be fine if you were experienced, but even if so and if not it would be the most trying experience of ones life... But then they torture you on top of that!!?!!

Then they want us to swallow that they got good information about it!!??

Notice how low key the news was of this guys "confession" was...They just want to slip this into us without us feeling it.

Confession my ass..

Torture doesn't work

Torture doesn't work according to an experienced CIA operations officer stationed in the Middle East. Yet we have officials in D.C. who desperately want the public to believe torture MUST be employed to prevent terror attacks. Most of the advocates of torture appear to be deeply involved in the 9/11 coverup. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Assistant to the President for Homeland Security Fran Townsend talks about torture (on the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer): Fran Townsend interview

She sounds exactly like George Tenet on 60 Minutes. They both employ double think.

'We do not torture.'

'We will do whatever it takes to prevent attacks.'

Hard to figure out Townsend. Lengthy government legal career. She headed the Justice Department's office of intelligence policy and review from 1998 to 2002. I believe Townsend is in charge of coordinating the COG plan which basically makes Bush a dictator if implemented. Rep. DeFazio was refused access to the plan. Townsend apparently knew FBI agent John O'Neill very well. Interview from Frontline: Fran Townsend Interview