Rocky Mountain News: Churchill Hung Out with Gadhafi
Kurt Nimmo
Feb. 12, '05
For the terminally misinformed, the very suggestion that Ward Churchill met with Moammar Gadhafi, as the Rocky Mountain News tells us, is evidence of treason. I mean, Moammar Gadhafi is a terrorist. He bombed a jet chock-full of innocent people over Lockerbie, Scotland, and killed U.S. soldiers in Germany, so he is a sworn enemy of the United States.
In fact, Gadhafi was framed on both counts.
Let’s take a look at the Lockerbie bombing first.
So concerned was the U.S. government that the truth about what really happened on that flight remain a secret it gagged a former CIA agent under state secrecy laws to prevent him from telling the truth.
Richard Fuisz was threatened with a ten year sentence if he violated the gag order. “Dr Fuisz has told me that he can identify who orchestrated and executed the bombing,” US congressional aide Susan Lindauer told the Sunday Herald in May, 2000. “Dr Fuisz has said that he can confirm absolutely that no Libyan national was involved in planning or executing the bombing of Pan Am 103, either in any technical or advisory capacity whatsoever.”
So what does Fuisz know and why did the government want to shut him up?
“Lester Knox Coleman, formerly with the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is a key witness behind allegations that negligence on the part of the US government led to the placing of a bomb on board Pan Am flight 103 which exploded over Lockerbie in Scotland on December 21, 1988, killing 270 people,” the London Times reported on July 22, 1991. At the time of the London Times report, Knox was in hiding because four members of his secret unit were mysteriously killed—a not altogether uncommon fate for spooks who know too much, especially about the CIA’s well-documented and highly profitable drug trade business. “Washington says its Libya [that] sabotaged the plane,” TIME Magazine reported on April 2, 1992. “Provocative evidence suggests that a Syrian drug dealer may have helped plant the bomb—and that the real targets were intelligence agents working for the CIA.”
Nearly ten years later, as a former Libyan intelligence agent, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-
Megrahi, stood trial in Scotland for the crime, Moammar Gadhafi said he “could produce evidence that Washington put pressure on the Scottish judges to convict Al Megrahi,” the BBC reported on February 5, 2001. “Robert Black, the Scottish law professor who devised the format of the Netherlands-based trial, was quoted … as saying he was ‘absolutely astounded’ that al-Megrahi had been found guilty. Mr. Black said he believed the prosecution had ‘a very, very weak circumstantial case’ and he was reluctant to believe that Scottish judges would ‘convict anyone, even a Libyan’ on such evidence.”
As it turns out, the CIA produced a spook on its payroll, Abdul Majid Abdul Razkaz Abdul-Salam Giaka, as its star witness in the case. “He told me he had 10 kilograms (22 pounds) of TNT delivered,” Giaka said of al-Megrahi, CNN reported. “The best we learn of events in Libya,” Robert Fisk commented sarcastically at the time, “is from a CIA-paid ‘witness’ who is totally discredited by the judgment.”
In short, the CIA was caught with its pants down, innocent people paid with their lives—nothing new, the CIA has directly or indirectly killed millions of people over the years—and Libya was framed, just to make sure sanctions remained in place and the whole world understood—or at least gullible Americans understood—Gadhafi supported terrorism.
Next up, the 1986 bombing of a West Berlin nightclub and Reagan’s bombing of Libya in response.
No doubt about it, the La Bell disco—where American soldiers were partying—was bombed, although the chief of the German investigating team later admitted there was no evidence of Libya’s connection to the bombing.
According to Victor Ostrovsky, a former Mossad agent, Israel framed Libya for this bombing by planting a radio transmitter in Tripoli. “The device would act as a relay station for misleading transmissions made by the disinformation unit in the Mossad, called LAP, and intended to be received by American and British listening stations,” writes Ostrovsky. “Originating from an IDF navy ship out at sea, the prerecorded digital transmissions could be picked up only by [Mossad’s Operation Trojan]. The device would then rebroadcast the transmission on another frequency, one used for official business in the enemy country, at which point the transmission would finally be picked up by American ears in Britain.”
“The Berlin incident was then used as pretext for the April 14 bombing of Qaddafi’s headquarters in Libya, killing Qaddafi’s daughter,” write Thomas Bodenheimer and Robert Gould, “the goal of the bombing was to assassinate Qaddafi or to encourage a coup against him. Because of almost unanimous negative foreign reaction, the United States stopped the escalation.”
In a sort of pre-axis of evil speech, Reagan declared, “Most of the terrorists who are kidnapping and murdering American citizens and attacking American installations are being trained, financed and directly or indirectly controlled by a core group of radical and totalitarian governments, a new international version of Murder, Inc,” including Iran, Libya, North Korea, Cuba and Nicaragua, “a confederation of outlaw terrorist states engaged in outright war against the United States” and supported by Reagan’s Evil Empire, the Soviet Union. “Right-wing Sen. Jeremiah Denton, Chair of the Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism, claimed that a vast terrorist network is controlled by the Soviet Union and allied with the international narcotics trade,” explain Bodenheimer and Gould.
No, not the CIA “international narcotics trade,” but one sponsored by the commies.
Of course, considering all of this information would likely befuddle the readers of Rocky Mountain News, and publishing it would get journalists fired, we are left with mere innuendo, which in fact is more than enough these days—Ward Churchill, as a terrorist simpatico du jour, once traveled to Libya to plot against America with the master of terrorism—who in fact had nothing to do with the two major terrorists events attributed to him—the evil Moammar Gadhafi, who is no longer evil (for the moment) because he has sworn off weapons of mass destruction.
If the Rocky Mountain News was in fact a real newspaper, it would publish a story about the CIA’s involvement in international drug business instead of hounding Ward Churchill.
On the other hand, this may not be a good idea because the last guy who did this ended up committing suicide by shooting himself twice in the head with a revolver.
February 12, 2005
Listening to the Enemy
Earlier this week I received an email, in response to my article A Ward Churchill Kind of Day, indicating that I would probably be doing myself a favor if I didn’t listen to right-winger talk radio.
So why do I listen to hate radio?
Because it is a good idea to find out what the enemy is up to—especially when that enemy is gunning for you.
For instance, less than thirty minutes ago, as I was out doing errands, I turned on the local radio station. I had the radio on for approximately two minutes, listening to the Michael “Little Pinochet” Weiner, aka Michael Savage, radio program. In the span of that two minutes, Weiner said the following: Lynne Stewart belongs in prison, and not only should the “cigar store Indian” Ward Churchill be arrested and charged with sedition, so should all the “cancer cells” on the Left, in other words all of you who disagree with Bush and the Strausscons, literally millions of people. For Weiner, anybody to the left of “right of center” is a potential enemy.
Naturally, since Weiner is a nut case, very angry and obviously a racist, homophobe, and opposed to feminism, that is to say he is a strident enemy of people who consider themselves progressive—he even believes Nancy Pelosi is dangerous, if you can believe it—he is relatively easy to write off.
However, consider the following: Weiner’s radio program is carried on hundreds of radio stations, thanks to Clear Channel Communications and the Talk Radio Network syndication group, and it is immensely popular. “His drive-time program, aired for four hours a day, five days a week from a station in what is arguably America’s most liberal metropolitan area [San Francisco], is ranked No. 4 among the nation’s radio talk shows,” writes Camille Jackson. “As many as 7 million people around the country—most of them white men aged 35 to 55, according to the industry-watching Talkers Magazine—listen to ‘The Savage Nation’ through some 330 affiliated stations.”
In a nation of 300 million people, seven million does not seem like a lot. But consider this: Weiner is ranked number four behind the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly, who also serve as attack dogs for the far right wing in this country. In the line-up, completely obliterating anything the Left has to say, are Sean Hannity, Michael Medved, G. Gordon Liddy, and Michael Reagan, to mention only those that come readily to mind. Millions of people are influenced by these people every single day. Add to hate radio the increasing rightward slant of TV news, inspired by the success of Fox News, and you have a virtual right-winger vapor lock on the media. Print media is not much better.
Ignoring what Weiner and O’Reilly say would not only be dangerous, it would be foolish.
Of course, I don’t spend all my time listening to talk radio and watching Fox News. In fact, I spend comparatively little time doing this, but I do follow news stories related to these people, especially when they attack the Left, as they are now doing in regard to Ward Churchill.
It is my prediction that this particular nasty turn—attacking university and college professors—will ultimately pan out into a broad-based purge, not only of academics but journalists, commentators, and even bloggers as well, in short anybody who may exact a small degree of influence on other people. Of course, considering the negligible influence Ward Churchill has on the public at large, who never even heard of him prior to a few weeks ago, a purge waged against university professors and alternative media would be absurd. In a way, it would be almost unbelievable.
Believe it.
That’s why they are called “reactionaries.”
February 12, 2005
9/11: the Weak Link
Hats off to Richard Oxman for taking Michael Albert to task for making excuses for the right-wing hit squad’s vociferous attack on Ward Churchill (Michael Albert’s Head Downer: No Alberich’s Cloak for Churchill, Please).
However, I believe the entire argument, as defined by the right-wingers, and defended by Churchill, is flawed. Right-wingers say Ward is defending Muslim terrorists who attacked America on September, 11, 2001, and Churchill responds by declaring the attack was blowback in response to decades of well-document abuse, conveniently ignored by the right-wingers—because they support such abuse—most notably the also well-documented premeditated murder of 500,000 Iraqi children at the hands of Bush-Clinton-Bush. In fact, this abuse—a massive crime against humanity—is far more well-documented than what happened on September 11, 2001.
As it now stands, we have no idea who attacked the WTC and the Pentagon. It is essentially an unsolved crime. Bush and Crew have not provided us with sufficient evidence the attacks were carried out by Osama bin Laden and his medieval Muslim cave dwellers. The Bush “commission” was an obvious whitewash, staffed by “bipartisan” insiders, a commission Bush only arranged on pain of negative publicity from victim families. Bush did not want any investigation. He wanted his unverified story to stand, no questions asked or answered. I will not go into the numerous inconsistencies in the government case against al-Qaeda, or their failure to answer crucial questions, and will leave it up to you to read the voluminous information out there, presented mostly by the 9/11 truth movement, demonstrating the fact this remains an unsolved crime and the perps are at large.
For me, what is shocking is that the Left so effortlessly bought into the official story like virtually everybody else in the country. If Albert’s essay demonstrates anything, it is that the Left is as witless and easily misled as the average American, shocking because they should know better as students of history. In fact, the entire Ward Churchill fiasco is an object lesson in how easy it is to trick the Left.
As we know, the WTC “story” was disseminated by the Bush regime in the hours following the attacks and was uncritically, in fact slavishly broadcast by the corporate media, the same media that later sold the Iraqi invasion to the American people with nearly as much ease. No evidential detail was provided. In a matter of hours, blame was affixed to an evil Muslim madman and his organization. Few bothered to question this or even ask for solid, let alone circumstantial evidence. It simply stuck like epoxy glue and nearly everybody, including the Left, adopted it as their frame of reference.
In short, a camarilla of right-wingers, attached at the hip to a gang of Muslim-hating right-wingers in Israel, contrived a story that served their best interests—cui bono comes into play here big time—and it was bought hook, line, and sinker by the American public, including a whole lot of people on the Left such as Michael Albert. Great thinkers, for instance Noam Chomsky, uncritically accepted the story, taking it as the basis of all arguments to follow.
Strangely, Ward Churchill accepts the original story, minus conclusive evidence, indicating that it is arrogant and apparently racist to believe Arabs are incapable launching such attacks. However, more than a few intelligence experts, admittedly white men, have said there is no way a small group, not connected to a state intelligence service, would be able to pull off such an attack. Ward Churchill, Michael Albert, and Noam Chomsky, for their own reasons, believe the Bush version of events—even though we know Bush is a verified liar, or at best a wind-up doll for verified liars, namely Cheney and the neocons.
Please don’t misunderstand. I am not dissing Churchill, Albert, or Chomsky. All of them have contributed greatly to the large body of knowledge out there indicting the United States government in long-standing and repeated crimes against humanity. 9/11, and its government generated explanation, is however the weak link in this indictment and it should not be used as a foundation until conclusively proven to be correct or incorrect.
No comments:
Post a Comment