Tag Archives: lies

Obama Promised GMO Labeling in 2007

According to a poll conducted by Reuters Thompson, more than 90% of Americans feel that products containing GMOs should be labeled.  Back in 2007, Obama pulled the support of GMO activists by promising to push for proper labeling of GMO food items, stating that he would push to “let folks know when their food is genetically modified, because Americans have a right to know what they’re buying.” Of course the promise was not fulfilled, as 4 years later in 2011 GMO foods are still not properly labeled. In fact, products containing the Non-GMO label have actually been found to contain GMOs.

Not only has Obama been completely silent on the GMO labeling issue despite his bold statements, but so has the FDA — the very organization in charge of ensuring the ‘health’ of United States consumers. An organization that has caused even more harm, however, is the USDA. The USDA has been approving the production of many new genetically modified crops, including the highly-controversial genetically modified alfalfa. Despite the warnings of scientists and health activists over the dangers of genetically modified crops on human health and the environment, the USDA has continually supported biotech corporation Monsanto over the American public.

GMOs rambunctiously approved by the FDA and USDA, despite known dangers

Despite acknowledging the fact that these crops lead to herbicide-resistant weeds, the USDA assures consumers that these DNA-altering crops are safe for consumption.

As the FDA and USDA continually approve genetically modified creations such as AquaAdvantage salmon without proper labeling, it becomes necessary for consumers to take action. Major ‘health’ food stores like Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s still offer products that contain GMOs that are either not labeled at all, or deceptively so. Slogans like ‘All Natural’ mean virtually nothing when it comes to GMOs and other toxic ingredients, tricking shoppers into thinking they are avoiding these health sinks.

Tell Whole Foods and Trader Joe’s to label their GMO products and stop deceiving customers. It seems that it will be health-conscious activists, not Obama, who will ”let folks know when their food is genetically modified, because Americans have a right to know what they’re buying.”


Greece as Victim-Paul Krugman

Source

Ever since Greece hit the skids, we’ve heard a lot about what’s wrong with everything Greek. Some of the accusations are true, some are false — but all of them are beside the point. Yes, there are big failings in Greece’s economy, its politics and no doubt its society. But those failings aren’t what caused the crisis that is tearing Greece apart, and threatens to spread across Europe.
Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

No, the origins of this disaster lie farther north, in Brussels, Frankfurt and Berlin, where officials created a deeply — perhaps fatally — flawed monetary system, then compounded the problems of that system by substituting moralizing for analysis. And the solution to the crisis, if there is one, will have to come from the same places.

So, about those Greek failings: Greece does indeed have a lot of corruption and a lot of tax evasion, and the Greek government has had a habit of living beyond its means. Beyond that, Greek labor productivity is low by European standards — about 25 percent below the European Union average. It’s worth noting, however, that labor productivity in, say, Mississippi is similarly low by American standards — and by about the same margin.

On the other hand, many things you hear about Greece just aren’t true. The Greeks aren’t lazy — on the contrary, they work longer hours than almost anyone else in Europe, and much longer hours than the Germans in particular. Nor does Greece have a runaway welfare state, as conservatives like to claim; social expenditure as a percentage of G.D.P., the standard measure of the size of the welfare state, is substantially lower in Greece than in, say, Sweden or Germany, countries that have so far weathered the European crisis pretty well.

So how did Greece get into so much trouble? Blame the euro.

Fifteen years ago Greece was no paradise, but it wasn’t in crisis either. Unemployment was high but not catastrophic, and the nation more or less paid its way on world markets, earning enough from exports, tourism, shipping and other sources to more or less pay for its imports.

Then Greece joined the euro, and a terrible thing happened: people started believing that it was a safe place to invest. Foreign money poured into Greece, some but not all of it financing government deficits; the economy boomed; inflation rose; and Greece became increasingly uncompetitive. To be sure, the Greeks squandered much if not most of the money that came flooding in, but then so did everyone else who got caught up in the euro bubble.

And then the bubble burst, at which point the fundamental flaws in the whole euro system became all too apparent.

Ask yourself, why does the dollar area — also known as the United States of America — more or less work, without the kind of severe regional crises now afflicting Europe? The answer is that we have a strong central government, and the activities of this government in effect provide automatic bailouts to states that get in trouble.

Consider, for example, what would be happening to Florida right now, in the aftermath of its huge housing bubble, if the state had to come up with the money for Social Security and Medicare out of its own suddenly reduced revenues. Luckily for Florida, Washington rather than Tallahassee is picking up the tab, which means that Florida is in effect receiving a bailout on a scale no European nation could dream of.

Or consider an older example, the savings and loan crisis of the 1980s, which was largely a Texas affair. Taxpayers ended up paying a huge sum to clean up the mess — but the vast majority of those taxpayers were in states other than Texas. Again, the state received an automatic bailout on a scale inconceivable in modern Europe.

So Greece, although not without sin, is mainly in trouble thanks to the arrogance of European officials, mostly from richer countries, who convinced themselves that they could make a single currency work without a single government. And these same officials have made the situation even worse by insisting, in the teeth of the evidence, that all the currency’s troubles were caused by irresponsible behavior on the part of those Southern Europeans, and that everything would work out if only people were willing to suffer some more.

Which brings us to Sunday’s Greek election, which ended up settling nothing. The governing coalition may have managed to stay in power, although even that’s not clear (the junior partner in the coalition is threatening to defect). But the Greeks can’t solve this crisis anyway.

The only way the euro might — might — be saved is if the Germans and the European Central Bank realize that they’re the ones who need to change their behavior, spending more and, yes, accepting higher inflation. If not — well, Greece will basically go down in history as the victim of other people’s hubris.


The New York Times:Most Aid to Athens Circles Back to Europe

PARIS — Its membership in the euro currency union hanging in the balance, Greece continues to receive billions of euros in emergency assistance from a so-called troika of lenders overseeing its bailout.

But almost none of the money is going to the Greek government to pay for vital public services. Instead, it is flowing directly back into the troika’s pockets.

The European bailout of 130 billion euros ($163.4 billion) that was supposed to buy time for Greece is mainly servicing only the interest on the country’s debt — while the Greek economy continues to struggle.

If that seems to make little sense economically, it has a certain logic in the politics of euro-finance. After all, the money dispensed by the troika — the European Central Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the European Commission — comes from European taxpayers, many of whom are increasingly wary of the political disarray that has afflicted Athens and clouded the future of the euro zone.

As they pay themselves, though, the troika members are also withholding other funds intended to keep the Greek government in operation.

Last week, the Athens office that tracks revenue said Greece could run out of money by July. If so, Greece could default on its debts — except those due to the central bank, the monetary fund and the European Union.

“Greece will not default on the troika because the troika is paying themselves,” said Thomas Mayer, a senior adviser at Deutsche Bank in Frankfurt.

In an elaborate payment system that began after the May 6 election that brought down the Greek government and is meant to ensure that the Greeks do not touch the cash, the big three creditors are now wiring bailout payments to an escrow account in Greece. There the money sits for two or three days — before much of it is sent back to the troika as interest payments on the Greek bonds that Europe accepted under terms of the bailout deal struck in February.

About three-quarters of Greece’s debt, or $229 billion, is now effectively owned by one of the three troika members, according to estimates by the investment bank UBS.

The central bank, in particular, is eager to be paid back, said Mr. Mayer, who has followed the cash.

To help calm volatile financial markets, it bought billions of euros in Greek bonds that come due monthly. “It’s why they want to get paid back every month now,” he said. “The E.C.B. bought at a high price and now insists on being paid in full.”

Some people close to the situation say the troika is also trying to put financial pressure on Greece to do what it can to collect tax revenue from an increasingly devastated economy.

The managing director of the I.M.F., Christine Lagarde, prompted a furor in Greece over the weekend when she chastised Greeks for not paying taxes, in an interview with The Guardian.

A Greek government adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity, for fear of alienating the European lenders, said of the troika: “They made sure that the sum for domestic spending is kept small enough to force Greece to dramatically raise its own revenues.”

On its face, the situation seems absurd. The European authorities are effectively lending Greece money so Greece can repay the money it borrowed from them.

“You send the money, you call it a ‘loan’ — you get it back and call it an ‘interest rate,’ ” said Stephane Deo, global head of asset allocation in London for UBS. Mr. Deo said such arrangements were common in situations where governments were in danger of defaulting on their debts.

That is because governments do not go bankrupt in the same way that companies do; creditors cannot break them up and sell the assets to recover some of their money. So creditors have an incentive to ensure that distressed governments continue to repay their debts, even if it means lending them the money.

Since May 2010, Greece has been sent about $177 billion in European taxpayer money to keep the country afloat and ward off a bigger crisis that might threaten the entire currency union. Of that amount, a full two-thirds has gone to pay off bondholders and the troika.

Only a third has been earmarked to finance government operations, with only a tiny sliver spent on stimulus projects for the anemic economy.

This circular lending is all about risk management. After all, Greece this year negotiated a debt deal in which banks that held its bonds got only about half of their money back.

The troika wants to ensure the same does not happen to its members and the taxpayers. European officials have also pointed to Greece’s track record on finances, including manipulating its budget numbers to qualify to join the euro union in 2001, and government corruption since then.

Another recent development has rung alarm bells. Last month the troika sent Greece $31 billion to help shore up its banks.

On Tuesday, the caretaker Greek government dispensed $23 billion of it to the banks. But some Greek officials have suggested tapping the remainder to keep the government running past June, should the troika continue to wield a tight fist.

The European Central Bank became one of Greece’s biggest creditors after it started buying debt from troubled euro zone countries in 2010 to help stabilize prices. The bank does not disclose how much Greek debt it bought, but estimates are from $44 billion to $69 billion.

Greek bonds are a profitable investment for the bank as long as Greece continues to make interest payments. The bank exempted itself from the debt restructuring deal. And Greek bonds were already trading at a big discount when the central bank started buying them. As a result, the bank is earning an effective interest rate of 10 percent or so, Mr. Deo estimated.

But he added that it was also a risky trade. If Greece defaulted, European taxpayers might ultimately have to pour new money into the bank’s capital reserves.

The European Union’s bailout fund, the European Financial Stability Facility, also became a major Greek creditor as a result of the debt-reduction deal that Greece negotiated with bondholders. All told its contribution amounted to about $88 billion.

However harsh the payback terms might seem, the European authorities have a strong interest in avoiding the even higher costs that would result if Greece left the euro zone or defaulted completely on its debt.

As early as next year, according to optimistic estimates, Greece could reach the point where tax receipts exceed government operating expenses.

At that point, a populist government might be tempted to stop making debt payments altogether. If so, it might then take its chances on its own, outside the euro zone without the burden of interest payments.

To help leaders in Greece resist that temptation, the troika’s reasoning goes, it is better to help them service the debt immediately.

source


Masterplan

I am not an economist or a sociologist or any of all those -ists.
I see things as any citizen does.
” I am threatened so I defend myself”

But the current situation has gotten out of control,or it is just me thinking so?

Take a look at the world you are living in.

Northern Europe blames Southern Europe for the markets’ economic collapse. Southern Europe blames Northern Europe for harsh austerity,Southern European countries are blaming each other,USA is blaming Germany,Germany blames the “lazy Greeks,the “lazy Greeks blame WW2 and the Germans and the IMF,USA is sending air forces to Syria where everybody is to be blamed exactly as it had happened in Gaddafi’s Libya & Hussein’s Iraq,Egypt blames Israel and Israel blames China,China blames the USA and USA blames the british SIS and Putin,Putin blames the EU and all of the world blames Assange and Greece.

Do you see something wrong in the picture?

I do.

The austerity scheme hasn’t paid back to the banks the “big bucks” plan, and the markets do collapse let alone the Eurozone and global destabilization.So what’s the game here and they have us on each other’s throat? NONE.
The Game is us.. the people of this earth.So damn easily manipulated and so willing to turn against each other to make the big shots really rich.

How many of you are receiving financial e-mails? You must have noticed the tornado of mass mailing with the topic “how to get richer in a global crisis”

It’s not a copy paste thingy,It DOES happen while some are blaming the rest for this mess.

Verbal terrorism and mind control:

Take a look at the daily online news and you will understand if you haven’t already:

Reuters: Greece is ready to exit the EZ
Bloomberg: “The end of the Eurozone
RT: “Syria Underground Plans”
etc
etc
etc

Do you feel scared for your savings each time you read a headline like those? Do you feel afraid for your own life?

You do well.. Because if you do,you are a victim of the Main Stream Media playing their own game.

Since the “countries defaulting” schema didn’t work out to terrorize this planet’s population,now we are all in front of the heavy artillery.
SYRIA
USA
RUSSIA
CHINA

Possibly India and Iran but everybody knows that Iran is NOT Iraq! Epic Fail for the ones plotting.

So yes,there is going to happen a war scenario in the Middle Easte,and a possible Israeli involvement to save the failure of the monetary plan.. the cash war as i use to call it.
Since the cash war didn’t pay off and big time,as the bad asses were expecting,we are heading for a war or an “incident”

The analysts will have to clarify this with no trembling voices or shaky hands just to sell some 5 minutes on YouTube.

You aren’t sure what you are feeding your children,if it is GMO’s or pure food.. nor am i,on the other end of the globe.. you can’t have your private garden and grow your own veggies.. nor can I on the other end of the world..
You take a look at the spraying aircrafts above the crops in the evenings.. so do I at the other end of the globe

You wonder why there are no bees this summer.. And so did I at the other end of the globe.

Do you see the pieces of the puzzle?

There are no coincidences in politics and there are no countries in Politics either.All there is,is cash.. money.. euros.. dollars.. gold & silver.Population reduction are the key words.

I had a tough time believing it but I am sure of the fact now.
You can read behind the lines or between the lines of what you are being fed with as Morning News.. and you will know.
And the debts,the crashing markets,the euro-story and the Syrian incidents are not a coincidence either.

They all are ways to manipulate all of us.. turn us against each other,cultivate the nationalism,the hatred,the fascism.. nest absurd laws against our own freedom,gained after so many fights,cancel our freedom,lullaby us with the voting right while we are denied from any right at all.

I hope you all belong to the 99%..I do too
I am still so surprised by all that plotting that I am done trying to defend myself or my family.

I want this world to be a safe place for everyone.
I want no wars,no threats no terror in our lives.

But it takes the 1% to join.And understand what’s this game about.

Financial assassins: the new terminology!

Countries going straight to hell while the vultures are waiting on a dry tree branch. This isn’t fair for no one of all of us!
This isn’t the world that we deserved.And we were tricked.. maybe fooled.. to be a part of this deformed global plan

We were trained like monkeys to react,think,live,die as few wanted us to.

Open your eyes and see the future with no prejudice.This our only salvation.

Watch this carefully please.It’s not containing weird prophecies or any other kind of BS.. this is your BACK YARD!


HK … and The CIA . Behind the Pinochet Coup in Chile … Illegal bombing in Cambodia and East Timor Massacre and so much more …

why is he allowed to roam free ? and attend Bilderburg
CIA and Kissinger … same thing. So many countries   Raped and Ruined … and Monsanto gets to destroy  with Their Round up Ready, poison proof engineered foods,,that infect Natural crops making them dependant on the chemicals they sell , … When any country decides to not be controlled by these people ..they get controlled by force …In the name of “Democracy” .. False Flag Attacks …where Religion,Communism or Terrorism are blamed for the attacks that are engineered by the Illuminati , coups,rigged elections , assasinations .. Look beyond the headlines …And you will see thay are really after Natural Resources,Plundering for Profit ,for themselves and the 1% on the payroll to mask and confuse the rest .. A PRISON FOR YOUR MIND …  .. Kissinger is the Master .. be afraid … or Stand Up  and be heard !!.


Covert Empire: The NSA is Lying – US Government Has Copies of Most of Your Emails

http://www.democracynow.org/embed/story/2012/4/20/whistleblower_the_nsa_is_lying_us

William Binney served in the NSA for over 30 years, including a time as director of the NSA’s World Geopolitical and Military Analysis Reporting Group. Since retiring from the NSA in 2001, he has warned that the NSA’s data-mining program has become so vast that it could “create an Orwellian state.”

Jacob Appelbaum, a computer security researcher who has volunteered with WikiLeaks. He is a developer and advocate for the Tor Project, a network enabling its users to communicate anonymously on the internet.

Laura Poitras, an award-winning documentary filmmaker and producer. She is working on the third part of a trilogy of films about America post-9/11. The first film was My Country, My Country,” and the second was The Oath.

National Security Agency whistleblower William Binney reveals he believes domestic surveillance has become more expansive under President Obama than President George W. Bush. He estimates the NSA has assembled 20 trillion “transactions” — phone calls, emails and other forms of data — from Americans. This likely includes copies of almost all of the emails sent and received from most people living in the United States. Binney talks about Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act and challenges NSA Director Keith Alexander’s assertion that the NSA is not intercepting information about U.S. citizens. This interview is part of a 4-part special. Click here to see segment 12, and 3.

Transcript

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, I wanted to ask William Binney about this issue. When it comes to snail mail, the old postal system, it’s very tough for the government to intercept mail, except in times of war, particular situations. When it comes to phone conversations, land phone conversations, you need a warrant to be able to intercept phone conversations. But what about email, and what about the communication now that is really the dominant form that not only Americans, but many people around the world communicate? What are the restrictions on the government in terms of email?

WILLIAM BINNEY: Well, after some of the laws they passed, like the PATRIOT Act and their secret interpretation of Section 215, which is—my view, of course, is same as Tom Drake’s, is that that gives them license to take all the commercially held data about us, which is exceedingly dangerous, because if you take that and put it into forms of graphing, which is building relationships or social networks for everybody, and then you watch it over time, you can build up knowledge about everyone in the country. And having that knowledge then allows them the ability to concoct all kinds of charges, if they want to target you. Like in my case, they fabricated several charges and attempted to indict us on them. Fortunately, we were able to produce evidence that would make them look very silly in court, so they didn’t do it. In fact, it was—I was basically assembling evidence of malicious prosecution, which was a countercharge to them. So…

AMY GOODMAN: Do you believe all emails, the government has copies of, in the United States?

WILLIAM BINNEY: I would think—I believe they have most of them, yes.

AMY GOODMAN: And you’re speaking from a position where you would know, considering your position in the National Security Agency.

WILLIAM BINNEY: Right. All they would have to do is put various Narus devices at various points along the network, at choke points or convergent points, where the network converges, and they could basically take down and have copies of most everything on the network.

AMY GOODMAN: Jacob, your email?

JACOB APPELBAUM: Well, I selectively chose to use certain public services, like Sonic.net and Gmail, and I specifically did that so as to serve as a warning to other people. I didn’t use it for anything interesting, never once emailed Julian, for example, from those accounts. But the U.S. government again asserted in those cases, according to the Wall Street Journal, which is one way to find out about what’s going on with you—they asserted that they have the right to all that metadata. And it is possible—on Monday, I had a little interaction with the FBI, where they sort of hinted that maybe there might be a national security letter for one of my email accounts, which is also hosted by Google, specifically because I want to serve as a canary in a coal mine for other people.

AMY GOODMAN: A national security letter—it’s believed the government has given out hundreds of thousands of those.

JACOB APPELBAUM: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: I have also written about NSLs. But if you get one, you are not allowed to talk about it, on pain of something like up to five years in prison, even to mention that you were handed a national security letter that said turn something over.

JACOB APPELBAUM: Yeah. That was the case of Nick Merrill, for example, who’s a brave American, who essentially fought and won the NSL that was handed down to him.

AMY GOODMAN: And the librarians of Connecticut—

JACOB APPELBAUM: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: —who were taking on the USA PATRIOT Act and didn’t want to give information over about patrons in the library that the FBI wanted to get information on.

JACOB APPELBAUM: Right, absolutely. So, an NSL, what’s specifically scary about it is that all that is required is for an FBI agent to assert that they need one, and that’s it. And you don’t have a chance to have judicial review, because you aren’t the one served. Your service provider will be served. And they can’t tell you, so you don’t get your day in court.

AMY GOODMAN: Laura, can you set up this clip that we have?

LAURA POITRAS: Yes, actually, this is what Jake was alluding to. On Monday, there was a panel at the Open Society Institute. And Jake—and there was a deputy general counsel of the FBI who was present, and Jake had the opportunity to question her about national security letters.

JACOB APPELBAUM: Are you including national security letters in your comment about believing that there is judicial oversight with the FBI’s actions?

FBI DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL: National security letters and administrative subpoenas have the ability to have judicial oversight, yes.

JACOB APPELBAUM: How many of those actually do have judicial oversight, in percentage?

FBI DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL: What do you mean by that? How many have—

JACOB APPELBAUM: I mean, every time you get a national security letter, you have to go to a judge? Or—

FBI DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL: No, as you well know, national security letters, just like administrative subpoenas, you don’t have to go to a judge. The statute does allow for the person on whom those are served to seek judicial review. And people have done so.

JACOB APPELBAUM: And in the case of the third parties, such as, say, the 2703(d) orders that were served on my — according to the Wall Street Journal — my Gmail account, my Twitter account, and my internet service provider account, the third parties were prohibited from telling me about it, so how am I supposed to go to a judge, if the third party is gagged from telling me that I’m targeted by you?

FBI DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL: There are times when we have to have those things in place. So, at some point, obviously, you became aware. So at some point, the person does become aware. But yes, the statute does allow us to do that. The statute allows us.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, Jacob, explain who she was again.

JACOB APPELBAUM: So, my understanding is that she’s the deputy general counsel of the FBI.

AMY GOODMAN: And the significance of what she has just said?

JACOB APPELBAUM: Essentially, what she says is, “We are just and righteous because you get judicial review. But there are some cases where you don’t, and we are still just and righteous. And you should trust us, because COINTELPRO will never happen again.” That’s what I heard from that. And, in fact, later, someone asked about COINTELPRO and said, “How can we” —

AMY GOODMAN: The counterintelligence program that targeted so many dissidents in the 1970s.

JACOB APPELBAUM: Yeah. Tried to get Martin Luther King Jr. to kill himself, for example. The FBI wrote him a letter and encouraged him to commit suicide. So for her to suggest that it is just and right and that we should always trust them sort of overlooks the historical problems with doing exactly that for any people in a position of power, with no judicial oversight.

JUAN GONZALEZ: William Binney, what about the companies that are approached by the government to participate or facilitate the surveillance? Your sense of the degree of opposition that they’re mounting, if at all? And also, has there been any kind of qualitative change since the Obama administration came in versus what the Bush administration was practicing?

WILLIAM BINNEY: Well, first of all, I don’t think any of them opposed it in any way. I mean, they were approached to saying, “You’ll be patriotic if you support us.” So I think they saluted and said, “Yes, sir,” and supported them, because they were told it was legal, too. And then, of course, they had to be given retroactive immunity for the crimes they were committing. So—

JUAN GONZALEZ: Approved by President Obama.

WILLIAM BINNEY: And President Bush, yeah. It started with Bush, yeah.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And the differences in the administrations?

WILLIAM BINNEY: Actually, I think the surveillance has increased. In fact, I would suggest that they’ve assembled on the order of 20 trillion transactions about U.S. citizens with other U.S. citizens.

AMY GOODMAN: How many?

WILLIAM BINNEY: Twenty trillion.

AMY GOODMAN: And you’re saying that this surveillance has increased? Not only the—

WILLIAM BINNEY: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: —targeting of whistleblowers, like your colleagues, like people like Tom Drake, who are actually indicted under the Obama administration—

WILLIAM BINNEY: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: —more times—the number of people who have been indicted are more than all presidents combined in the past.

WILLIAM BINNEY: Right. And I think it’s to silence what’s going on. But the point is, the data that’s being assembled is about everybody. And from that data, then they can target anyone they want.

AMY GOODMAN: Bill Binney, talk about Bluffdale, Utah. What is being built there?

WILLIAM BINNEY: Well, a very large storage device, basically, for remote interrogation and remote processing. That’s the way I view that. Because there’s not enough people there to actually work the data there, so it’s being worked somewhere else.

AMY GOODMAN: Where do you get the number 20 trillion?

WILLIAM BINNEY: Just by the numbers of telecoms, it appears to me, from the questions that CNET posed to them in 2006, and they published the names and how—what the responses were. I looked at that and said that anybody that equivocated was participating, and then estimated from that the numbers of transactions. That, by the way, estimate only was involving phone calls and emails. It didn’t involve any queries on the net or any assembles—other—any financial transactions or credit card stuff, if they’re assembling that. I do not know that, OK.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And the original—the original allegations that you made, in terms of the crimes being committed under the Bush administration in terms of the rights of American citizens, could you detail those?

WILLIAM BINNEY: Well, I made that—I reported the crime when I was raided in 2007. And it was that Bush and Cheney and Hayden and Tenet conspired to subvert the Constitution and violate various laws of the—that exist in the statute at the time, and here’s how they did it. And I was reporting this to the FBI on my back porch during the raid. And I went through Stellar Wind and told them what it did and what the information it was using and how they were spying on—or assembling data to be able to spy on any American.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to go to a clip of Congress Member Hank Johnson—he’s the Georgia Democrat—questioning National Security Administration director, General Keith Alexander, last month, asking him whether the NSA spies on U.S. citizens.

REP. HANK JOHNSON: Does the NSA routinely intercept American citizens’ emails?

GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER: No.

REP. HANK JOHNSON: Does the NSA intercept Americans’ cell phone conversations?

GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER: No.

REP. HANK JOHNSON: Google searches?

GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER: No.

REP. HANK JOHNSON: Text messages?

GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER: No.

REP. HANK JOHNSON: Amazon.com orders?

GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER: No.

REP. HANK JOHNSON: Bank records?

GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER: No.

REP. HANK JOHNSON: What judicial consent is required for NSA to intercept communications and information involving American citizens?

GEN. KEITH ALEXANDER: Within the United States, that would be the FBI lead. If it was a foreign actor in the United States, the FBI would still have the lead and could work that with NSA or other intelligence agencies, as authorized. But to conduct that kind of collection in the United States, it would have to go through a court order, and the court would have to authorize it. We are not authorized to do it, nor do we do it.

AMY GOODMAN: That was General Keith Alexander, the NSA director, being questioned by Democratic Congress Member Hank Johnson. Bill Binney, he’s the head of your agency, of the NSA. Explain what he’s saying—what he’s not saying, as well.

WILLIAM BINNEY: Well, I think it’s—part of it is a term, how you use the term “intercept,” as to whether or not what they’re saying is, “We aren’t actually looking at it, but we have it,” you know, or whether or not they’re actually collecting it and storing it somewhere.

JUAN GONZALEZ: So the mistake of the congressman was not to ask, “Are you collecting information?”

WILLIAM BINNEY: Well, he also said things like, “We don’t collect” — or, “We don’t collect against U.S. citizens unless we have a warrant.” And then, at the same time, he said that we don’t—at the same interview, he said, “We don’t have the capability to collect inside this country.” Well, those are kind of contradictory.

AMY GOODMAN: Is he lying? Is General Keith Alexander lying?

WILLIAM BINNEY: I wouldn’t—you know, the point is how you split the words. I wouldn’t say “lying.” It’s a kind of avoiding the issue.

AMY GOODMAN: Jacob Appelbaum, how does this relate to you? And how powerful is General Keith Alexander?

JACOB APPELBAUM: I was saying to Bill that I think he’s probably the most powerful person in the world, in the sense that—

AMY GOODMAN: More powerful than President Obama?

JACOB APPELBAUM: Well, sure. I mean, if he controls the information that arrives on Obama’s desk, and Obama makes decisions based on the things on his desk, what decisions can he make, if—except the decisions presented to him by the people he trusts? And when the people he trusts are the military, the military makes the decisions, then the civilian government is not actually in power.

AMY GOODMAN: Bill Binney, you’re nodding your head.

WILLIAM BINNEY: Yes. I mean, well, for example, their responsibility is to interpret what they have and report up echelon. So, I mean, that’s the responsibility of all the intelligence agencies. So, they basically filter the information to what they believe is important, which is what they should do, because, you know, they’re occupying—it takes time for leaders to review material to make decisions. So they have to boil it down as best they can. So it’s a function of their processing, but it is important that they do it correctly to make sure the information that gets there is correct and complete as it can.

AMY GOODMAN: Is General Alexander more powerful than President Obama?

WILLIAM BINNEY: In the sense of making—of presenting information for decision making, sure.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And Laura, the impact on journalists, who have to go through what you go—you’ve gone through the last few years, just to be able to report what’s going on with our government? The chilling effect that this has on—maybe not on you, but on many other journalists?

LAURA POITRAS: Sure. I mean, I feel like I can’t talk about the work that I do in my home, in my place of work, on my telephone, and sometimes in my country. So the chilling effect is huge. It’s enormous.

AMY GOODMAN: You keep your computers and telephones away from conversations you’re having in a room?

LAURA POITRAS: Yeah. When we had a meeting with you, remember, we told you—we kicked all your cell phones and all your computers out of the room.

AMY GOODMAN: You un—the wired phone, you unwired.

LAURA POITRAS: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: My cell phone, you didn’t allow me to have it in the room. And you made sure there were no computers in the room.

LAURA POITRAS: Right.

AMY GOODMAN: Why?

LAURA POITRAS: Because we wanted—well, we wanted to talk about—because we were bringing—we were bringing William to New York. And—

AMY GOODMAN: We have to leave it there, but we’re going to go online right now at democracynow.org. We’re going to continue this conversation with Bill Binney of the NSA, formerly with NSA; Laura Poitras and Jacob Appelbaum.

Links


Ancient and contemporary lies

Ancient Lies

Ramses and the Hittites
In Egypt, one of the greatest surviving monuments (and source of tourism revenues) is the great temple at Abu Simbel. Built by Ramses II, known as Ramses the Great (by his own admission), the walls at Abu Simbel are carved with a unique style called “sunken relief”, a method of artwork that was less expensive than full bas relief and more difficult to erase. And there, depicted in indelible sunken relief cross the walls and pylons of Abu Simbel are scenes of Ramses the Great, victorious in battle against the Hittites at the battle of Kadesh. Immortalized in stone is his victory for all to see. Similar carvings at Abydos and Luxor also show Ramses defeating the Hittites at Kadesh.

Except …
Ramses the Great didn’t defeat anyone at Kadesh. Fed false information by Hittite spies, Ramses led his men into a trap and barely avoided losing his entire army. Ramses was forced to sign a peace treaty with the Hittites (the first non-aggression treaty in history), ending Egypt’s expansion into the north.
Ramses, like any head of state, had a huge ego and together with not wishing to appear less than godlike to his population (who were taught that he was a God), Ramses promoted the idea that the battle in Kadesh had been a great victory for Egypt, certain that most Egyptians lacked the means to actually travel to Kadesh and find out for themselves what the truth was. (The Canaanites did find out, and emboldened by Ramses’ lack of victory, revolted, thereby ending Egypt’s dominion beyond the Sinai.)

There is a motto here. Rulers serve bovine excrement to their own people in order to control them. That is a fact carved in stone for all to see, 3200 years ago. It is no less true today than it was in the time of the pharaohs.

The Donation of Constantine

Prior to the time of Constantine, Kingship was either won in battle or inherited from father to son. There was no specific ceremony upon taking the throne (although one finds records of some very wild parties held in celebration). But in the time of Constantine, the church invented for itself the ritual of coronation, in which the Bishop of Rome prayed over Constantine and then slapped a crown on his head, thereby sending out a clear message that the church claimed responsibility for Constantine ‘s earthly power and authority.
Following Constantine ‘s death, a document appeared in which Constantine purportedly donated the imperial regalia of Rome to the church, with the request that it be “loaned” to all future rulers of the Roman Empire . From that day on, the loan took the form of the ritual of coronation, in which the holy oil of anointment created the king, rather than conquest or the bloodline. Coronation added the imprimatur of God’s will to the legitimacy of the monarch, and as an inevitable corollary, nobody could ascend to the throne without the permission and blessing of the church.

Except …

Constantine had not been informed ahead of time of his own coronation and by all accounts was rather shocked and angered by the church’s brazen attempt to portray his civil authority as a gift of their religion. As for the donation of Constantine, which literally reshaped the political history of Europe for half a millennium, it was a forgery, most likely written within the Papal offices, to steal for the church the “right” to declare who would or would not be kings of Europe.

There is a motto here. Bovine Excrement is shoveled out of places besides the civil government.

Prester John

In the 1130s, the Turkish Empire under the leadership of Imad ad-din Zengi began to encroach on the Crusader Kingdoms of the Holy Land . Most Crusaders considered their vows to the first Holy Crusade fulfilled and had already returned to Europe, leaving the Pilgrim road from Jaffa to Jerusalem under the guard of the newly emergent Knights Templar (who seemed to spend all their time digging under the Temple Mount). The Knights Templar, although able to guard a road when not shoveling dirt, were insufficient a force to hold off an entire invasion, and in 1145, Hugh, Bishop of Jabala, was sent to meet the newly enthroned Pope Blessed Eugene III to ask for help. Pope Eugene, far less bloodthirsty than his predecessors, balked at a new and costly crusade so soon after the last one. Hugh told the Pope that a new crusade to preserve Christian dominion over the Holy Lands would be easy and cheap, because somewhere far to the east of the Holy Lands was the Kingdom of Prester John .
Prester (or Presbyter) John was a Christian King; a direct descendant of one of the Magi who had visited the infant Jesus, and reportedly whose kingdom was powerful, wealthy, and peaceful. According to Hugh, Prester John was committed to preserving Christian rule over the Holy Lands, and awaited only a sign of equal commitment from the armies of Europe .

Rumors of the impending intervention of Prester John bolstered the courage of the Christians of the Crusader Kingdoms and of Europe, and based in part on the promise of Prester John as an ally, Pope Eugene launched the Second Holy Crusade, led by Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany .

But Prester John did not show up as promised. The Second Crusade ended in the rout of the Crusader armies at Damascus, and the Christians found themselves holding less of the Holy Lands.

In 1165, just as the situation in the Holy Lands began to deteriorate further, a letter began to circulate around Europe purportedly from Prester John. The letter again promised support for the Christian armies of Europe . The letter included descriptions of the wonders of Prester John’s kingdom. The letter was so popular it was copied far and wide, and portions of it set to music!

But again, Prester John did not show up when promised, and in 1187 Jerusalem fell to Saladin. This prompted the start of the Third Crusade. Once again, rumors of Prester John’s armies attacking the Muslims from the East bolstered the invading forces.

Except …

Prester John was the invention of the church; a propaganda device to trick Europeans to join a war in which they were clearly outnumbered by the opposing force. As Marco Polo and other travelers brought tales of the Orient back to Europe in the 13th century, church leaders grew alarmed as Christians learned of powerful and advanced civilizations to the east that existed without any awareness of Christianity. Following a brief period when the Dominicans unsuccessfully denounced Marco Polo‘s writings as heresy and fraud, the church again revived the legends of Prester John to prove that Christianity did rule in the far east. Highly fanciful maps were produced of just where Prester John’s kingdom would be found.

The legends of Prester John persisted from the 12th to the 17th centuries even though John himself could not have lived that long. Numerous expeditions to find the Kingdom of Prester John were mounted, all without success. As the map of Asia became filled in accurately with no sign of the fabled Christian Kingdom, the legend was altered to claim that Prester John’s Kingdom was actually in Ethiopia, then as the African map started to fill in, further south in “Darkest Africa.” The realm of Prester John eventually became one of the fabled “Lost Kingdoms of Africa ” that lured explorers into the Congo, often to their deaths.

As for the letter purportedly from Prester John; like the Donation of Constantine it was a clever forgery. In its original version it was apparently derived mostly from Otto von Freisingen’s historical account of the story told by Hugh, Bishop of Jabala to Pope Eugene. The story of Prester John’s palace was actually a description of the palace of St. Thomas the Apostle. As the letter was recopied through the centuries, the stories it contained grew ever more fanciful, filled with strange and wonderful creatures and amazing feats of magic and science. In the 18th century these stories of the land of Prester John were revived as part of the tales of Baron Munchausen. In 1988, the stories of the land of Prester John again surfaced in Terry Gilliam’s film, “ The Adventures of Baron Munchausen .”

The motto here is: A really big lie can last a long time, and there may even be a movie deal in it!

The Seven Cities of Gold

In the year 711, General Tarik ibn Ziyad led his forces across from Africa to Iberia, and commencing with ‘Tarik’s Mountain’ (Gibraltar) conquered all of Spain in mere months. As would be the case with the Templars following their arrest and execution by Philip Le Belle, stories abounded of the treasures of the Spanish Churches smuggled away from the invading armies by seven Bishops and hidden from view.

Then, following Columbus’ discovery of the New World, and perhaps in the realization that whatever it was Columbus had discovered on the far side of the Atlantic was not the Indies he had originally promised, a new story began to surface that the Seven Bishops who had fled Spain in 711 had somehow made their way to the New World, and used their treasure to found Seven Christian cities. Like the Kingdom of Prester John, these were rumored to be cities of immense wealth.
The lure of these mythical cities aided the Spanish explorers in recruiting men for the dangerous business of sailing the Atlantic followed by conquest of an unknown land. A shipwrecked sailor, Cabeza de Vaca, claimed to have seen cities decorated with huge gems. Following Vaca’s descriptions, Fray Marc os de Niza in 1539 claimed to have seen cities with tall gold buildings. It is possible that Niza actually saw adobe buildings shining with silica and pyrite in the sunlight from a distance, but following the killing of his servant avoided close approach to the indigenous people. Despite the absence of provenance, the stories of the Seven Cities of Gold drew both Cortez and Coronado deeper into the new world. The natives quickly realized the lethality of denying the existence of the cities of gold, and simply pointed the Spaniards further inland, promising that the cities were just over the next mountain range.

Except….

There were no cities of gold. They were a propaganda device used to motivate the explorers’ crews in the conquest of the New World, and while they did find gold, the real result of the tale of the Seven Cities of Gold was that Spain pushed all the way into what is now California and New Mexico.

The motto here is that even with gold plating, bovine excrement remains bovine excrement.

The Witches
In the year 1200, Europe entered a period of prolonged cooling which lasted until the mid 1800s. This is called the “Little Ice Age.” Europeans did not understand climate, and owing to theocratic rule following the collapse of Rome had turned their backs on science. All that happened was presumed the will of God. Priests prayed to God to halt the glaciers advancing on the villages. But as the villages succumbed to the ice, the church, rather than admit to failure, began to blame supernatural magical forces for the increasing cold. Seeking a scapegoat, the church set upon those individuals who still held knowledge outside that allowed by the churches. These educated and wise people, people with “wit” were declared heretics and “witches.” A phrase in the Bible, “Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live” was re-translated into “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live”, and the church now had the perfect scapegoat to blame the unstoppable cold on.

For the next three centuries, up until the incident at Salem, Massachusetts, innocent people were blamed by the church for everything that went wrong. If something bad happened that God could not make go away, it was because of the witches. Cold weather? Blame the witches. Plagues? Blame the witches. Failed crops and livestock? Blame the witches.

Witch-hunting became a full time profession. The accusers and prosecutors grew rich on the confiscated wealth of the condemned. Politicians, business competitors, and even jealous wives quickly learned that they could dispose of a rival with impunity with a simple accusation of witchcraft.

Except…

There are no witches as conceptualized by the church. No witches able to hop on a broomstick and interfere with passenger jets. No witch was ever able to transform himself or herself into an animal. It is all make-believe, and it makes for great books and fun movies, but the evil crimes depicted in the Maleus Malificarum never occurred. The confessions on which the church assurances of witchcraft were based were extracted under torture, some forms of which are sadly still in use in the United States today. Yes, there are people who like to call themselves witches, but their craft at most is limited to natural medicines and midwifery.

For three centuries religiously induced terror and horror stalked across the landscape in Europe. As the grains and cereals on which Europe had fed failed, much hardier potatoes were introduced. But the church declared them the food of the devil because they grew in the ground. Millions starved standing on an abundant food supply, afraid that eating the potato would condemn their souls to hell. When the plagues hit Europe, religious flagellants traveled from town to town, spreading the disease in the droplets of blood flung from the ends of their whips. As the epidemic accelerated in the wake of such rituals, the church fanned the blood-lust for the witches.

Nobody really knows how many people were tortured and killed during the witch trials. The numbers increase and decrease depending on the agenda of who is reporting the numbers. Conservative estimates of victims executed for being witches is a quarter of a million. Estimates of those tortured and then released are considerably higher.

Of all the madness and self-delusions man has collectively engaged in, the search for and execution of witches stands as a monument to all that is dark and fearful in the human mind. A few grew rich and powerful while around them a million people writhed in agony and death. If there is a moral to be found here it is that the execution of accused witches in Mexico in the 1990s (and the evils of Guantanamo Bay) proves that we are not as far from the rack and the stake as we would like to pretend. We comfort ourselves with the idea that the dark ages are long ago and far removed from our modern enlightened age, but the truth is that fanatics can tear down civilization rather quickly. You burn the Library at Alexandria, flay the librarian alive, burn the rest of the books to heat the public baths and set fire to anyone who refuses to bow to the bovine excrement.

More Recent Deceptions

President McKinley told the American people that the USS Maine had been sunk in Havana Harbor by a Spanish mine. The American people, outraged by this apparent unprovoked attack, supported the Spanish American War. The Captain of the USS Maine had insisted the ship was sunk by a coal bin explosion, investigations after the war proved that such had indeed been the case. There had been no mine.
In 1928, in the USSR there was a man named Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, a favorite of Stalin, and ultimately, a con-artist. He was as popular then in the USSR as Al Gore is in the US today.

Lysenko’s prize theory, which suited Stalin’s political needs at the time, was that plants and animals could inherit traits acquired from the environment in a single generation. That is, if you used cooling to trick Winter wheat seeds to germinate and grow in the Spring ( a technique already used in the US at the time) the seeds from the chilled plants would go on germinating in the Spring in perpetuity.

There was very little science in Lysenko’s science, but this “revolution” suited Stalin’s desire to outdo the accomplishments in genetics which had occurred under Lenin. Honor upon honor was heaped on Lysenko (just as is done with Al Gore today) and real scientists who questioned his theories were shunned, vilified, and removed from their positions (not unlike the experiences of those modern “heretics” who question the basic beliefs of the global warming cult). The state media of the USSR proclaimed the virtues of the Lysenko method beyond all doubt and question, just as the state media of the USA proclaims the “Science is settled” regarding AGW. But Lysenko had no more real science training than Al Gore, and his theory that the environment could permanently alter the genetic structure of crops in a single generation was completely wrong.

However, for political reasons, the USSR mandated that all farmers had to use the Lysenko method (just as the present government intends to force us all to use the “Al Gore Cap and Credit” method) and the result was widespread famine when, during the following spring, the second generation wheat refused to germinate.

This illustrates the problems which can result when the government thinks it understands science, or that science can be subordinated to political agenda.
Hitler used this principle of lying to his own people to initiate an invasion. He told the people of Germany that Poland had attacked first and staged fake attacks against German targets. The Germans, convinced they were being threatened, followed Hitler into Poland and into World War 2.
FDR claimed Pearl Harbor was a surprise attack. It wasn’t. The United States saw war with Japan as the means to get into war with Germany, which Americans opposed. So Roosevelt needed Japan to appear to strike first. Following an 8-step plan devised by the Office of Naval Intelligence, Roosevelt intentionally provoked Japan into the attack. Contrary to the official story, the Japanese fleet did not maintain radio silence, but sent messages intercepted and decoded by US intercept stations. Tricked by the lie of a surprise attack, Americans marched off to war.
President Johnson lied about the Gulf of Tonkin to send Americans off to fight in Vietnam.

There were no torpedoes in the water in the Gulf. LBJ took advantage of an inexperienced sonar man’s erroneous report of an attack to goad Congress into escalating the Vietnam War.

Then there were the lies used to trick the US into war with Iraq.

First off was Tony Blair’s “Dodgy Dossier”, a document released by the Prime Minister that made many of the claims used to support the push for war. The dossier soon collapsed when it was revealed that much of it had been plagiarized from a student thesis paper that was 12 years old!

The contents of the dossier, however much they seemed to create a good case for invasion, were obsolete and outdated.

Then there was the claim about the “Mobile biological weapons laboratories”. Proffered in the absence of any real laboratories in the wake of the invasion, photos of these trailers were shown on all the US Mainstream Media, with the claim they while seeming to lack anything suggesting biological processing, these were part of a much larger assembly of multiple trailers that churned out biological weapons of mass destruction.
The chief proponent of this hoax was Colin Powell, who presented illustrations such as this one to the United Nations on February 5th, 2003.

This claim fell apart when it was revealed that these trailers were nothing more than hydrogen gas generators used to inflate weather balloons. This fact was already known to both the US and UK, as a British company manufactured the units and sold them to Iraq.

Colin Powell’s speech to the UN was itself one misstatement after another. Powell claimed that Iraq had purchased special aluminum tubes whose only possible use was in uranium enrichment centrifuges. Both CIA and Powell’s own State Department confirmed that the tubes were parts for missiles Saddam was legally allowed to have. Following the invasion, no centrifuges, aluminum or otherwise were found.

Powell also claimed to the United Nations that the photo on the left showed “Decontamination Vehicles”. But when United Nations inspectors visited the site after the invasion, they located the vehicles and discovered they were just firefighting equipment.

Powell claimed the Iraqis had illegal rockets and launchers hidden in the palm trees of Western Iraq. None were ever found.

Powell claimed that the Iraqis had 8,500 liters (2245 gallons) of Anthrax. None was ever found.
Powell claimed that Iraq had four tons of VX nerve gas. The UN had already confirmed that it was destroyed. The only VX ever found were samples the US had left as “standards” for testing. When the UN suspected that the US samples had been used to contaminate Iraqi warheads, the US moved quickly to destroy the samples before comparison tests could be carried out.

Powell claimed that Iraq was building long-range remote drones specifically designed to carry biological weapons. The only drones found were short-range reconnaissance drones.

Powell claimed that Iraq had an aggregate of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical and biological warfare agents. Powell gave no basis for that claim at all, and a DIA report issued the same time directly contradicted the claim. No biological or chemical weapons were found in Iraq following the invasion.

Powell claimed that “unnamed sources” confirmed that Saddam had authorized his field commanders to use biological weapons. No such weapons were ever used by the Iraqis to defend against the invasion and, of course, none were ever found in Iraq.

Powell claimed that 122mm warheads found by the UN inspectors were chemical weapons. The warheads were empty, and showed no signs of ever having contained chemical weapons.

Powell claimed that Iraq had a secret force of illegal long-range Scud missiles. None were ever found.

Powell claimed to have an audio tape proving that Saddam was supporting Osama Bin Laden. But independent translation of the tape revealed Osama’s wish for Saddam’s death.
Colin Powell’s UN debacle also included spy photos taken from high flying aircraft and spacecraft. On the photos were circles and arrows and labels pointing to various fuzzy white blobs and identifying them as laboratories and storage areas for Saddam’s massive weapons of mass destruction program. Nothing in the photos actually suggested what the blobby shapes were and during inspections which followed the invasion, all of them turned out to be rather benign.

In at least one case, the satellite Powell claimed had taken one of the pictures had actually been out of operation at the time. And many questioned why Powell was showing black and white photos when the satellites in use at the time over Iraq took color images.

Another piece of evidence consists of documents which President Bush referenced as in his 2003 State of the Union Speech. According to Bush, these documents proved that Iraq was buying tons of uranium oxide, called “Yellow Cake” from Niger.

Since Israel had bombed Iraq’s nuclear power plant years before, it was claimed that the only reason Saddam would have for buying uranium oxide was to build bombs.
This hoax fell apart fast when it was pointed out that Iraq has a great deal of uranium ore inside their own borders and no need to import any from Niger or anywhere else. The I.A.E.A. then blew the cover off the fraud by announcing that the documents Bush had used were not only forgeries, but too obvious to believe that anyone in the Bush administration did not know they were forgeries! The forged documents were reported as being “discovered” in Italy by SISMI, the Italian Security Service. Shortly before the “discovery” the head of SISMI had been paid a visit by Michael Ledeen, Manucher Ghorbanifar, and two officials from OSP, one of whom was Larry Franklin, the Israeli spy operating inside the OSP.

In July, 2005, the Italian Parliament concluded their own investigation and named four men as suspects in the creation of the forged documents. Michael Ledeen, Dewey Clarridge, Ahmed Chalabi and Francis Brookes. This report has been included in Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation into the outing of Valerie Plame, and Paul McNulty, the prosecutor of the AIPAC spy case.

A recently declassified memo proves that the State Department reported the fact that the Niger documents were forgeries to the CIA 11 days before President Bush made the claim about the Niger uranium based on those documents.

In the end, the real proof that we were lied to about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction is that no weapons of mass destruction were ever found. That means that every single piece of paper that purported to prove that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was by default a fraud, a hoax, and a lie. There could be no evidence that supported the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction because Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. In a way, the existence of any faked documents about Iraq’s WMDs is actually an admission of guilt. If one is taking the time to create fake documents, the implication is that the faker is already aware that there are no genuine documents.

What the US Government had, ALL that they had, were copied student papers, forged “Yellow Cake” documents, balloon inflators posing as bioweapons labs, and photos with misleading labels on them. And somewhere along the line, someone decided to put those misleading labels on those photos, to pretend that balloon inflators are portable bioweapons labs, and to pass off stolen student papers as contemporary analysis.

The President of the United States and his Neocon associates lied to the people of the United States to send them off on a war of conquest.

Source