British diplomat feels Afghan war being lost: report
Story cites leaked cable from France's deputy ambassador in Kabul
Last Updated: Wednesday, October 1, 2008 | 10:14 AM ET
CBC News

A French newspaper has published what appears to be a diplomatic cable saying Britain's ambassador to Kabul thinks the West is losing the battle for Afghanistan.

The coded cable reproduced Wednesday in Le Canard Enchaîné seems to be from France's deputy ambassador to Afghanistan, François Fitou, describing a conversation he had with the British ambassador to Kabul, Sherard Cowper-Coles.

It says Cowper-Coles believes the West's war against Taliban forces in Afghanistan is being lost and the coalition that includes Canada's Armed Forces should leave an "acceptable dictator" in charge of the country within five to 10 years.

"We have no alternative to supporting the United States in Afghanistan, but we should tell them that we want to be part of a winning strategy, not a losing one," the cable paraphrases the ambassador as saying.

John MITCHELL
Herblay France

bonsoir,

This afternoon at 14h00 place de la République in Paris a very large number of French were together to manifest against the war in Afghanistan and especially to manifest against the vote next week for the guerre against Afghanistan
http://www.mediapart.fr/journal/france/090908/afghanistan-cette-guerre-n-est-pas-la-notre

The Franco Americans were at the end of the procession and are then in the last photos.

The last time we were only about a hundred but today there were many times more. If I find the number of persons I will update this page to give the number and the source of the information.

John MITCHELL
Herblay FRANCE

bonjour ,

at Herblay, if there is an increasing number of people who saying that George Bush is lying about 911 and that 911 was an inside job, I did not find a single Herblaysien to be with me today. Today made new contacts especially with Pascal and Jean. We will see in the weeks to come if they will go further than just words. Had many encouragements but am still wondering how so many people can except the bad things happening to day like our soldiers being sent to a useless death, the creation of the "Police State" data base called EDVIGE , etc
http://www.google.fr/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Afr%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=fr&q=EDVIGE&meta=&btnG=Recherche...

Concerning Afghanistan many people explained to me that the French solidiers were set up to be slaughtered inorder to stir up a hatred against the Muslims and to put the finger against the Afghans.

Below are my signs of the day.

Am taking a day off work next 11th of September 2008 to be free to participe in the 911 truth day in Paris.

I just stumbled on this must-read article concerning Taliban and a US State Department paid Afghan businessman.

Cockburn and St. Clair lay out shocking evidence that implicates both Clinton And Bush (although they only blame Bush in their editorializing) for deliberately leaving bin Laden free and at large, despite numerous offers by Taliban to turn him over, kill him or deal with him in any other way -- unconditionally.

Note, that bin Laden was indeed on the FBI Most Wanted List for the African embassy bombings of 1998, at the time the article recounts. Bin Laden had also declared war on the US and "the Jews," in two fatwas issued in 1998. The fatwas encouraged Muslims to attack US and Israeli civilians as well as military targets.

So, why would the US government -- across two administrations -- repeatedly refuse the Taliban's offers of extradition?

The below information fits in seamlessly with other reports of a similar nature.

CounterPunch's editorializing (spin) is the weak part. This insider witness, Mr. Mohabbat, should be a household name and a part of any new investigation into 9/11.

The War on Drugs. The War on Terror. Narco-Terrorism.

Prior to 9/11, the poppy production levels in Afghanistan were at a low and many of the Taliban were against heroin and the poppies. However, since U.S. forces entered after 9/11, the poppy crop has skyrocketed. The UN released a report saying that the six-year boom has lead to the Afghan crop being responsible for 92% of the world's heroin trade. With Homeland Security and the War on Terror, it's amazing that the drug still gets into the USA, one of it's strongest marketplaces.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/afghanistan-drug-trade-hits-4-billion-a-year-20080627-2y43.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acWUbVCorQo

I write letters to Mr. MacKay on a regular basis, asking for investigations, reasons for policies, and to provide him with reasons why the public is skeptical of 9/11. This is the text of a letter response from Minister of National Defence, Peter G. Mackay, dated May 16, 2008. I have bolded text in the letter for easier reading.

My analysis is such: Peter MacKay endorses the Manley Report's findings. The Manley Report takes the official conspiracy theory as fact (see the timeline, Appendix 6). But MacKay cannot comment on the integrity of the 9/11 Commission. If MacKay cannot comment on or confirm the integrity of the 9/11 Commission, where does the Canadian Government (and the Manley Report) get its "well established" information about 9/11?

Dear Mr. Parrott:

Thank you for your letter in response to mine concerning spending in Afghanistan.

From the latest issue of American Interest magazine, an interview with Obama foreign policy adviser, Trilateralist, Soviet-phobe, former National Security Adviser and Rockefeller stooge Zbigniew Brzezinski. Notice the condescending tone that this lich evokes towards the general public. We are imbeciles in his opinion.

http://www.the-american-interest.com/ai2/article.cfm?Id=424&MId=19

AI: I have just three specific and related questions for you, Zbig. The first is about Afghanistan, then and now, and the supposed lingering burdens of certain key decisions made when you were National Security Advisor to President Carter. The second is about how, as you’ve put it many times, we need to understand complex parts of the world for what they are, rather than impose our own preconceptions on them. And the third concerns how well the intelligence community serves us in this regard.

Zbigniew Brzezinski: OK, sounds like fun.

Please visit opednews.com for the live html links in the pasted article- also, the Google Alerts referred to in the below article have been pasted in the comments over there.

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=7133
"Information wants to be free" vs. "Don't be evil". When you search online and use search "Alerts", do you want to get the info you want, or do you want the info you receive to be only what Google (and their partners in business and government) want you to know about? If you have concerns about Google's record on search quality/censorship, privacy, human rights, collaboration with people who may pose a serious threat to US sovereignty and security or anything else, read this article and please comment.

::::::::

This article is a continuation of the "Open Letter to the People & Google" article:

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction

Fourteen Points: World Trade Center Destruction Media Visibility Week

Open Letter to the People & Google

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/18/mukasey/index.html

There are several updates in the ongoing fallout from Michael Mukasey's patently false claims made in the speech he delivered several weeks ago in San Francisco regarding FISA and the 9/11 attacks. This week, Mukasey responded to a letter he received from John Conyers and two other Subcommittee Chair in which Mukasey acknowledged (because he was forced to) that the call he claimed originated from an "Afghan safe house" into the U.S. was fictitious, but he nonetheless vaguely asserted that his underlying point -- that FISA unduly restricted pre-9/11 eavesdropping and prevented detection of those attacks -- was somehow still accurate.

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Mukaseys_non_responsive_explanation_of_pre911_0418.html

The Justice Department has acknowledged that Attorney General Michael Mukasey was mistaken when he told a San Francisco crowd that intelligence agencies couldn't trace a pre-9/11 phone call from Afghanistan to the United States.

Whether he was deliberately lying or simply misinformed is still an open question, but the administration is sticking to the general arguments Mukasey outline, provoking intense furor from House Democrats.

Mukasey's deputy said the attorney general was referring to a phone call placed not from Afganistan but another unidentified country before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In an April 10 letter to members of the House Judiciary Committee, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowski stuck to the general line being advanced by Mukasey and others in the Bush administration -- that limitations on foreign intelligence collection within the US meant to protect Americans civil liberties hindered efforts to detect the 9/11 plot before it happened.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/11/MNRH103EK8.DTL&hw=mukasey&sn=001&sc=1000

Two weeks after Attorney General Michael Mukasey tearfully told a San Francisco audience the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks could have been prevented if the government had been able to wiretap a phone call from Afghanistan, the Justice Department is still trying to explain what he meant, and a congressional leader is demanding answers.
Among the questions posed by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., to Mukasey is whether any such phone call actually occurred and, if so, why the government wasn't able to use its legal and technological powers to monitor it.
The attorney general, speaking to the Commonwealth Club on March 27, defended President Bush's program of wiretapping calls between Americans and suspected foreign terrorists without court authorization and said no warrant should be needed to eavesdrop on a phone call from Iraq to the United States.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/11/mukasey/index.html

The San Francisco Chronicle became one of the few media outlets to report on the multiple false claims about 9/11 and FISA in Michael Mukasey's speech two weeks ago, as they adeptly summarized the key events in this article today. As the article, using the Lee Hamilton and other quotes reported here, put it: "It seemed like a sensational disclosure -- a phone call that, if traced and monitored, could have allowed authorities to thwart the attacks -- but it has proved difficult to verify."
Also, Mukasey appeared yesterday before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee and was questioned on this matter by Pat Leahy:
On his third question, Leahy asked Mukasey to clarify a recent comment he made in San Francisco where he implied that the failure to listen in on a phone call from Afghanistan to the United States prior to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks had cost 3,000 lives.
"Nobody else seems to know about this. Can you tell me what the circumstances were and why?" Leahy said.

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/04/mukaseys-missed-call

Posted by Kurt Opsahl
Yesterday, Senator Leahy asked tough questions [Audio Excerpt MP3, 2.75MB] and this morning the San Francisco Chronicle continued its investigation of the mysterious phone call that Attorney General Mukasey referenced while speaking at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco a few weeks ago. During the questions after his speech, Mukasey said that the government:

shouldn't need a warrant when somebody picks up the phone in Iraq and calls somebody in the United States because that's the call that we may really want to know about. And before 9/11, that's the call that we didn't know about ... We knew that there has been a call from someplace that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan and we knew that it came to the United States. We didn't know precisely where it went.

Posted on Youtube...
"1993 WTC ATTACK: CIA OPERATIVES & THE FBI

Description:

CIA's connection to the bombers of the World Trade Center attack in 1993, and how all of them, except for the FBI informant planted inside the group, had been on the CIA's payroll in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets before settling in the New York area.

Also examined are the entrapments of FBI infiltrated groups where an informant is planted in a so-called terrorist group, but is actually the person who organizes and is the key person in the commission of the crime.

In short this presentation is about how the U.S. government will sometimes create "terrorists" to serve a political agenda."

RUNNING TIME 30 MINUTES

Joseph A. Calhoun, broadcast journalist

PART 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6pNNec2idA

PART 2