Stranger than Fiction:
The Incestuous Ties Between the US Government and Osama bin Laden
by Jerry Leonard
“The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil,
and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible.”
--George Orwell, 1984
Who would have guessed the following as the World Trade Centers were burning following the terrorist attacks on 9-11:
- That Osama bin Laden was recruited and trained by the CIA to engage in terrorist activities.
- Or that while the US was bombing a government it created (the Taliban) for allegedly harboring a terrorist it created, this terrorist—Osama bin Laden—may have been hiding in tunnels paid for by the CIA. (The CIA may even have helped bin Laden escape.)
In addition to institutional ties, there are intriguing personal ties between the CIA’s terrorist and high-level government personnel. For example, George Bush, Jr., now US president, was the business partner of Bin Laden’s brother. (This association reportedly made him a millionaire.) Additionally, as of September 11, George Bush’s father, the ex-CIA head and president of the US, was still in business with the Bin Laden family. Both George Bush, Sr. and the bin Laden family were invested in a powerful international armaments corporation called the Carlyle group (“a US-based company that has several former international leaders on its payroll”) that is profiting from the fight against a terrorist network headed by a Bin Laden family member. (George Bush, Jr. was also paid by a subsidiary of this company.)
Thus, under the pretext of national security in the wake of 9-11, the president was implementing policy that was benefiting his own family as well as the family of his business partner, which is also the family of Osama bin Laden. Moreover, the excuse for these policies (Osama bin Laden) implemented by George Bush, Jr. is the creation of an agency (the CIA) once headed by his father, George Bush, Sr.
The financial curiosities do not end there. A CIA-associated brokerage house was skillfully used by well-connected persons to make profits on businesses hurt by the World Trade Centers’ destruction by a CIA-trained terrorist. This required advanced knowledge of the attacks since dramatic increases in profitable trades were made just prior to the attacks in a manner (selling short) that allowed profits to be made on the declining stocks of companies damaged on 9-11.
"We are in the hands of an organization of crooks. They are the generals, politicians, manufacturers of armaments and journalists. All of them are anxious for unlimited expenditure, and go on inventing wars to terrify the public and to terrify the Ministers of the Crown."
- Lord Welby, 1934
Unfortunately, there is little chance that those in intelligence circles who profited from foreknowledge of the attacks will be exposed and punished. Although Bush created a presidential commission to investigate why US intelligence failed to prevent the terrorist attacks, his first pick to lead the investigation was Henry Kissinger, a man with longstanding ties to the CIA and a history of using “government service” for personal gain.
Given his background, Henry Kissinger’s appointment provided evidence that a blatant cover-up of events surrounding 9-11 is being orchestrated. In addition to being a long time political insider with a history of holding high-level positions overseeing the CIA and the entire national security establishment,  Kissinger also has a history of misleading the press and using the “secret government” approach to international affairs. With his background, it is hard to imagine a worse pick for the job of exposing intelligence corruption.
More to the point, like those he would have supposedly been investigating, Kissinger has a history of using government policy for his own personal benefit. He is currently leveraging his inside knowledge of US national security affairs as an international business consultant to governments that not only have a vested interest in US foreign policy but also may have played a role in the 9-11 attacks.
Had he not resigned from the commission rather than reveal his current business affairs, A thorough investigation by Kissinger would no doubt have found evidence (much of it already publicized) that powerful people he has worked with had advanced knowledge of and financially benefited from the terrorist attacks of 9-11. This made him a dubious choice to conduct an impartial investigation of US intelligence corruption. However, if the goal was to cover up insider corruption in the intelligence community related to the convenience of the terrorist attacks, Kissinger may have been the perfect man for the job. Indeed, Kissinger’s past record prompted the Palm Beach Post to write: “He’s the luminary least likely to embarrass the three administrations (at least) in which a full report on 9/11 errors will find fault lines.” Even the “The New York Times questioned Mr. Kissinger’s independence and suggested that the White House might have appointed him to contain the investigation rather than pursue it.”,  Subsequent developments in the 9-11 “investigation” are consistent with the “whitewash” scenario.
“It is the function of the CIA to keep the world unstable and to propagandize the American people to hate, so we will let the establishment spend any amount of money on arms.”
-John Stockwell, former CIA official
And then there are the political benefits of the attack, which are even more stunning than the financial benefits. George Bush, Jr. and the CIA are both benefiting from expanded police-state powers in the name of fighting the terrorist that the CIA created. These powers include massively expanded domestic surveillance capabilities against all Americans and a proposed national ID card.
Conveniently, one company that has lobbied for the long-planned implementation of an Orwellian/Nazi-style national ID card system of the type to be implemented first in Britain in response to the terrorism has major ties to the CIA.
Additionally, new post-9-11 legislation has eliminated laws that protected the public from abuses of law enforcement and intelligence agencies. For example, the CIA, with a renewed sense of mission (and cash flow), now has expanded powers of torture, and assassination outside the US (as if it needed them) and will be working closer with the FBI inside the US (something it was allegedly forbidden to do for decades).
The New York Times has editorialized that due to the increased surveillance powers of the government, the sixth amendment to the Constitution no longer exists.
Other journalists have warned that the fourth amendment no longer exists. Insight Magazine published a shocking article detailing the manner in which the new police-state powers will destroy the few remaining civil liberties of law-abiding Americans. According to Insight:
Thus, instead of protecting American citizens against the terrorist it created, the CIA cynically and self-servingly exploited American deaths it was supposed to prevent to empower itself to put American citizens under its arrogant surveillance. And rather than hold the CIA responsible for the terrorists they have unleashed on the world, government officials have labeled critics of the new CIA surveillance-state as terrorists themselves. Writing in the Times, Tim Weiner reported:
The FBI has also given itself fantastic new domestic surveillance powers as a result of its failures to protect the American public from terrorists its agents had identified and tried to warn their superiors about prior to the 9-11 attacks.  These new powers include the right to infiltrate religious and political groups, monitor the internet and other vehicles for public dialogue. The Times summarized: “The new guidelines allow wide-ranging monitoring of political and religious activities unconnected with the investigation of any crime and do away with the requirement that some kinds of investigations be approved in Washington.”  The Times again: “Under the old guidelines, agents needed to show that they had probable cause or information from an informer that crimes were being committed to begin counterterrorism investigations. Under the new guidelines, agents will be free to search for leads or clues to terrorist activities in public databases or on the Internet.”  William Safire in the New York Times warned of the awesome scope of the FBI’s new digital-age surveillance powers:
The Washington Post reported that 9-11 has been used to “fundamentally alter the way investigators handle counterterrorism cases, allowing criminal and intelligence agents to work side by side and giving both broad access to the tools of intelligence gathering for the first time in decades…” CBS News summarized: “The result is that the FBI, unhindered by the restrictions of the past, ‘will conduct many more searches and wiretaps that are subject to oversight by a secret intelligence court rather than regular criminal courts.’”
So much for accountability and the presumption of innocence… The FBI has been unleashed on the American public in spite of its abysmal record of abuse of public trust that resulted in an outcry for desperately needed reform in the 1970s. This was the result of the FBI infiltrating and manipulating domestic political and social groups throughout the 1950s, 60s and 70s through its COINTEL program under the banner of anticommunism.,  Under this program, numerous groups were infiltrated by agents provocateur and manipulated into violent actions that could be used to justify harsh reprisals against the infiltrated groups. The latest developments in anti-terrorism efforts indicate that this infiltration and manipulation of political, paramilitary and religious groups could very well happen again, if it hasn’t already, on a much larger scale.
In fact, the latest excuse (9-11 and the anthrax attacks) for this new era of government infiltration for the purposes of demonization and disruption may have been created through this same technique. Given the history of the COINTEL program, it should come as no surprise that the FBI, now empowered by the 9-11 catastrophe, had infiltrated the very paramilitary/religious group that perpetrated the 9-11 assassinations, but declined to share the information or protect the public it is now targeting with surveillance:
“At first, FBI director Bob Mueller insisted there was nothing the bureau could have done to penetrate the 9-11 plot. That account has been modified over time—and now may change again. Newsweek has learned that one of the bureau’s informants had a close relationship with two of the hijackers: he was their roommate.”
The CIA also had information on one of the 9-11 hijackers. As detailed in an on-line article in Expatica: “The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had one of the September 11, 2001 terror pilots under surveillance as early as March 1999 after a tip from German security services, according to joint investigative reports in Germany.”
With these revelations, the situation is beginning to look more and more like a planned provocation (much like in the case of the Kennedy assassination) which took place under the eyes of the US intelligence and police forces to justify a convenient and planned war in Iraq, even though links between terrorists and the Iraqi regime (which the US helped install) are tenuous at best.
“Permanent crisis justifies permanent control of everybody and everything by the agencies of the central government.”
-Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited
The Pentagon is also getting into the race to put Americans under unprecedented surveillance using anti-terrorism as the excuse. Major Garrett, writing for Fox News described how the Pentagon is developing a “massive database that the government will use to monitor every purchase made by every American citizen.” This planned invasion of privacy, which was to be developed by a convicted criminal, motivated Chuck Pena, an analyst at the Cato Institute, to warn:
Given the fact that a CIA-trained terrorist is benefiting the CIA on such a scale, it is natural to ask the following questions:
Unfortunately, this wouldn’t be the first time that manufactured terrorist attacks on the US were planned to justify extreme political action under a defensive pretext. The Baltimore Sun revealed such a plan from the 1960s (“it involved committing random acts of terror on Americans in the United States”) designed to create “a helpful wave of indignation” to justify an invasion of Cuba—long the victim of CIA intrigue. The 9-11 terrorist acts were useful for creating a helpful wave of indignation launch an invasion against Iraq, long a victim of CIA intrigue. Now such actions are apparently aimed at expanding the CIA’s power in the US.
Whether it was intentional or not, the attacks on 9-11 have created a mood of national panic welcoming a national surveillance state that 50-year Cold War didn’t justify. It has rationalized the federal government reorganizing itself around spying on US citizens. It has totally demolished the delicate balance between civil liberties and law enforcement abuses and fundamentally changed the CIA’s role into a massive domestic surveillance machine cooperating with and directing the FBI and other government investigative agencies against American citizens. And if the past is prologue, the CIA will use its power to infiltrate and disrupt targeted organizations as a means of justifying itself to the public, by supplying these groups with violence-prone infiltrators who will engage in activities designed to disrupt and discredit them.
“And at the same time the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival.”
-George Orwell, 1984
Unfortunately, it doesn’t stop there…
In addition to the political and economic benefits to the World Trade Center attacks, the anthrax attacks on the US also have amazing benefits for those with the power to pull them off—specifically the CIA and the pharmaceuticals industry. The influential pharmaceuticals industry (“one of America’s most lucrative and powerful businesses”) is making efforts to create a profitable new climate in the wake of the bioterror attacks. This climate will give them license—due to a decreased regulatory atmosphere—to short-cut safeguards in testing experimental treatments on human subjects. Much like the situation with the CIA and surveillance, the convenient new atmosphere will eliminate laws protecting the public—in this case against human experimentation—that were erected after decades of abuses. Predictably, using the post-9-11 atmosphere as an excuse, rules governing the pharmaceuticals industry have been swept aside. As the New York Times reported:
The Times continued: “the new rule could spur development of drugs for use against biological, chemical and radioactive substances by eliminating a major stumbling block, the ethical barriers to exposing people to deadly substances like smallpox or nerve gas simply to prove that a drug works.”
One can only imagine the damage that will be done in bypassing already marginal practices for protecting the public against unsafe medical practices in the name of corporate greed.
Conflicts of interest for government officials and “Washington’s well-oiled revolving door between government and business”,  make protecting the public a secondary concern. The pharmaceuticals industry is taking maximum advantage of the situation—offering the government assistance with the bioterror crisis with “strings attached.” For example, the industry is offering discounted remedies to maladies in exchange for profit-friendly legislation. Such legislation under consideration with respect to patents could mean as much as “$1 billion in sales for every six months the patent is extended” for some companies.
But the profit-friendly legislation doesn’t stop there. The 9-11 attacks have not only provided a new demand for pharmaceuticals products and a friendly atmosphere in which to test them on human guinea pigs--it has also provided an atmosphere of unprecedented legal protection for the industry against lawsuits resulting from product side-effects.
Lobbyists for the pharmaceuticals industry have self-servingly used the fight against terrorism to protect themselves not only against future lawsuits but against pending lawsuits which have nothing to do with the fight against terrorism. In one outrageous case the industry managed to sneak a provision into the Homeland Security bill which will protect Eli Lilly and Co. from lawsuits related to “Thimerosal, a preservative in childhood vaccines that has been circumstantially linked to rising rates of autism and pediatric developmental problems.” According to the Washington Post, “the brief provision -- designed to shield vaccine makers such as Eli Lilly and Co. from lawsuits seeking billions of dollars for families of autistic children -- has generated a whirlwind of controversy and a mystery as to its origin.” This occurred just in time, according to the Washington Post, “If action was not taken, advocates say, the lawsuits could have driven vaccine makers out of business.” 
In addition to protecting the industry from past abuses, the fight against terrorism is also being manipulated to give the pharmaceuticals industry blanket legal protection from any side effects its latest vaccines. For example, the Homeland Security bill will conveniently protect smallpox vaccine makers from lawsuits due to the expected side effects from vaccinating virtually the entire US public, if the pharmaceuticals industry has its way. The Washington Post reported:
Given the beneficial atmosphere that the bioterror attacks are providing the industry, for example, loosening regulations and laws restricting overt human experimentation on new and existing products, it is natural to wonder whether this development was engineered for exactly this reason using agents such as anthrax. In other words, did covert testing by the closely tied CIA/pharmaceuticals industries using a biological warfare agent developed by the government lead to the new era of overt testing? Indeed, given the benefits of the attacks to the pharmaceuticals industry, one can’t help wondering if the anthrax attacks were a marketing device by these companies—providing an artificial demand for their products and a crisis atmosphere to crash-test them in, much like the airplane attacks on the World Trade Centers by a CIA-trained terrorist have been a highly effective marketing device for the CIA-imposed surveillance state. Could this explain why the anthrax used in the attack was so similar to weapons developed in the US?
Curiously, not only is the post-9-11 "antiterrorist" climate perfectly suited for government/corporate experimentation under the pretext of protection, the vaccines to be used in this climate are the most perfectly suited for use in such experimentation. For example, vaccinia-based vaccines against smallpox, the virus which the government has touted as the most likely to be used by terrorist states, are ideal for researchers to use as experimental vehicles in vaccine research. Given that smallpox vaccines are unlikely to be useful against weaponized smallpox, the sales-job for the smallpox vaccine initiative seems more likely to be useful for public experimentation than public protection.
Additionally, the climate of public surveillance and anti-terrorist measures has fostered another initiative allegedly for public benefit, but especially benefiting the pharmaceuticals industry. This is the implementation of a massive new monitoring system put in place to measure the health of the public at any given time. As summarized in the New York Times:
“To secure early warning of a bioterror attack, the government is building a computerized network that will collect and analyze health data of people in eight major cities, administration officials say. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is to lead the multimillion-dollar surveillance effort, which officials expect to become the cornerstone of a national network to spot disease outbreaks by tracking data like doctor reports, emergency room visits and sales of flu medicine.”
In addition to creating another civil-liberties nightmare, this massive anti-terrorist health monitoring system will be extremely useful for conducting experiments on the public. In addition to serving as an early warning system for terrorist attacks, it will provide feedback on the effects of experimental variables by measuring the immune system responses of the public to any vaccine experiments conducted in the name of antiterrorism.
As millions of people are monitored and hundreds of separate national databases are joined, it will also be a useful tool in creating a demand for pharmaceutical products, as it scrutinizes “populations for clues of diseases before they [are] officially diagnosed.” This system, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, will also assist in the marketing of pharmaceuticals products as it allows the industry to monitor the entire medical system from disease diagnosis to the purchase of and payment for remedies. For example, the system will monitor “physician payment and disease diagnosis” while it “gathers electronic records from drugstore chains, hospitals and physician groups.” Privacy concerns become more of an issue as the system grows more sophisticated and “the surveillance becomes a two-way street in which not only are problems detected but physicians are notified about potential problems involving individual patients.” Such a tool may ultimately allow pharmaceuticals companies not only to monitor disease diagnosis on a colossal scale, but to recommend specific treatments to physicians for their patients on a national scale in real-time.
Thus, thanks to the crisis environment created by terrorist acts linked to US biowarfare labs (historically managed by private corporations), the pharmaceuticals industry has an ideal scenario: an artificially inflated demand for its products, relaxed laws for testing them on human guinea pigs, a monitoring system for measuring reactions to experimental products, a monitoring system for determining diagnosis and drug purchase rates in the nation, and, finally, legal protection when this experimentation proves disastrous for the human victims.
* * *
The right people have been in positions of power not only to help orchestrate this crisis environment but to oversee the new era of human experimentation conducted within it on behalf of the pharmaceuticals industry. Donald Rumsfeld, the current Secretary of Defense, is a prime example. After leaving his position as Secretary of Defense in the Ford Administration (which oversaw the swine flu vaccination debacle foisted on the American public), he played a key role as a private citizen in bringing Saddam Hussein to power (including providing him with bioweapons).  Now as Bush’s Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld occupies a key position to coordinate “defensive” human testing on the military and public, using the madman he created—Saddam Hussein—as an excuse. Moreover, Rumsfeld’s private sector managerial experience in between high-level government jobs makes him uniquely suited for overseeing the needs of the pharmaceuticals industry in this endeavor. After serving his first term as Secretary of Defense, according to the White House, Rumsfeld “served as Chief Executive Officer, President, and then Chairman of G.D. Searle & Co., a worldwide pharmaceutical company,” for nearly a decade. He was named “Outstanding Chief Executive Officer in the Pharmaceutical Industry” for two years during that time. Rumsfeld then joined the board of another pharmaceuticals company—Gilead—in 1988 and was named Chairman in 1997. He served there until reassuming the office of Secretary of Defense, this time under Bush. So now the pharmaceuticals industry, already disproportionately represented by government lobbyists, has a well-placed lobbyist and former executive to further their experimental and marketing goals within the upper echelons of the Federal Government.
While Rumsfeld has gone from the elite of the private pharmaceuticals industry back into a top-level public service position, other public-servant architects of the policies that created Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden were or are now in private positions to profit from their public service. Admiral William J. Crowe, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time Saddam and Bin Laden were being armed by the CIA, became a high level executive for BioPort Corporation, conveniently the only company licensed to manufacture the anthrax vaccine for the military in the crisis atmosphere he helped create. George Bush, also one of the architects of these policies,  is reportedly invested in this same company through his employment in the Carlyle Group, which is suspected of owning substantial amounts of stock in BioPort. But then so is the Bin Laden family, which was also invested in the Carlyle group—until it became an international embarrassment for the influential military-industrial company.
Carlyle, “run by a who's who of Republican heavyweights, including former Secretary of State James Baker and former Defense Secretary Frank Carlucci,” has a substantial financial stake in other medically-oriented firms set to benefit from “anti-terrorist” policy of the Bush administration. For example, Carlyle conveniently bought 42 percent of a company named MedPointe several months before the terrorist acts of 9-11. According to David Lazarus writing in the San Francisco Chronicle (March 21, 2004):
MedPointe, … just so happens to be one of only three companies licensed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to manufacture over-the-counter potassium iodide pills. That's significant because potassium iodide can help protect against thyroid cancer in the event of exposure to large amounts of radiation -- from a small, easily transported nuclear weapon, say, or a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant. And that's significant because, in June 2002, President Bush signed into law the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act. It requires state and local officials to "provide adequate protection" by distributing potassium iodide to all public facilities within a few miles of a nuclear power plant. And that, in turn, is significant because if you're one of just a handful of authorized makers of potassium iodide, you're in a position to profit handsomely if the worst-case scenario should actually come to pass.
Thus those involved in creating Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are not only in positions of government service to manipulate policy in “reaction” to these evil personalities they helped put in power, some of them are in lucrative positions in private industry to capitalize on the atmosphere of panic that has resulted. Even the relatives of the demons they created are in positions of private industry—in some cases partners with them—to profit from these policies.
# # #
Curiously, the New York Times has revealed that the repealing of laws and guidelines protecting the public from unethical testing will be especially beneficial to the Pentagon, an agency with a long history of Nazi-like experiments on the American public. As the Times summarized:
“One of the biggest beneficiaries could be the Pentagon, which has already indicated it wants to use animal testing to win approval of a drug that has allowed mice in tests to survive normally lethal doses of radiation. The Army also has many vaccines for biological agents that it has never been able to win approval for but which are given as experimental drugs to protect scientists who work with lethal agents at Fort Detrick and other laboratories.” 
The Times continued: “‘Now both the civilian population and the military population will be able to get these products out in a straightforward fashion,’ said Dr. Arthur O. Anderson, the chief ethics officer of the biodefense program at Fort Detrick.” While the ethics officer at the lab that was for decades the US center for biological warfare experimentation and development apparently sees the new law treating the public and the military on a similar basis with respect to experimental drug testing, this should raise a red flag in light of the long-running criminal experimentation that the military has been conducting on its soldiers. Exactly one week prior to this article, the New York Times exposed on its front page a chilling set of military experiments from the 1960s with “highly lethal” chemicals that had just come to light:
The Defense Department sprayed live nerve and biological agents on ships and sailors in cold war-era experiments to test the Navy's vulnerability to toxic warfare, the Pentagon revealed today. The Pentagon documents made public today showed that six tests were carried out in the Pacific Ocean from 1964 to 1968. In the experiments, nerve or chemical agents were sprayed on a variety of ships and their crews to gauge how quickly the poisons could be detected and how rapidly they would disperse, as well as to test the effectiveness of protective gear and decontamination procedures in use at the time. 
Of the six tests, three used sarin, a nerve agent, or VX, a nerve gas; one used staphylococcal enterotoxin B, known as SEB, a biological toxin; one used a simulant believed to be harmless but subsequently found to be dangerous; and one used a nonpoisonous simulant. … Michael Kilpatrick, a medical official in the office of the assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, said it was unclear whether sailors had been intentionally exposed to the germ and chemical agents without the benefit of protective masks and gear. Also uncertain, he said, was whether any had given their permission to become human guinea pigs in medical experiments with the deadly substances.
As is revealed by the author in AIDS: The “Perfect” Disease, the US government began testing nerve gases such as Sarin (invented by the Nazis) on American soldiers under the guidance of Nazi war criminals immediately after the war. The new laws will only make such grotesque experimentation easier to implement on a larger scale, as long as it is done within a “defensive” pretext. If the government is allowed to get away with forcing the military to take experimental vaccines to pathogens the government helped create and spread, there are indications that it will expand these mandatory experimental vaccination programs to the public at large. In fact, according to Rep. Ron Paul, the Homeland Security Act makes provision for mandatory vaccination of the American public with smallpox vaccines—the very vaccines that have been traced to the AIDS epidemic. In addition to vaccines against anthrax and smallpox, such draconian methods may include mandatory experimental vaccinations against AIDS—which the author proposes is also a biological warfare agent created and spread by the US government under the pretext of a cancer vaccine experiment. (The cancer epidemic caused by AIDS is not only proving highly useful as a cancer vaccine research vehicle, it is creating an artificial market for cancer vaccines and other pharmaceuticals products.)
Thus the world is becoming more and more like a Nazi concentration camp where Nazi doctors were free to experiment on hapless prisoners to develop countermeasures to chemical and biological warfare agents.  Is it just a coincidence that this new atmosphere giving the military greater latitude in its unethical testing programs was created by a biological warfare agent traced to American military agencies?
Experts have warned that the response to the bioterrorist attack may be worse than the attack itself. There may be more to this warning than was intended... One potential scenario is that separate responses to the World Trade Center attacks (a government-mandated national ID card linked to a CIA company) and the anthrax attacks (government vaccines) are merged in the form of a recently available injectable microchip which could be injected at the same time as the vaccines and serve as a biometric national ID card. Such a scenario has already taken place in animal populations. Such a scenario in which an injectable microchip would be injected at the same time as vaccination was raised by Joseph Farah in February of 2000. The recent terrorist attacks have created the perfect climate for implementing this strategy, which would allow American corporations to track the American public as they are experimented on like concentration camp prisoners, much like IBM did for the Nazis in WWII-era concentration camps. 
* * *
“Once when he happened in some connection to mention the war against Eurasia, she startled him by saying casually that in her opinion the war was not happening. The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, ‘just to keep people frightened.’ This was an idea that had literally never occurred to him.”
--George Orwell, 1984
“Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
--Hermann Goering, Nuremberg Trials.
Top of Page:
 In an article titled: “Bin Laden comes home to roost: His CIA ties are only the beginning of a woeful story,” MSNBC reported the following: “At the CIA, it happens often enough to have a code name: Blowback. Simply defined, this is the term that describes an agent, an operative or an operation that has turned on its creators. Osama bin Laden, our new public enemy Number 1, is the personification of blowback.” [emphasis added] Michael Moran, “Bin Laden comes home to roost: His CIA ties are only the beginning of a woeful story,” MSNBC, Aug. 24, 1998.
 “The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked in tandem with Pakistan to create the ‘monster’ that is today Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban, a leading US expert on South Asia said here. ‘I warned them that we were creating a monster,’ Selig Harrison from the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars said at the conference here last week on ‘Terrorism and Regional Security: Managing the Challenges in Asia.’ Harrison said: ‘The CIA made a historic mistake in encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan.’ The US provided $3 billion for building up these Islamic groups, and it accepted Pakistan’s demand that they should decide how this money should be spent, Harrison said.” “CIA worked in tandem with Pak to create Taliban,” Times of India, Wednesday, 7 March 2001.
 “Osama bin Laden, the United States’ prime suspect in last week’s attacks on New York and Washington, could escape an American revenge mission in Afghanistan by hiding in tunnels that he built with funds from the CIA. At the height of the Afghan mojahedin’s war against the Soviet invaders, the CIA provided money for a very ambitious project. A series of defence tunnels was built in 1986 near the town of Khost in the mountains of Paktiya province, a few miles from the border with Pakistan.” Jonathan Steele, “Bin Laden may flee in tunnels: Underground escape routes funded by CIA,” Guardian, Tuesday, September 18, 2001.
 “Incredibly, Salem [Bin Laden] went on to become a business partner of the man who is leading the hunt for his brother. In the 1970s, he and George W Bush were founders of the Arbusto Energy oil company in Mr Bush’s home state of Texas. …As he built his own business empire, Salem Bin Laden had an intriguing relationship with the president-to-be. In 1978, he appointed James Bath, a close friend of Mr Bush who served with him in the Air National Guard, as his representative in Houston, Texas. It was in that year that Mr Bath invested $50,000 (about £34,000) in Mr Bush's company, Arbusto. It was never revealed whether he was investing his own money or somebody else’s.” PETER ALLEN, “Bin Laden's family link to Bush,” Daily Mail, 9/24/01.
 “Bush thwarted FBI probe against bin Ladens,” Hindu Times, November 7, 2001.
 From the Judicial Watch web page: “Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm that investigates and prosecutes government corruption and abuse, reacted with disbelief to The Wall Street Journal report of yesterday that George H.W. Bush, the father of President Bush, works for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle Group, an international consulting firm. ‘This conflict of interest has now turned into a scandal. The idea of the President’s father, an ex-president himself, doing business with a company under investigation by the FBI in the terror attacks of September 11 is horrible. President Bush should not ask, but demand, that his father pull out of the Carlyle Group,’ stated Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman.” [emphasis added]
 According to the Hindu Times, this company is “a little-known private company which in just a few years since its founding has become one of America’s biggest defence contractors.”
 As The Guardian summarized, “George Bush senior, his former secretary of state James Baker, the former prime minister John Major and many other figures from international big business and politics are employed by Carlyle Group, a US-based private equity and defence group. …In addition to the list of influential names from US politics, the company has been linked to the Saudi royal family and until last year maintained links with the half-brother of Osama bin Laden.” Philip Pank and agencies, “MoD rejects fears over defence sell-off,” The Guardian, 9/05/02
 The Wall Street Journal reported: “If the U.S. boosts defense spending in its quest to stop Osama bin Laden’s alleged terrorist activities, there may be one unexpected beneficiary: Mr. bin Laden’s family.” The Journal continued: “Among its far-flung business interests, the well-heeled Saudi Arabian clan -- which says it is estranged from Osama -- is an investor in a fund established by Carlyle Group, a well-connected Washington merchant bank specializing in buyouts of defense and aerospace companies. Through this investment and its ties to Saudi royalty, the bin Laden family has become acquainted with some of the biggest names in the Republican Party. In recent years, former President Bush, ex-Secretary of State James Baker and ex-Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci have made the pilgrimage to the bin Laden family’s headquarters in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Mr. Bush makes speeches on behalf of Carlyle Group and is senior adviser to its Asian Partners fund, while Mr. Baker is its senior counselor. Mr. Carlucci is the group’s chairman.” Daniel Golden, James Bandler, and Marcus Walker, “Bin Laden Family Could Profit From a Jump In Defense Spending Due to Ties to U.S. Bank,” The Wall Street Journal, 9/27/01.
 “Further details of the futures trades that netted such huge gains in the wake of the hijackings have been disclosed. To the embarrassment of investigators, it has also emerged that the firm used to buy many of the “put” options – where a trader, in effect, bets on a share price fall – on United Airlines stock was headed until 1998 by "Buzzy" Krongard, now executive director of the CIA.” [emphasis added] Chris Blackhurst, “Mystery of terror 'insider dealers',” independent.co.uk, 14 October 2001.
 In addition to using the government to target his domestic enemies through civil liberties violations, Kissinger’s foreign policies have led to accusations of his being an international war criminal. The Palm Beach Post editorialized: “His enemies call him ‘war criminal,’ as in a documentary film, The Trials of Henry Kissinger, now in theaters. Authorities in Chile and France want him as a material witness to the violent 16-year dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in Chile. In a London speech in April, Mr. Kissinger acknowledged that mistakes ‘quite possibly’ were made by the Nixon administration but it’s ‘inappropriate’ to bring them up in court.” “Kissinger wrong choice to lead 9/11 commission,” Palm Beach Post Editorial, Tuesday, December 3, 2002.
 Kissinger stated that he has served six US presidents.
 As President Nixon’s National Security Adviser, Kissinger not only oversaw the CIA but revamped the massive covert national security infrastructure and used it to dominate US foreign and domestic policy formation.
 An editorial in the Palm Beach Post summarized why Kissinger is the wrong man for the job: “During the Nixon administration, Mr. Kissinger was the soloist who set up a ‘back channel’ to Moscow to cut out the State Department, met secretly in Paris with North Vietnamese negotiators, organized the secret bombing of Laos and Cambodia, clandestinely set up Mr. Nixon’s visit to China and dated an actress to hide his trail when he sneaked off on foreign trips. That record of evasion and furtiveness comes from his own memoirs. … In his courtier’s career, Mr. Kissinger enchanted powerful leaders and key media figures by feeding them selected facts, true or false, that advanced his policies. But he has written that he was uncomfortable when facts got out because democracy made his methods of statesmanship difficult. He insisted on the last-ditch fight to keep the Pentagon Papers secret, even though they discredited the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, not Mr. Nixon’s.” “Kissinger wrong choice to lead 9/11 commission,” Palm Beach Post Editorial, Tuesday, December 3, 2002.
 As the New York Times editorialized: “Encumbered by a worldwide network of consulting clients whom he was unwilling to identify publicly, he faced potential conflicts of interest at every turn of the investigation.” “Exit Henry Kissinger,” New York Times, 12/14/02.
 “Henry A. Kissinger abruptly resigned today as chairman of the commission intended to investigate the Sept. 11 attacks, informing President Bush that he could not serve if it meant revealing the clients of his consulting firm.” DAVID FIRESTONE, “Kissinger Pulls Out as Chief of Inquiry Into 9/11 Attacks,” New York Times, 12/14/02.
 “Mr. Kissinger’s role in contentious foreign policy activities — like the secret expansion of the Vietnam War into Cambodia and the 1973 coup in Chile that toppled the government of Salvador Allende and decades spent helping arrange relationships between powerful economic interests and foreign governments — have led some critics to suggest that Mr. Kissinger might not pursue all leads in the investigation to their logical conclusions.” KATHARINE Q. SEELYE, “Kissinger Promises to Drop Clients if Interests Conflict,” New York Times, December 2, 2002.
 Perhaps this would explain why the government’s own investigation, which continued without Kissinger, complained of significant interference in its 9-11 investigation. According to The Guardian, “A US panel investigating the September 11 terrorist attacks yesterday accused the Pentagon and the justice department of obstructing the inquiry and said witnesses were being intimidated.” Julian Borger, “9/11 inquiry alleges witness intimidation,” The Guardian, Thursday July 10, 2003.
 KATHARINE Q. SEELYE, “Kissinger Promises to Drop Clients if Interests Conflict,” New York Times, December 2, 2002.
 Although European investigations have made progress investigating al Qaeda international financial links, the CIA apparently has no interest in exposing who is aiding and financing the terrorists. A front-page article in the Washington Post described how the US-created al Qaeda terrorist cell used a sophisticated international money-laundering scheme to hide its assets beginning in 1998. Although an “aggressive year-long European investigation into al Qaeda financing” has revealed “an elaborate plot that began in 1998 to hide substantial terrorist assets in diamonds,” the Post reported: “Senior European intelligence sources said they have been baffled by the lack of U.S. interest, particularly by the CIA, in their recent findings. The CIA, which in the past has downplayed reports of al Qaeda's diamond connections, declined to comment.” This despite the fact that “European and Latin American investigations also found evidence that a group of people buying diamonds on behalf of the terrorists were simultaneously attempting to procure sophisticated weapons, such as missiles that could shoot down aircraft.” Douglas Farah, “Report Says Africans Harbored Al Qaeda Terror Assets Hidden In Gem-Buying Spree,” Washington Post, Sunday, December 29, 2002; Page A01
 “Molded by wartime politics and passed a week and a half ago in furious haste, the new anti-terrorism bill lays the foundation for a domestic intelligence-gathering system of unprecedented scale and technological prowess, according to both supporters and critics of the legislation.” Jim McGee, “An Intelligence Giant in the Making Anti-Terrorism Law Likely to Bring Domestic Apparatus of Unprecedented Scope,” Washington Post, 11/4/01.
 The New York Times reported: “The Senate passed sweeping antiterrorism legislation today, sending President Bush a measure that would expand the government’s ability to conduct electronic surveillance, detain immigrants without charges and penetrate money-laundering banks. …The measure also permits officials to share grand jury information to thwart terrorism and relaxes the conditions under which judges may authorize intelligence wiretaps.” Adam Clymer, “Antiterrorism Bill Passes; U.S. Gets Expanded Powers,” New York Times, October 26, 2001.
 According to the New York Times: “In the United States, where compulsory ID cards have been anathema, the idea has attracted some support. In the wake of September’s attacks, some regard the security advantages of a card as more important than the potential threat to civil liberties.” [emphasis added] Mark Landler, “Fine-Tuning For Privacy, Hong Kong Plans Digital ID,” New York Times, 2/18/02.
 “Broaching a controversial subject that has gained visibility since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, Oracle Chairman and CEO Larry Ellison is calling for the United States to create a national identification card system -- and offering to donate the software to make it possible. …Under Ellison’s proposal, millions of Americans would be fingerprinted and the information would be placed on a database used by airport security officials to verify identities of travelers at airplane gates. … ‘We need a national ID card with our photograph and thumbprint digitized and embedded in the ID card,’ Ellison said in an interview Friday night on the evening news of KPIX-TV in San Francisco.” PAUL ROGERS AND ELISE ACKERMAN, Mercury News, Sept. 22, 2001.
 “Oracle has a longstanding relationship with the federal government. Indeed, the CIA was Ellison’s first customer, and the company’s name stems from a CIA-funded project launched in the mid-1970s that sought better ways of storing and retrieving digital data.” PAUL ROGERS AND ELISE ACKERMAN, Mercury News, Sept. 22, 2001.
 The New York Times reported: “Congress is pouring money into the agency’s counterterrorism operations, and the C.I.A. seems poised to begin focusing its resources on terrorism in much the same way it once focused on the Soviet Union in the cold war.” James Risen, “A NATION CHALLENGED: THE INTELLIGENCE AGENCY; Secret C.I.A. Site in New York Was Destroyed on Sept. 11,” New York Times, November 4, 2001
 “US agents seeking to bribe foreign officials and informants for intelligence have 10 times more money at their disposal since September 11, a Newsweek reports claims. The weekly magazine, due to hit newsstands tomorrow, cites an unnamed intelligence source and also says ‘rules restricting the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) ability to deal with torturers and murderers have largely been removed.’” “Ten times more bribe money available to US intelligence,” AFP,12/16/01.
 This has resulted in the following predictable situation, as summarized by Henry Porter in The Guardian:
“Weeks go by without serious newspapers investigating or commenting on human rights abuses by the American government. At home and abroad, hundreds, maybe thousands, of men are being held in camps and prisons by the military, by the CIA and by the justice department, incommunicado, without legal representation or hope of release, there to endure prolonged and terrifying interrogation. Alone, this is enough for the US government to place itself in contravention of the Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, which it is obligated to uphold. But that is not all. There is evidence that the US authorities have encouraged the use of torture and may indeed have participated in the torture of those men they believe to hold information on past and future terrorist attacks. We surely didn't imagine two years ago that this would be an outcome of 9/11 and yet it has happened with such ease, the once rights-conscious American public turning its gaze the other way, along with the self-regarding worthies of the American newspaper industry.”
Henry Porter, “America's dirty torture secret,” The Guardian, Wednesday September 10, 2003.
 “President Bush has provided written legal authority to the C.I.A. to hunt down and kill the terrorists without seeking further approval each time the agency is about to stage an operation. … The president is not legally required to approve each name added to the list, nor is the C.I.A. required to obtain presidential approval for specific attacks, although officials said Mr. Bush had been kept well informed about the agency’s operations.” JAMES RISEN and DAVID JOHNSTON, “Bush Has Widened Authority of C.I.A. to Kill Terrorists,” New York Times, 12/14/02.
 According to the Washington Post, the so-called U.S.A. Patriot act passed by congress “will enable the Bush administration to make fundamental changes at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency and several Treasury Department law enforcement agencies. Known as the U.S.A. Patriot Act, the law empowers the government to shift the primary mission of the FBI from solving crimes to gathering domestic intelligence. In addition, the Treasury Department has been charged with building a financial intelligence-gathering system whose data can be accessed by the CIA. Most significantly, the CIA will have the authority for the first time to influence FBI surveillance operations inside the United States and to obtain evidence gathered by federal grand juries and criminal wiretaps. ‘We are going to have to get used to a new way of thinking,’ Assistant Attorney General Michael Chertoff, who is overseeing the investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks, said in an interview. ‘What we are going to have is a Federal Bureau of Investigation that combines intelligence with effective law enforcement.’ The new law reflects how profoundly the attacks changed the nation’s thinking about the balance between domestic security and civil liberties.” [emphasis added] Jim McGee, “An Intelligence Giant in the Making Anti-Terrorism Law Likely to Bring Domestic Apparatus of Unprecedented Scope,” Washington Post, 11/4/01.
 The Insight article continued:
The following are a sample of some of the changes as a result of the so-called USA PATRIOT Act. The legislation:
· minimizes judicial supervision of federal telephone and Internet surveillance by law-enforcement authorities.
· expands the ability of the government to conduct secret searches.
· gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to designate domestic groups as terrorist organizations and deport any noncitizen who belongs to them.
· grants the FBI broad access to sensitive business records about individuals without having to show evidence of a crime.
· leads to large-scale investigations of American citizens for "intelligence" purposes.
More specifically, Section 203
(Authority to Share Criminal Investigative Information) allows information
gathered in criminal proceedings to be shared with intelligence agencies,
including but not limited to the CIA — in effect, say critics, creating a
political secret police. No court order is necessary for law enforcement to
provide untested information gleaned from otherwise secret grand-jury
proceedings, and the information is not limited to the person being
Furthermore, this section allows law enforcement to share intercepted telephone and Internet conversations with intelligence agencies. No court order is necessary to authorize the sharing of this information, and the CIA is not prohibited from giving this information to foreign-intelligence operations — in effect, say critics, creating an international political secret police.
Kelly Patricia O’Meara, “Police State,” Insight On the News, 11/9/01.
 Morton H. Halperin warned: “Most of the new authorities are directed as much at American citizens as foreigners.” Tim Weiner, “The C.I.A.’s Domestic Reach,” New York Times, 1/20/02.
 Tim Weiner wrote: “Congress has given the C.I.A. new legal powers to snoop on people in the United States — not limited to investigating groups like Al Qaeda. It has been granted these new powers, along with billions of dollars, without any public post-mortem into how all these guardians of national security failed to protect against the September attacks.” [emphasis added] Tim Weiner, “The C.I.A.’s Domestic Reach,” New York Times, 1/20/02.
 Tim Weiner, “The C.I.A.’s Domestic Reach,” New York Times, 1/20/02.
 JAMES RISEN and DAVID JOHNSTON, “Agent Complaints Lead F.B.I. Director to Ask for Inquiry,” New York Times, 5/24/02.
 The Times explained that the FBI was not previously legally forbidden to engage in behavior such as infiltrating and spying on every aspect of American life. This was voluntary: “Indeed, the restrictions under which the F.B.I. has operated for three decades were self-imposed. Congressional pressure, lawsuits, scandals and a public outcry played a role in the bureau’s vow to limit domestic surveillance to situations in which criminal conduct was suspected. But the restrictions were not enforceable in court and were grounded in what might be called constitutional values, rather than actual law.” ADAM LIPTAK, “Changing the Standard,” New York Times, 5/31/02.
 The Times referred to this as “a broad loosening of the guidelines that restrict the surveillance of religious and political organizations.” DON VAN NATTA Jr., “Government Will Ease Limits on Domestic Spying by F.B.I.,” New York Times, 5/30/02.
 ADAM LIPTAK, “Changing the Standard” New York Times, 5/31/02.
 DON VAN NATTA Jr., “Government Will Ease Limits on Domestic Spying by F.B.I.,” New York Times, 5/30/02.
 William Safire, “J. Edgar Mueller,” New York Times, 6/3/02.
 “The guidelines were imposed in the 1970's after the disclosures about Cointelpro, a widespread domestic surveillance program that monitored antiwar militants, the Ku Klux Klan and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., among others, while J. Edgar Hoover was bureau director.” DON VAN NATTA Jr., “Government Will Ease Limits on Domestic Spying by F.B.I.,” New York Times, 5/30/02.
 Several observers have compared 9-11 to the American equivalent of the Reichstag fire, an incident that was blamed on the communists in Germany and used by the Nazis to justify a sweeping consolidation of power under the banner of anticommunism. It is strongly suspected that the Nazis not only exploited the event for political leverage, but staged it as well. Given the manner in which 9-11 has been cynically used by George Bush for similar ends, it is ironic that Bush pronounced terrorism as a “new totalitarian threat,” from the Reichstag and warned (apparently with no hint of irony or self-parody): “We must confront this conspiracy against our liberty and against our lives.” The New York Times covered this event on its front page the very same day it announced—also on its front page—that the US had been conducting human experiments on its own soldiers using nerve gases invented by the Nazis (“The Defense Department sprayed live nerve and biological agents on ships and sailors in cold war-era experiments to test the Navy's vulnerability to toxic warfare, the Pentagon revealed today”) and that the FBI hierarchy had suppressed warnings of 9-11 terrorist activities from its own agents prior to the World Trade Center attacks. Fittingly, the Times summarized:
“Laura W. Murphy, director of the national office of the A.C.L.U., said. ‘The government is rewarding failure. It seems when the F.B.I. fails, the response by the Bush administration is to give the bureau new powers, as opposed to seriously look at why the intelligence and law enforcement failures occurred.’”
DAVID E. SANGER, “In Reichstag, Bush Condemns Terror as New Despotism,” New York Times, 5/24/02; Thom Shanker, William Broad, “Sailors Sprayed with Nerve Gas In Cold War Test, Pentagon Says,” New York Times, 5/24/2002; Jim Yardley, “F.B.I. Didn’t Pursue Information On Terror Suspect, Papers Show,” New York Times, 5/42/02.
 “Hints of a new wave of COINTELPRO-style government surveillance first surfaced in fall 1999 as protesters gearing up for the World Trade Organization's meeting in Seattle complained about infiltration by undercover cops and federal agents. After Sept. 11, 2001, the feds embarked on an unprecedented and brazen campaign of domestic spying. Leading the charge, Attorney General John Ashcroft signaled his intent to spy on law-abiding religious congregations and political groups and pushed through the USA PATRIOT Act, which vastly expanded the government's phone-tapping and e-mail-monitoring powers and broke down barriers between the Central Intelligence Agency and the FBI. Now there's mounting evidence that government agents – returning to the ways of J. Edgar Hoover – are monitoring political dissidents…. There are several ways all of this government scrutiny could play out. If the new peace movement develops the muscle to paralyze major cities – à la antiglobalizers – it may find the feds doing more than discreetly keeping tabs and occasionally pulling suspected troublemakers off airplanes. There's the real possibility that FBI agents will covertly slip into the movement with the aim of crippling it from within (a favored tactic in the 1960s against the Black Panthers and the New Left) or enticing more-militant activists to participate in felonious behavior (as the bureau did more recently with Earth First! and the militia and white separatist movements).” A.C. Thompson, “They Spy: How law enforcement is keeping tabs on the new peace movement,” Sfgb.com, November 20, 2002.
 The author has summarized this program in The Perfect Assassin, and provides intriguing evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald’s violent leftist activities were designed to discredit left-leaning groups in the US and elsewhere. Jerry Leonard, The Perfect Assassin: Lee Harvey Oswald, the CIA and Mind Control. http://www.authorhouse.com
 The Israelis have been accused of using exactly this tactic with the same targeted al Qaeda “terrorist” group. Reuters (12/07/02) reported: “The Palestinian Authority accused Israel’s Mossad spy agency on Saturday of setting up a fake al Qaeda cell in Gaza so that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon could justify Israeli attacks in Palestinian areas.” Others have noted that the attacks of 9-11 by al Qaeda cells in the US, of which Israeli intelligence rings in the US apparently had prior knowledge, have been very useful for Israel as they are justifying US attacks on its enemy Iraq. The “terrorist” incidents conveniently made one of Israel’s biggest enemies (Iraq) the enemy and military target of the world’s greatest military power—the United States. Such a scenario is not out of the question. It is well known that the FBI and the Israelis cooperate extensively in infiltrating “extremist” groups in the US. One can’t help but wonder if the al Qaeda cell the FBI had infiltrated prior to the attacks was in fact being run by the Israelis. This wouldn’t be the first time intelligence operatives in the US went on to commit high-level crimes though under constant surveillance by rival intelligence agencies. As was recently revealed on the front page of the New York Times, declassified documents show the CIA was afraid that the FBI would discover evidence that they also had Lee Harvey Oswald under surveillance just prior to the Kennedy assassination. Times reporter Tim Weiner wrote: “The files show how the C.I.A. scrambled hours after the assassination on Nov. 22, 1963, to locate dossiers on Oswald (they found 30). They record a C.I.A. official’s fear that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was tailing him as he met with the mobster the C.I.A. had hired to kill Fidel Castro.” [emphasis added] T. Weiner, “Papers on Kennedy Assassination Are Unsealed, and ‘63 Is Revisited,” New York Times, 8/24/93. For the full story of how Oswald was used by the CIA, see: Jerry Leonard, The Perfect Assassin: Lee Harvey Oswald, the CIA and Mind Control.
 Michael Isikoff, “Exclusive: The Informant Who Lived With the Hijackers,” Newsweek, 9/16/02; http://www.msnbc.com/news/805186.asp
 Lee HarveyOswald was under both CIA and FBI surveillance as he met with CIA assassins shortly before the Kennedy assassination. The front page of the New York Times summarized documents declassified in 1993:
“The files show how the C.I.A. scrambled hours after the assassination on Nov. 22, 1963, to locate dossiers on Oswald (they found 30). They record a C.I.A. official’s fear that the Federal Bureau of Investigation was tailing him as he met with the mobster the C.I.A. had hired to kill Fidel Castro.”
T. Weiner, “Papers on Kennedy Assassination Are Unsealed, and ‘63 Is Revisited,” New York Times, 8/24/93.
 Major Garrett “Pentagon to Track American Consumer Purchases,” Fox News, Thursday, November 21, 2002, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,70992,00.html.
 Garrett related that the new system will be created by a convicted criminal: “Rear Adm. John Poindexter, former national security adviser to President Reagan, is developing the database under the Total Information Awareness Program. Poindexter was convicted on five counts of misleading Congress and making false statements during the Iran-Contra investigation.” Major Garrett “Pentagon to Track American Consumer Purchases,” Fox News, Thursday, November 21, 2002, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,70992,00.html.
 Major Garrett “Pentagon to Track American Consumer Purchases,” Fox News, Thursday, November 21, 2002, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,70992,00.html.
 This was the plot of the Hollywood movie “The Long Kiss Goodnight” in which the U.S. intelligence establishment manufactured a terrorist incident in New York as a “fund-raiser.” Whether premeditated or not, this has been the end result of the terrorist attacks on the U.S. As related by the Associated Press, in response to the 9-11 attacks, “The Bush administration is proposing a big budget increase for the CIA to pay for its role in the U.S. war on terrorism.” The increases are expected to be in the billions but, conveniently, “[p]recise figures were unavailable; U.S. intelligence spending is classified.” John J. Lumpkin, “CIA Gets Big Boost in Bush Budget,” Associated Press Washington Post, 2/4/02. See also: “CIA Gets Huge Rise in Antiterrorism Funds,” Reuters, 4/17/02.
 “It was not just airlines that were targeted by remarkably canny investors. One of the biggest occupants of the World Trade Centre was Morgan Stanley, the investment bank. In the first week of September, an average of 27 put option contracts was bought each day in its shares. The total for the three days before the attacks was 2,157. Merrill Lynch, another WTC tenant, saw 12,215 put options bought in the four days before the attacks, when the previous days had seen averages of 252 contracts a day.”
 Consider these headlines published in the wake of the 9-11 attack:
Privacy Trade-Offs Reassessed
Objections to Surveillance Technology Face New Test After Attack
By Ariana Eunjung Cha and Jonathan Krim, Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, September 13, 2001; Page E
Ashcroft Seeks Enhanced Wiretap Powers
By Pete Yost, Associated Press Writer
Sunday, Sept. 16, 2001; 9:52 p.m. EDT
Terrorism review may result in ID cards
DANIEL MCGRORY, The London Times
SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 15 2001
FBI to get extra spying powers,
Damian Whitworth TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 18 2001
 “The bill effectively tears down legal fire walls erected 25 years ago during the Watergate era, when the nation was stunned by disclosures about presidential abuses of domestic intelligence-gathering against political activists.” Jim McGee, “An Intelligence Giant in the Making Anti-Terrorism Law Likely to Bring Domestic Apparatus of Unprecedented Scope,” Washington Post, 11/4/01.
 Tim Weiner summarized in the New York Times: “In its first quarter-century, the C.I.A. did what Truman feared: it spied on Americans, opened their mail, tapped their phones. When those skeletons came tumbling from the closet in the mid-1970’s — and after the F.B.I.’s illegal surveillance of real and perceived enemies of the state was revealed — new laws took effect to guard against eavesdropping abuses by American intelligence and security agencies.” Tim Weiner, “The C.I.A.’s Domestic Reach,” New York Times, 1/20/02.
 The Baltimore Sun revealed: “U.S. military leaders proposed in 1962 a secret plan to commit terrorist acts against Americans and blame Cuba to create a pretext for invasion and the ouster of Communist leader Fidel Castro, according to a new book about the National Security Agency.” The Sun continued:
“’We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,’ said one document reportedly prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. ‘We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,’ the document says. ‘Casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of indignation.’” [emphasis added]
Scott Shane and Tom Bowman, “New book on NSA sheds light on secrets: U.S. terror plan called Cuba invasion pretext,” Baltimore Sun, April 24, 2001.
 The CIA helped bring Saddam Hussein to power and keep him there, as did members of George Bush’s administration when they worked as private citizens or government officials in previous administrations. (See Jonathan Marshall, IRAQ: It’s Not Always So Simple; Foreign policy malpractice, San Francisco Chronicle, 10/20/02) Saddam was seen as a useful ally. As Newsweek summarized: “American officials have known that Saddam was a psychopath ever since he became the country’s de facto ruler in the early 1970s. ...But top officials in the Reagan administration saw Saddam as a useful surrogate.” Christopher Dickey and Evan Thomas, “How Saddam Happened: America helped make a monster,” Newsweek, 9/23/02.
 One is reminded of Benjamin Franklin’s famous admonition: “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
 This domestic surveillance initiative also has corporate America drooling over potential profits. As the Washington Post summarized: "Homeland security. First there was the agency. Then there was the department. Now there is the brand. Nineteen months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, thousands of small and midsize U.S. companies like North American Access Technologies are rearranging priorities, renaming operations, repackaging products, and more or less reinventing themselves to cash in on what they hope will be hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending on domestic defense." Michael Barbaro, “Homeland Security for Sale: Firms Shift Focus To Capitalize on Defense Spending,” Washington Post, Monday, April 14, 2003; Page E01.
 “It has more lobbyists than there are members of Congress — 625 who are registered. It had a combined lobbying and campaign contribution budget in 1999 and 2000 of $197 million, larger than any other industry.” Leslie Wayne and Melody Petersen, “A Muscular Lobby Tries to Shape Nation’s Bioterror Plan,” New York Times, 11/4/01.
 Jeff Gerth, Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “Drug Industry Has Ties to Groups With Many Different Voices,” New York Times, 10/5/00.
 As related by the New York Times, pharmaceuticals companies, with an army of lobbyists are making attempts “to influence major policy decisions being made by the Bush administration that may well influence public health issues and industry profitability for years to come — much to the dismay of many consumer groups and others.” Leslie Wayne and Melody Petersen, “A Muscular Lobby Tries to Shape Nation’s Bioterror Plan,” New York Times, 11/4/01.
 “Executives of the major pharmaceutical companies have been hopping trains and planes to the nation’s capital, where they are staging an enormous lobbying campaign, at the highest levels of government, to help shape the nation’s bioterrorist plan — and beyond.” Leslie Wayne and Melody Petersen, “A Muscular Lobby Tries to Shape Nation’s Bioterror Plan,” New York Times, 11/4/01.
 According to the Times “at these top-level meetings, industry executives and lobbyists are seeking exemption from antitrust regulations, reduction of the timetable for getting new drugs to market for treating the ills of biological warfare, and immunity from lawsuits for any vaccines they develop to combat bioterrorism.” Leslie Wayne and Melody Petersen, “A Muscular Lobby Tries to Shape Nation’s Bioterror Plan,” New York Times, 11/4/01.
 “‘This is a great time to buy some good will,’ said Jake Hansen, a lobbyist for Barr Laboratories, which wants to make a generic version of Glucophage, the Bristol-Myers diabetic drug. Under ‘normal times,’ Mr. Hansen said, ‘the press would be having a field day’ over the [legislation] now in play. But, with the attention on anthrax, big pharmaceutical companies ‘know they are not under as much scrutiny,’ he said, adding ‘and they are taking advantage of that.’” Leslie Wayne and Melody Petersen, “A Muscular Lobby Tries to Shape Nation’s Bioterror Plan,” New York Times, 11/4/01.
 A government report noted the following with respect to the way experiments were routinely conducted on the public for decades prior to protective legislation: “In 1959 a Senate subcommittee chaired by Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee began hearings into the conduct of pharmaceutical companies. Testimony revealed that it was common practice for drug companies to provide samples of experimental drugs, whose safety and efficacy had not been established, to physicians, who were then paid to collect data on their patients taking these drugs. Physicians throughout the country prescribed these drugs to patients without their knowledge or consent as part of this loosely controlled research.” [emphasis added] Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments - Final Report, Chapter 3, Section: “The Development of Human Subject Research Policy at DHEW,” http://tis.eh.doe.gov/ohre/roadmap/achre/chap3_2.html (12/31/01)
 ANDREW POLLACK and WILLIAM J. BROAD, “Anti-Terror Drugs Get Test Shortcut,” New York Times, 5/31/02.
 “During a year when prescription drug prices and benefits are among the hottest political topics, dozens of members of Congress also have another reason to keep their eyes on pharmaceutical companies. These senators, House members and their families own tens of millions of dollars in stock in drug manufacturers, whose profits could rise or fall depending on what Congress does about the soaring prices of medicine and the push for Medicare drug benefits. The legislators’ stock holdings are legal but create appearances that trouble some congressional watchdogs and public policy experts.” Greg Gordon and Andrew Donahue, “Members of Congress Face Conflict of Interest When it Comes to Drug Companies,” McClatchy Newspapers, 9/29/00.
 In addition to the fact that many members of Congress own stock in the pharmaceuticals companies they are supposed to be regulating, many lobbyists are former government officials. The New York Times reported that “more than half the drug industry’s 625 registered lobbyists are either former members of Congress or former Congressional staff members and government employees, according to a report from Public Citizen.” Leslie Wayne and Melody Petersen, “A Muscular Lobby Tries to Shape Nation’s Bioterror Plan,” New York Times, 11/4/01.
 According to the Times, “a former chairman of the [FDA] who is now a director of a biotechnology company, EluSys Therapeutics, that is developing a drug to treat people exposed to biological agents.” ANDREW POLLACK and WILLIAM J. BROAD, “Anti-Terror Drugs Get Test Shortcut,” New York Times, 5/31/02.
 “James Love, the director of the Consumer Project on Technology, who works to get low-priced AIDS drugs to poor countries, called the industry’s drive for government contracts for medicines against bioterrorism ‘a feeding frenzy.’ ‘They are putting together another gravy train to cash in on some big government contracts,’ Mr. Love said.” Leslie Wayne and Melody Petersen, “A Muscular Lobby Tries to Shape Nation’s Bioterror Plan,” New York Times, 11/4/01.
 “At every opportunity, they have also noted that they plan to give away additional drugs and vaccines to the government fight bioterrorism — albeit with some important strings attached. The medications would be made available only if the government agreed to speed the process that would allow existing drugs to treat anthrax and only if there was a national emergency.” Leslie Wayne and Melody Petersen, “A Muscular Lobby Tries to Shape Nation’s Bioterror Plan,” New York Times, 11/4/01.
 Leslie Wayne and Melody Petersen, “A Muscular Lobby Tries to Shape Nation’s Bioterror Plan,” New York Times, 11/4/01.
 “Under the provision, a raft of Thimerosal lawsuits will be redirected from state courts to the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which caps damages and sharply limits who can file suits against vaccine makers.” Jonathan Weisman, “A Homeland Security Whodunit: In Massive Bill, Someone Buried a Clause to Benefit Drug Maker Eli Lilly,” Washington Post, Thursday, November 28, 2002.
 The number and type of side-effects observed in the initial testing of the smallpox vaccine program has shocked health professionals: “Of 200 young adults who received the vaccine as part of a recent government study, one-third missed at least one day of work or school, 75 had high fevers, and several were put on antibiotics because physicians worried that their blisters signaled a bacterial infection.” Ceci Connoll, “Smallpox Vaccine Reactions Jolt Experts: From Rashes to Fevers, Array of Side Effects Is Uncommon Today,” Washington Post, Thursday, December 5, 2002.
 Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) was quoted by the Post as saying: “Leave it to the Republicans to sneak in a proposal that protects manufacturers of the vaccine, doctors and nurses and leaves the person who may be injured -- even by negligent action -- to bear the whole burden of their injury.” Ceci Connolly, “Homeland Bill Covers Smallpox Shot Liability: U.S. Would Shield Firms, Health Workers,” Washington Post, Saturday, November 16, 2002.
 WILLIAM J. BROAD and JUDITH MILLER, “Health Data Monitored for Bioterror Warning,” New York Times, 1/27/02
 Initially the system was funded by the Pentagon and reported to Poindexter’s agency for total public surveillance, the Total Information Awareness Program (TIPs). It will have access to detailed data on individual health records, diagnoses and purchases.
 WILLIAM J. BROAD and JUDITH MILLER, “Health Data Monitored for Bioterror Warning,” New York Times, 1/27/02
 This system might be abetted by another Orwellian nightmare implemented in the name of protecting the public in the wake of 9-11. This is the national ID card mentioned above, which is scheduled to be implemented in Britain. In one vision of the plan, this ID card will contain detailed information of the DNA of each person in the country. This information would be beneficial to the pharmaceuticals industry for marketing products to the public and for correlating the effects of experimental pharmaceuticals products on the public. Additionally, it would create a civil liberties nightmare. As Henry Porter outlined the proposed British system in the Guardian, the “chairman of the Police Superintendents' Association, is hoping this week to add one more piece to the apparatus of control when he asks his association to call for a national DNA database that will include every man, woman and child in the country. The seriousness of the threat to individual liberty cannot be underestimated. Once a person's DNA is held by the police, there will be nothing they won't be able to tell about him or her. Every week, our ability to read the 30,000 human genes increases, and it cannot be long before scientists start making assumptions about personality traits from particular constellations of genes. Imagine this capability in the hands of a murder squad desperate to solve a difficult crime. Everyone with a particular profile would become a suspect. To place this power at the disposal of the police at this early stage in the development of genetics would be a disaster. But maybe we just don't care. As long as our comfort and pleasure are not immediately inconvenienced, we seem to go along with the idea of cars that automatically alert the authorities to speeding, or cameras that log our every movement.” Henry Porter, “America's dirty torture secret,” The Guardian, Wednesday September 10, 2003
 Newsweek summarized how the US not only assisted but armed Iraq in the early 1980s: “After Rumsfeld’s visit to Baghdad in 1983, U.S. intelligence began supplying the Iraqi dictator with satellite photos showing Iranian deployments. Official documents suggest that America may also have secretly arranged for tanks and other military hardware to be shipped to Iraq in a swap deal—American tanks to Egypt, Egyptian tanks to Iraq. Over the protest of some Pentagon skeptics, the Reagan administration began allowing the Iraqis to buy a wide variety of ‘dual use’ equipment and materials from American suppliers. According to confidential Commerce Department export-control documents obtained by NEWSWEEK, the shopping list included a computerized database for Saddam’s Interior Ministry (presumably to help keep track of political opponents); helicopters to transport Iraqi officials; television cameras for ‘video surveillance applications’; chemical-analysis equipment for the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission (IAEC), and, most unsettling, numerous shipments of ‘bacteria/fungi/protozoa’ to the IAEC. According to former officials, the bacteria cultures could be used to make biological weapons, including anthrax.” [emphasis added] Christopher Dickey and Evan Thomas, “How Saddam Happened: America helped make a monster,” Newsweek, 9/23/02.
 The White House budget director, Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., is a former Eli Lilly executive. Jonathan Weisman, “A Homeland Security Whodunit: In Massive Bill, Someone Buried a Clause to Benefit Drug Maker Eli Lilly,” Washington Post, Thursday, November 28, 2002.
 Rumsfeld has a history of using his government contacts to lobby the government on behalf of industry for the acceptance of new chemicals to be used on an unsuspecting public. He was reportedly one of the chief reasons that aspartame was accepted by the FDA.
 Former President George H.W. Bush (and former CIA head), father to current President George Bush III, was vice president under Reagan at the time the Reagan administration and the CIA were providing assistance to Iraq in its war (which included chemical warfare) against Iran. The Times again: “Though senior officials of the Reagan administration publicly condemned Iraq’s employment of mustard gas, sarin, VX and other poisonous agents, the American military officers said President Reagan, Vice President George Bush and senior national security aides never withdrew their support for the highly classified program in which more than 60 officers of the Defense Intelligence Agency were secretly providing detailed information on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for airstrikes and bomb-damage assessments for Iraq.”
 For an overview of the long-running set of experiments that the author proposes culminated in the AIDS epidemic, see AIDS: The “Perfect” Disease, by Jerry Leonard. This study also shows how AIDS is systematically benefiting the eugenics program that American elites used the Nazis to begin implementing.
 ANDREW POLLACK and WILLIAM J. BROAD, “Anti-Terror Drugs Get Test Shortcut,” New York Times, 5/31/02.
 THOM SHANKER with WILLIAM J. BROAD, “Sailors Sprayed With Nerve Gas in Cold War Test, Pentagon Says,” New York Times, 5/24/02.
 The US has pushed for other policies which have made it easier to implement the methods of the Third Reich on a global scale. For example, the father of the present president (George Bush, Sr., as head of the CIA prior to becoming president) assisted Nazi war criminal Kurt Waldheim in becoming head of the U.N. for ten years following WWII. (See: Hitler Is Winning, by the author.)
 “A number of health officials and experts are warning that steps being taken by the government and members of the public in response to threats of bioterrorism carry health risks that may far exceed their benefits. These experts are focusing on two developments: the rising interest in powerful antibiotics to counter anthrax and the possibility of renewing mass vaccinations for smallpox.” Gina Kolata, “‘Cure’ for Bioterror May Be Worse Than the Disease,” New York Times, 12/22/01.
 The implanted pet microchips were rationalized as a way to make a pet’s entire medical history available merely by scanning the pet with a special wand. Similar arguments may be used to justify similar policies with respect to people now that a crisis atmosphere has been created making people afraid they’ll need emergency government treatments for terrorist attacks.
 Farah reported that an organization called the World Economic Forum (WEF), whose goal is to vaccinate every human being on the planet, also gave a technology award to the company that has come up with an injectable microchip that could be monitored from global positioning satellites. Farah stated: “Now, I want you to use your imagination here, for a moment. Why would an organization committed to breaking down nationalist barriers and moving the world toward global government give a technology award to a company that just acquired the patent to a sophisticated, implantable identification device? Hmmmmm? And guess what one of the foremost goals of WEF is? You got it -- vaccinating every human being on the planet. How convenient! What a coincidence.” Farah, noting that the company’s sales projections only make sense if every human on the planet is forced to take the implanted chip: “And how could that be done? At vaccination time, of course.” Joseph Farah, “Meet the 'Digital Angel' -- from Hell,” Worldnetdaily.com, 2/14/00.
 For the full story of how American corporations not only managed the Holocaust for Hitler but gave him the war materials (synthetic gas and rubber, cars, trucks, tanks, jeeps and airplanes) to expand his bloodthirsty quest for a eugenic empire, see Hitler Is Winning, by the author.