Even Your Best Friends Won't Tell You: Ahmadinejad's UN General Assembly Speech

Jerry Mazza, an independent journalist in New York, has written another brilliant piece about the truth of 9/11 in relation to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's observations that an international investigation should be conducted to determine who was responsible for 9/11.  President  Barack Obama promply called Iranian President Ahmadinejad's remarks at the United Nations yesterday "offensive" and "hateful." According to NEWSMAX, "In his first comments on the Iranian leader's statement that the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks may have been orchestrated to bolster the U.S. economy and "save the Zionist regime," Obama told BBC Persian that "for him to make a statement like that was inexcusable." But Ahmadinejad was simply saying what American politicians are afraid to say.


 What is truly "inexcusable" is that a President of the United States should be so massively ignorant of what the rest of the world already  knows, which is that 9/11 was the joint product of American Neo-Cons (and possibly even European Neo-Cons) working together with the Mossad to bring about consequences that would be beneficial to Israel, not to the USA. We have gained nothing by these reckless wars in violation of international law, the UN  Charter, and even the US Constitution.  When Obama announced that he was going to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan because that was  the region from which we were attacked and that we were still searching for Osama bin Laden, I knew we were in trouble. Osama died on or about 15 December 2001 and al Qaeda had nothing to do with it.He must think he is presiding over a nation of saps.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Even your best friends won’t tell you
by Jerry Mazza

As I remember, that has been a headline for everything from bad breath to dandruff sufferers to those suffering from body odors. The headline was ideal shame-making for manufacturers of mouthwashes, dandruff shampoos, deodorants and antiperspirants. And now it applies to our purported worst enemy, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. That is, he’s telling us what none of our “best friends” in our government are saying, “that the American government may have been behind the 9/11 attack.” 
After being greeted by a round of applause as he entered the U.N. General Assembly recently, on September 23, Ahmedinejad was applauded again after his remarks. During his U.N. General assembly address he called for a “U.N. fact finding group to investigate 9/11.” I hope their findings (if a group should ever come about) won’t be treated like the fact-finding results of Hans Blitz, head of the UN’s United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission. His claims of no WMD in Hussein’s Iraq were ignored. As were the claims of orthodox Jewish Justice Richard Goldstone’s report on Zionist overkill in Gaza. 

How about a fact-finding group of U.S. 911 Scholars, academics, scientists, architects, engineers, journalists, even celebrities who know? After all, it is about our country. 
Meanwhile, Ahmedinejad went on to say what our “best friends” would never say, that “the majority of the American people as well as most nations and politicians around the world” believe that “some segments within the U.S. government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining of the American economy and its grips on the Middle East in order to save the Zionist regime” (read Israel). Sounds on the money to me and to 1200-plus architects and engineers for AE911ruth.org, Pilots, retired military officers, and journalists for 911 Truth.


Certainly, any mention of this will draw AIPAC out with fangs and claws in striking media positions to further discredit the truth-telling Ahmedinejad and ask for Zionist Israel’s right to bomb Iran back into the stone-age. That is so the Zionists can become the scourge of the entire Mid East, not just Iraq (whom they prompted the U.S. and George Bush to attack), and as they have engulfed and are devouring Palestine, that is, the fragments of what is left of the nation that now is Israel, and, as they tell us, “our best friends.”
As I remember, the Five Dancing Israelis, who were celebrating the 9/11 attack by dancing on a white van and cam-cording it in a park directly across the Hudson River, with the smoking, crumbling Towers in the background, and dressed as Arabs, one flicking his cigarette lighter to the havoc behind him just for laughs. Yes, he/they said words to the police that had been called by onlookers to the effect of why are you arresting us, we’re your friends. Now you know what it’s like.
After being arrested and held by the FBI for 72 days, ironically “our friends,” who probably were involved with the remote control flying of whatever crafts or drones those “airliners” were on that day, went on television in Israel to say they were just there to “document” the event. How would they know there was going to be an event if they weren’t involved in its planning and execution? But then, despite the traces of explosives sniffing k-9’s found in the first white van (then two others), they found a goodly amount of cash, maps of our subways, bridges and tunnels.
The second van was found in an off-ramp of the George Washington Bridge with similar evidence of explosives, some cash, maps of subways, bridges and tunnels. And the third van was found parked on King Street between Sixth Avenue and Varick, which leads in only minutes down to the Lincoln Tunnel. Only this van had a realistic picture painted on its panel of an airliner crashing into the Towers, and two more idiots dressed like Arabs sitting inside. They tussled with the NYPD, who arrested them as the others. Yet all of “our best friends” were released once they returned to Israel.But then our “best friends” on whom we’ve showered hundreds of billions of dollars for defense, including free “surplus” jet fighters and other military hardware, unsecured loans, etc., since Israel’s inception in 1948, wouldn’t say a word about 9/11, only to point fingers at their Muslim enemies, as ex P.M. Ehud Barak did on national TV only minutes after the Towers were hit. He said that it was Osama bin Laden that did it. How did he know that so quickly? And if he did, why didn’t he and his government warn us in advance in a convincing manner, like best friends should?
So is it any wonder that everybody knows what our national media helps them not to know, that 9/11 was an Inside Job, but few like Ahmedinejad will tell us. The last one was the former president of Italy, who had grown up in Italy’s intelligence agencies. His announcement blew through our media like the proverbial fart in the breeze. Ahmadinejad’s missive is going from Fox News Applause for Ahmedinejad to US Fury At Ahmadinejad's 9/11 Speech, and more in line with setting a wildfire of fear and anger.
The latter was referenced by our State Department spokesman, P.J. Crowley who said “a short distance from here, nine years ago, three-thousand people were killed in an attack perpetrated by nineteen people, and an attack that was orchestrated by Al Qaeda. We know exactly who did it, they’ve admitted it, the facts are not in dispute. So for the President of Iran to come here and make the suggestion somehow this was an American plot, is simply outrageous.”
 First of all, Mr. Crowley, the death toll was 2,752 victims who died in the attacks on the World Trade Center, which included 343 firefighters and 60 police officers from New York City and the Port Authority. 184 people were killed in the attacks on the Pentagon. The overwhelming majority of casualties were civilians, including nationals of over 70 countries. Also 900 first responders have also died since that day from fatal diseases caused by their exposure to the chemical and thermite infected dust of Ground Zero. Their deaths were due to wearing (or not wearing) paper face masks given to them instead of real respirators. Plus, tens of thousands more who worked “on the pile” at Ground Zero and off are sick unto dying. So the facts are disputed, and widely.
 Then, too, Osama bin Laden has been taken off the FBI’s Most Wanted List* for the crime of 9/11.  The 19 Muslim purported perpetrators and their pictures were pulled from an FBI file pell-mell and days later convicted in the press. Subsequently FBI Chief Robert Mueller said words to the effect that we could not be sure these were the men. So those facts are in dispute too, including that seven or eight of the men have been living in Mid East countries during the attacks, and were victims of identity thefts.ue to lack of evidence. dditionally 15 of the purported attackers were said to be Saudis. Yet we never attacked Saudi, Arabia, but we did attack Afghanistan, have not found Osama bin Laden (our stated purpose, who is said to be dead by the dean of 9/11 Scholars David Raye Griffin in his book Osama bin Laden – Dead or Alive), having passed in late December of 2001 and been buried, with notices in Pakistan newspapers, in an unmarked grave (in Muslim tradition) somewhere in Pakistan. Perhaps he makes a better poster boy than corpse.

In August of 2001, Bin Laden had been in the American Hospital where he met his CIA handler (from his Mujahadeen days), but then he was in the hospital for dialysis for a serious kidney disease. Purportedly he ran the 9/11 op from a cave on the Pak/Afghan border from a laptop. Whether or not his aides trotted his dialysis machine to the cave is in doubt.
In fact, when the U.S. Army had him cornered him in Tora Bora, they were unable to catch him and, fleet-footed, he slipped away into the eternal night of no real facts and the cloud of the government conspiracy, in question by intelligent human beings all over the planet. So, making the statements you did, Mr. Crowley, signifies you don’t read or perhaps are simply an idiot born to high places, and not a friend at all. And lastly, Osama’s so-called confession was admitted to be a fake by no less than the CIA recently, thanks to voice-morphing technology, and the simple facts that the man in the video had a fuller face, flatter nose, and wore a gold ring and chain, a no-no for an orthodox Muslim.
As to the other confessions you may be referring to, Khalid Sheik Mohammed’s for instance, it was obtained in 2003 when he was tortured by water-boarding some 183 times. President Bush subsequently asked for a non-torture confession and, surprise, got it. As for Zacharias Moussaoui, a wanna-be top-gun, his testimony was given to the court as he wore a stun belt under his robes. Originally, the FBI refused to pick him up based on his laptop evidence gathered by FBI woman Colene Rowley’s group in Minnesota. Her whistle-blowing efforts eventually lead to her resignation for FBI inaction. She has subsequently become an activist for 9/11 Truth.


Osama Bin Laden is still on the FBI "Most Wanted List" as a terrorist, with a $25 million dollar bounty on his head, as of Sept. 25, 2010, but prior references to 911 are now missing. 
####










Source URL: https://0832zy.blogspot.com/search/label/neocon
Visit The People Blog for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection

"Unregulated Greed has Destroyed the Capitalist System": The Big Things That Matter And The Little Things That Annoy

Paul Craig Roberts
12 August 2010



I write about major problems: the collapsing US economy, wars based on lies and deception, the police state based on “the war on terror” and other fabrications such as those orchestrated by corrupt police and prosecutors, who boost their performance reports by convicting the innocent, and so on. America is a very distressing place. The fact that so many Americans are taken in by the lies told by “their” government makes America all the more depressing.

Often, however, it is small annoyances that waste Americans’ time and drive up blood pressures. One of the worst things that ever happened to Americans was the breakup of the AT&T telephone monopoly. As Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury in 1981, if 150 percent of my time and energy had not been required to cure stagflation in the face of opposition from Wall Street and Fed Chairman Paul Volcker, I might have been able to prevent the destruction of the best communications service in the world, and one that was very inexpensive to customers.

The assistant attorney general in charge of the “anti-trust case” against AT&T called me to ask if Treasury had an interest in how the case was resolved. I went to Treasury Secretary Don Regan and told him that although my conservative and libertarian friends thought that the breakup of At&T was a great idea, their opinion was based entirely in ideology and that the practical effect would not be good for widows and orphans who had a blue chip stock to see them through life or for communications customers as deregulated communications would give the multiple communications corporations different interests than those of the customers. Under the regulated regime, AT&T was allowed a reasonable rate of return on its investment, and to stay out of trouble with regulators AT&T provided excellent and inexpensive service.



Secretary Regan reminded me of my memo to him detailing that Treasury was going to have a hard time getting President Reagan’s economic program, directed at curing the stagflation that had wrecked President Carter’s presidency, out of the Reagan administration. The budget director, David Stockman, and his chief economist, Larry Kudlow, had lined up against it following the wishes of Wall Street, and the White House Chief of Staff James Baker and his deputy Richard Darman were representatives of VP George H.W. Bush and did not want s substantial Reagan success that would again threaten the Republican Establishment’s hold over the party. Baker and Darman wanted to be sure that George H. W. Bush, and not Jack Kemp, succeeded Ronald Reagan, and that required a muted Reagan success that they could claim as theirs for moderating an “extremist” program.

I told Secretary Regan that if I had another deputy assistant secretary, I could reach a reasonable conclusion whether the breakup of AT&T was sensible. He replied that he was sure that was the case, but that once I had three deputies the headlines in the Washington Post and New York Times, Business Week, Newsweek, and so on, would be: “Supply-sider builds empire at Treasury.” He said it would sink me and that without me he could not get the President’s economic program out of the President’s administration. “Which do you want to do,” he asked, “save AT&T or cure stagflation?”

Curing stagflation gave America twenty more years. Ironically, the good times started to erode when Reagan’s other goal was accomplished and the Soviet Union dissolved in 1990. “The end of history” resulted in India and China opening their labor markets to American capitalists, who began producing offshore with foreign labor the products that they sold to Americans. The labor costs savings pushed up corporate profits, shareholders’ returns, and managerial bonuses. But it deprived Americans of middle class incomes and wrecked the balance of trade. The US income distribution and the trade deficit worsened.



Many progressives blame the worsening income distribution on the Reagan tax rate reductions, but the real cause is the offshoring of manufacturing, industrial, and professional service jobs, such as software engineering.

None of us in the Reagan administration foresaw jobs offshoring as the consequence of Soviet collapse. We had no idea that by bringing down the Soviet Union we would be bringing down America. During the Reagan years India was socialist and would not allow foreign corporations, had they been interested, to touch their labor force. China was communist and no foreign capital could enter the country.

However, once the Soviet Union was gone from the earth, the remaining socialist and communist regimes decided to go with the winners. They opened to Western corporations and sucked jobs out of the developed West.

But this is a different story. To get back to deregulation, nothing has worked for the consumer since deregulation. Deregulation permitted corporations to impose their costs of operation on customers without having to send them a bill. For example, corporations use voice recognition technology to keep customers from salaried customer representatives. I remember when a customer with a problem could call a utility company or bank and have the problem immediately corrected.



No more. There was an error in my phone bill today, which I had corrected without result on two previous occasions. As everyone knows by now, it takes 10-15 minutes, usually, to get a live person who can actually fix the problem. After listening to sales pitches for 12 minutes, I got a live person. Once the problem was understood, it was pronounced to be an upper level problem out of his hands. I waited another 10 minutes while he tried to reach a superior who had the code to fix the problem that the phone company had produced in my account. The entire time I listened to product advertisements.

How many times has this happened to you?

Whoever invented these artificial voice capabilities is the enemy of mankind. Whomever a customer calls--utilities, credit card companies, banks, whatever, the customer gets a voice machine. Some voice machines never tell the customer how to get a live person who can, on occasion, actually fix the problem.

In my opinion, the strategy behind the endless delays is to cause the customers to give up, slam the telephone down and play the higher incorrect bill as it is cheaper in time and frustration to correcting the problem and being billed in the correct amount. These ripoffs of the customer are produced by Wall Street pressures for higher earnings.

The frustrations, of course, multiply when one reaches an offshored service somewhere in the Third World. The incentive is to hang up and to pay the excessive bill so that phone, internet, or credit card services are not cut off.

The Corporation


Had Don Regan and I known that the high speed Internet was in our future and that American corporations would use it to destroy the jobs traditionally filled by US university graduates, possibly we would have decided to save the regulated telephone monopoly and to deliver the economy over to stagflation.

The reason is that sooner or later something would have been done about stagflation, but nothing whatsoever has been done about offshoring. Saving the economy from offshoring would have been a greater achievement than saving the economy from stagflation. However, in my time stagflation, not offshoring, was the problem.

I regret that I did not have a crystal ball.

Deregulation proponents will say that the breakup of AT&T gave us cell phones and broadband, as if foreign regulated communication companies and state monopolies do not provide cell phone service or high speed Internet connections. I can remember attending corporate board meetings years ago at which the European members had digital cell phones with which they could call most anywhere on earth, while we Americans with our analogue cell phones could hardly connect down the street.

What deregulation did was to permit Wall Street to push the deregulated industries-- phone service, airlines, trucking, and later Wall Street itself-- to focus on profits and not on service. Profits were increased by curtailing service, by pushing up prices and by Wall Street creating fraudulent financial instruments, which the banksters used America’s reputation to market to the gullible at home and abroad.



Consider air travel. Admit it, if you are my age you hate it. The deterioration in service over my lifetime is phenomenal. Studies in favor of airline deregulation focused on short flights between A and B and concluded that small airlines serving high density areas were more efficient because they were not regulated. What was left out of the analysis is that regulated airlines served low density areas and permitted free stopovers. For example, if one was flying from the US to Athens, Greece, the traveler could stopover in London, Paris, and Rome without additional charges. Moreover, passengers were fed hot meals even in tourist class. In those halcyon days, it was even possible to travel more comfortably in tourist class than in first class, because flights were not scheduled in keeping with full capacity. Several rows of seats might be unoccupied. It was possible to push up the arm rests on three or four center aisle seats, lay down and go to sleep.

Perhaps the best benefit of regulated air travel for passengers was that airlines had spare airliners. If one airplane had mechanical problems that could not be fixed within a reasonable time, a standby airliner was rolled out to enable passengers to meet their connections and designations. With deregulation, customer service is not important. The bottom line has eliminated spare airliners.

With deregulated airlines, Wall Street calls the tune. If your flight has a mechanical problem, you are stuck where you are unless you have some sort of privileged status that can bump passengers from later fully booked flights. “Studies” that focus only on discounted ticket price omit major costs of deregulation and thereby wrongly conclude that deregulation has benefited the consumer.



When trucking was regulated, truckers would stop to provide roadside assistant to stranded travelers. Today, with deregulated trucking, every minute counts toward the bottom line. Not only do truckers no longer stop to aid stranded travelers, they travel at excessive speeds that endanger automobile drivers. Trucks have expanded in size, weight and speed. Trucks raise the stress level on interstate highway drivers and destroy, at taxpayers expense, the roads on which they travel.

Conservatives and especially libertarians romanticize “free market unregulated capitalism.” They regard it as the best of all economic orders. However, with deregulated capitalism, every decision is a bottom-line decision that screws everyone except the shareholders and management.

In America today there is no longer a connection between profits and the welfare of the people. Unregulated greed has destroyed the capitalist system, which now distributes excessive rewards to the few at the expense of the many.

If Marx and Lenin were alive today, the extraordinary greed with which Wall Street has infected capitalism would provide Marx and Lenin with a better case than they had in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20587Source URL: https://0832zy.blogspot.com/search/label/neocon
Visit The People Blog for Daily Updated Hairstyles Collection