Sunday, June 21, 2009
CIA Agent: "Government Officials Like Cheney Are Not To Be Trusted When They Assert Something Without The Support Of Incontrovertible Evidence"
Former senior CIA Agent Philip Giraldi writes:
If there has been any "lesson learned" from the past eight years it is that government officials like Cheney are not to be trusted when they assert something without the support of incontrovertible evidence.While Giraldi's article was about torture, his point applies to 9/11 as well.
Instead of "incontrovertible evidence" for Cheney's version of 9/11, the 9/11 Commissioners themselves now doubt the "official" 9/11 story:
- The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) - who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry - said "At some level of the government, at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened". He also said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."
- The Commission's co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation"
- Indeed, they said that the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials misrepresented the facts to the Commission, and the Commission considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements (free subscription required)
- 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."
- 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting"
- 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up"
- Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg recently said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers". He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath.
- A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said “I think at simplest terms, there’s a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke”, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.
- A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis (William Bill Christison) said “I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. ... All three [buildings that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings before 9/11." (and see this).
- 20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that "9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", and it was probably an inside job (see Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).
- A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called "perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East”, and whose astounding career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture Syriana (Robert Baer) said that"the evidence points at" 9/11 having had aspects of being an inside job .
- The Division Chief of the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004 (Melvin Goodman) said "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately a coverup."
- Professor of History and International Relations, University of Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National Security Agency, former military attaché in China, with a 21-year career in U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army) questions the government's version of the events of 9/11.
- The head of all U.S. intelligence, the Director of National Intelligence (Mike McConnel) said "9/11 should have and could have been prevented"
- A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about “serious shortcomings,” “omissions,” and “major flaws” in the 9/11 Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation (they were ignored).
6 comments:
→ Thank you for contributing to the conversation by commenting. We try to read all of the comments (but don't always have the time).
→ If you write a long comment, please use paragraph breaks. Otherwise, no one will read it. Many people still won't read it, so shorter is usually better (but it's your choice).
→ The following types of comments will be deleted if we happen to see them:
-- Comments that criticize any class of people as a whole, especially when based on an attribute they don't have control over
-- Comments that explicitly call for violence
→ Because we do not read all of the comments, I am not responsible for any unlawful or distasteful comments.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This country will never be the land of the free until this mess washes up clean on the Jersey shores.
ReplyDeleteMost of us know, but our government refuses to acknowledge the truth. Mainly because they would be facing the death penalty.
After all, this ISN'T the Hague.
I applaud your gutsy "somebody has to do it" courage to publish these issues.
ReplyDeleteI too have stepped out to try to introduce us to us in a fair and non-chicken-shit manner.
Thanks again.
A CIA agent is telling us, the "peons" about how we shouldn't trust the goverment officials? Isn't that sort of like a spurned gang member tattling on his own? I mean, what am I supposed to make of this? I love the title of the post above, to which I can only respond with a big DUH! Of course we are not supposed to trust officials without "incontrovertible evidence"! The fact that an official from the fucking CIA is "bothering" to tell us of this is bizarre and a little more than suspect. Why would the CIA warn us of anything? They're all cut from the same cloth, another big Duh, I know, so why the intrigue?
ReplyDeleteGiven the actions of our government officials as well as the CIA in recent and even non-recent years, we should not trust anyone. Even 'evidence' presented by these organizations and individuals cannot be trusted. We can only trust ourselves, but we must have the courage and conviction to stand up for what is right.
ReplyDeleteShould we be surprised? The policies and actions of the Bush administration suggested that they were hiding something, but they made us feel unpatriotic when we questioned them. While I agree with this CIA official that they are not to be trusted, they sure did nothing to expose the truth when it was needed most.
ReplyDeletegoogle: April Gallop lawsuit
ReplyDeleteAparantly she is NOT the 'she' Ellsberg is talking about... but this is an interesting case as well.