Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

UNDER THE RUG: What Project Censored Missed and MSM Didn't Want You to Know in 2010

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 03:34 PM
Original message
UNDER THE RUG: What Project Censored Missed and MSM Didn't Want You to Know in 2010
http://americanjudas.blogspot.com/2010/12/under-rug-what-project-censored-missed.html">UNDER THE RUG: What Project Censored Missed and MSM Didn't Want You to Know in 2010

There is nothing new in the world except the history you do not know.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/harrystru398848.html">Harry S. Truman

The past is never dead. It's not even past.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/williamfau141196.html">William Faulkner



This is the second consecutive year that I've highlighted stories that our mainstream media (MSM) outlets seemed to be oblivious of. For the last 35 years, this is a task that http://www.projectcensored.org/">Project Censored has done a fantastic job of doing with their annual list of http://dailycensored.com/2010/10/10/top-25-censored-stories-released/">Top 25 Censored Stories. But sometimes, even with their great track record of illuminating "the most important underreported stories" of the year, some stories slip through the cracks. Last year, http://americanjudas.blogspot.com/2009/12/under-rug-what-project-censored-missed.html">I highlighted two such stories, this year I have four to report. In retrospect, I should have reported three stories last year, there was an important story I neglected which I will reference when I report the final story.



STORY #1: Key Evidence From Russian Report Corroborating Allegations of Ronald Reagan's Presidential Campaign Interference in 1980 "October Surprise" Hidden From the American Public in 1993

This revelation was reported by George Polk Award winning investigative reporter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Parry">Robert Parry on May 6, 2010. I wrote about this report in a http://americanjudas.blogspot.com/2010/10/october-surprise-30th-anniversary.html">blog post commemorating the 30th anniversary of the October Surprise. Here's an excerpt from that report:

Key October Surprise Evidence Hidden

By Robert Parry (A Special Report)
May 6, 2010

A Russian government report, which corroborated allegations that Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign interfered with President Jimmy Carter’s Iran-hostage negotiations in 1980, was apparently kept from the Democratic chairman of a congressional task force that investigated the charges a dozen years later.

Lee Hamilton, then a congressman from Indiana in charge of the task force, told me in a recent interview, “I don’t recall seeing it,” although he was the one who had requested Moscow’s cooperation in the first place and the extraordinary Russian report was addressed to him.

The Russian report, which was dropped off at the U.S. Embassy in Moscow on Jan. 11, 1993, contradicted the task force’s findings – which were released two days later – of “no credible evidence” showing that Republicans contacted Iranian intermediaries behind President Carter’s back regarding 52 American hostages held by Iran’s Islamic revolutionary government, the so-called October Surprise case.

I was surprised by Hamilton’s unfamiliarity with the Russian report, so I e-mailed him a PDF copy. I then contacted the task force’s former chief counsel, attorney Lawrence Barcella, who acknowledged in an e-mail that he doesn’t “recall whether I showed the Russian report or not.”

In other words, the Russian report – possibly representing Moscow’s first post-Cold War collaboration with the United States on an intelligence mystery – was not only kept from the American public but apparently from the chairman of the task force responsible for the investigation.

more...

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/050610.html


There was a follow-up article that Robert Parry wrote in June 2010 that I neglected to mention in my October blog post. Here is an excerpt of that article:

HIDDEN TREASON:
The Tricky October Surprise Report

by Robert Parry
Originally published in http://www.consortiumnews.com/">ConsortiumNews.com yesterday, 17 June 2010

A congressional report on a turning point of modern U.S. political history – whether candidate Ronald Reagan struck a treacherous deal with Iranian radicals to help win the White House in 1980 – was written haphazardly and deceptively, including an apparently false claim that Reagan’s innocence was approved unanimously by a House task force.

A recent reexamination of the task force’s work also reveals that evidence implicating Reagan’s campaign in a pre-election deal to delay the release of 52 Americans then held hostage in Iran was kept from the U.S. public and even from members of the task force; that senior staff investigators shelved late-arriving evidence of Republican guilt; and that dissent within the task force was suppressed.

Recently, one task force member, retired Rep. Mervyn Dymally, D-California, while working on his personal memoirs, noticed that the cover letter accompanying the task force report claimed that there had been a unanimous vote on Dec. 10, 1992, exonerating Reagan. Dymally told me that he knew of no such vote on that date nor at any other time.

When I contacted former task force chairman Lee Hamilton, he told me that he would not have claimed there was a unanimous vote if there hadn’t been one.

However, when I checked with the House Foreign Affairs Committee, I was told that no record could be found of a roll call of the task force vote. “From the records we have there is no evidence of a recorded vote,” said committee spokesman David Barnes in an e-mail. (In the mid-1990s, when I searched through the task force’s unpublished files, I also found no record of a roll call.)
more...

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2010/061810Parry.shtml



In addition to the new revelation that task force member Dymally did not approve of the findings of the investigation, Parry's article does a wonderful job of providing a context for what these revelations really mean in the world today. The election of 1980 was truly a cultural crossroads where America faced two distinct choices. To quote Parry, "The significance of Reagan’s victory on modern American history can hardly be overstated. For instance, while Carter wanted to use his second term to press for U.S. energy independence and to secure a lasting Middle East peace, Reagan had little use for such policies and instead pushed through an anti-government agenda of tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of corporations." While the anti-government agenda, which Parry mentions, is a distinct aspect of the Tea Party mentality that fueled the House GOP takeover this November, another aspect that remains entrenched since 1980 is the lack of accountability that allows such criminal behavior to flourish. Though the October Surprise was a prequel involving many of the same players in the Iran-Contra scandal, it was the last chapter in the official cover-up by our government.



STORY #2: Fired AIPAC Employee Steve Rosen Threatens to Expose Massive Spy Ring, Files $20 Million Lawsuit Alleging Passing Classified Info is Common Practice

This story has an explosive potential on many levels. As I detailed in my November http://americanjudas.blogspot.com/2010/11/plameedmondsaipacgate-update-rosen.html">blog post, exposing the AIPAC Spy Scandal could open a Pandora's Box that Sibel Edmonds detailed revolving around multi-billion dollar drug smuggling and black market nuclear sales to terrorists such as what Valerie Plame's cover company, Brewster Jennings & Associates, was tracking prior to being exposed in the media. If that wasn't explosive enough to interest MSM, there is also the tawdry sexual aspects of this case:

Ex-AIPAC official threatens to uncover mass spying at Israel lobby

By Daniel Tencer
Sunday, November 21st, 2010 -- 11:41 am



Ex AIPAC official threatens to uncover mass spying at Israel lobby

Top AIPAC officials visited prostitutes, regularly watched porn at work: claim

Is US's most influential advocate for Israel about to implode?


snip

Steve Rosen, who was in charge of foreign policy issues at AIPAC until 2005, is suing his former employer for $20 million, alleging that AIPAC defamed him when they fired him. Rosen and colleague Keith Weissman were charged in 2004 with espionage for allegedly pressuring a Washington Post reporter into running classified US government information they had obtained about Iran. The charges were dropped last year, evidently due to lack of evidence.

snip

Rosen says his actions were common practice at the organization. He said his next move is to show that AIPAC, Washington’s major pro-Israeli lobbying group by far, regularly traffics in sensitive U.S. government information, especially material related to the Middle East.

snip

"Unfortunately for AIPAC, Rosen has 180 documents which could prove that Howard Kohr, AIPAC's executive director, and probably the AIPAC board as well, knew exactly what Rosen was doing," http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/2010/11/2010112083231771111.html">reports M.J. Rosenberg at Al-Jazeera.

He suggests that Rosen's threat to reveal AIPAC trafficking of data is meant to intimidate the lobby group into settling out of court. Making the lawsuit go away "will not be easy - even if Steve Rosen ultimately accepts a payoff from the organization and refrains from telling what he knows," Rosenberg writes.

more...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/official-uncover-mass-spying-israel-lobby/



One month later, this story is still alive and MSM still refuses to touch it:


FRIDAY UPDATE: AIPAC Bill Passage Shows AIPAC Weakness, Plus Rosen Follies, & The GOP Rabbi's Chutzpah Lands Him With 20 Years

By http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/mjrosenberg/">M.J. Rosenberg - December 16, 2010, 11:08AM

AIPAC scandal finally shows on Hill. My earlier piece indicated that the AIPAC/Berman bill's quick passage showed that the status quo lobby is as strong as ever. http://mondoweiss.net/2010/12/house-vote-against-palestinian-statehood-actually-showed-that-israel-lobby-is-losing-its-grip.html#more-31421">This fine analysis by Josh Ruebner after the bill's passage indicates otherwise!

***
http://forward.com/404-error/#ixzz18I1kMNna">The Forward reports on some new filings on the http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/19/aipac_bogged_down_by_exploding_scandal/">AIPAC espionage/sex/blackmail case. http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/12/16/2742198/aipac-planned-to-accuse-feds-of-targeting-pro-israel-groups">(And here is JTA on same)

Steve Rosen, pushing with all his might for a $20 million payoff, asserts that there are other occasions (other than the one for which he was indicted) in which AIPAC trafficked in government secrets. He is the worst enemy the lobby ever had. (Irony. When I worked there, I always told my friend, then executive director, Tom Dine, to fire that spook before he destroyed the organization. I'm glad he ignored me).

The Forward thinks that AIPAC will ultimately settle. Of course it will. It cannot allow AIPAC to be exposed for what it is.

But, so what. The payoff itself will send a clear message that AIPAC cannot allow the truth to come out. Remember that memo Steve Rosen sent to me in 1982: "A lobby is a nightflower. It thrives in the dark and withers in the sun."

more...

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/16/the_noose_tightens_for_aipac/


I believe Mr. Rosenberg's analysis of the story may prove to be correct. AIPAC will not allow the truth to come out. The deeper underlying truth is that the AIPAC Spy Scandal is bigger than AIPAC, it's bigger than Israel. This is a common misunderstanding; when I originally posted my http://americanjudas.blogspot.com/2010/11/plameedmondsaipacgate-update-rosen.html">blog post of this story at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x339003">Democratic Underground, my original post in the General Discussion forum received 186 recommendations. However, one of the moderators http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9617644">moved my post to the Israel/Palestine forum, apparently not comprehending that the broader context and real focus of this scandal is not AIPAC or Israel: it's the neo-cons!

The commonplace espionage exhibited in this scandal appears to be part of a broader set of FBI and Pentagon investigations of close collaboration between prominent U.S. neo-conservatives and foreign officials going back 40 years. Apparently, this informal http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=aearly70sscoop#aearly70sscoop">right-wing network began in 1970 led by Democratic Senator Scoop Jackson, whose staffers included Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams and Paul Wolfowitz. In October 1970, an FBI wiretap at the Israeli Embassy records http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=western_support_for_islamic_militancy_2028#western_support_for_islamic_militancy_2028">Richard Perle discussing classified information with an Israeli official. In 1978, http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Raw_Story_first_to_acquire_declassified_0209.html">Paul Wolfowitz was investigated for allegedly passing a classified document on proposed US weapons sales to Israel through AIPAC. http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Abrams_Elliott">Elliott Abrams, of course, was indicted for deceiving Congress on the Iran-Contra scandal and http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A60497-2004Sep3?language=printer">Douglas Feith was questioned in 2004 about passing classified information to an Iraqi politician or a U.S. lobbying group allied with Israel.

But the habit of neo-cons passing classified info extends beyond the original circle of Jackson staffers and beyond just Israel and AIPAC. As detailed in my http://americanjudas.blogspot.com/2009/12/under-rug-what-project-censored-missed.html">UNDER THE RUG post last year, http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7347">Marc Grossman and Dick Armitage exposed Valerie Plame's classified cover company in June 2001 to Turkish clients connected with the American Turkish Council. In 1989, Doug Feith registered International Advisors Inc. (IAI) as a http://www.mediamonitors.net/zogby9.html">foreign agent representing the government of Turkey, earning $60,000 a year for doing so from 1989-1994. And then there is http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Ledeen">Michael Ledeen. Ledeen served as the http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/Ledeen_Michael">go-between for Oliver North in the early stages of the Iran/Contra scandal, working with Israeli spy David Kimche to gain the release of US hostages in Beirut through an Iranian arms dealer, Manucher Ghorbanifar. He also received $120,000 in 1980 or 1981 from https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Michael_Ledeen">Italian intelligence agency SISMI and was reputed by the CIA station in Rome to also be an agent of influence of http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5788.htm">Israel.

These are all questionable associations, some which may or may not be connected with the threats that Rosen made in 2010 regarding his lawsuit. A thorough investigation might resolve some of these questions. But considering the lack of attention MSM is shining on this case, that possibility seems remote.


STORY #3: Mumbai Plotter Worked for DEA While Training With Terrorists

This is a story I had written about when it was originally reported in October:

Thursday, October 21, 2010
Mumbai Attacks Update: The DEA Connection
Almost two years ago, there were a series of coordinated terror attacks on multiple targets in Mumbai, India that killed 166 people, including six Americans. At the time, I wrote a blog post about it titled http://americanjudas.blogspot.com/2008/12/whos-really-responsible-for-mumbai-dick.html">Who's really responsible for Mumbai? Dick Cheney doesn't want you to know. It explored how the primary suspects in the terror attacks, Dawood Ibrahim and the terror group Lashkar-e-Toiba, were connected with Dick Cheney through their mutual financial profiteering via the A.Q. Khan nuclear proliferation network. There was also reports cited that the attackers might not have all been Arab or Pakistani; the possibility of a Chechen connection was explored because of tactical similarities and eyewitness accounts of "foreign looking, fair skinned" men with "blonde hair" and "a punkish hairstyle".

Since then, there has been minimal exposure in American mainstream media (MSM) regarding investigations into the Mumbai attacks. But recently, there has been a bombshell revelation:


Feds Confirm Mumbai Plotter Trained With Terrorists While Working for DEA

by http://www.propublica.org/site/author/sebastian_rotella">Sebastian Rotella
ProPublica, Oct. 16, 2010, 11:04 p.m.

Updates:

http://www.propublica.org/article/feds-confirm-mumbai-plotter-trained-with-terrorists-while-working-for-dea">Feds Confirm Mumbai Plotter Trained With Terrorists While Working for DEA <1>

http://www.propublica.org/article/u.s.-embassy-didnt-pass-along-tip-about-headleys-ties-to-terrorists-who-lat">U.S. Embassy Didn’t Pass Along Tip About Headley’s Ties to Terrorists <2>

Federal officials acknowledged Saturday that David Coleman Headley, the U.S. businessman who confessed to being a terrorist scout in the 2008 Mumbai attacks, was working as a DEA informant while he was training with terrorists in Pakistan.

Federal officials, who spoke only only on background because of the sensitivity of the Headley case, also said they suspect a link between Headley and the al Qaeda figures whose activities have sparked recent terror threats against Europe.

Courtroom drawing of David Coleman Headley, left. Dec. 9, 2009. (Verna Sadock/AP Photo)
The revelations came after http://www.propublica.org/article/mumbai-plot-fbi-was-warned-years-in-advance">a report Friday <3> by ProPublica and the Washington Post that the FBI had been warned about Headley’s terrorist ties three years before the Mumbai attacks. Headley wasn’t arrested until 11 months after the attack.

After Headley was arrested in a 2005 domestic dispute in New York City, his wife told federal investigators about his long involvement with the terrorist group Lashkar-i-Taiba and his extensive training in its Pakistani camps. She also told them he had bragged about being a paid U.S. informant while undergoing terrorist training.



more...

http://www.propublica.org/article/feds-confirm-mumbai-plotter-trained-with-terrorists-while-working-for-dea


Quite an astounding revelation! Yet except for reporter Sebastian Rotella having his article reprinted in the http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/16/AR2010101604458.html">Washington Post and a related story in the http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/world/asia/17headley.html?_r=2&hp">New York Times, MSM has been strangely silent on this story. Perhaps this is excusable to the predominate focus on the upcoming election in November. But still, an American confessing to involvement in the 2008 Mumbai attacks turns out to be a DEA informant, turns out the FBI was warned of his terrorist links three years prior to the attacks, yet this story doesn't merit nationwide front page headlines? No morning talk or evening cable news interviews with the ex-wife, or with the DEA or FBI? A more likely reason for MSM muting of this story is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_politics">Deep Politics. As long as the links between government, intelligence, drugs and terrorism are not officially acknowledged, how are we to know they exist?

http://americanjudas.blogspot.com/2010/10/mumbai-attacks-update-dea-connection.html



There have been no further updates regarding Headley's connection with the DEA. But there was an interesting development courtesy of a Wikileaks cable:

WikiLeaks: Headley Wasn't Acting Alone, Said Chidambaram

2010-12-18 17:20:00

New Delhi/London, Dec 18 (IANS) Home Minister P. Chidambaram had insisted on having access to Pakistani-American Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) operative David Coleman Headley, who scouted for targets for the 26/11 terror attack. 'I have a feeling in my bones that Headley was not acting alone,' the minister is quoted as saying in a fresh WikiLeaks US cable.

A 'secret' US cable of Feb 26 this year, put out by the whistleblower website and reported by Guardian, said that in a Feb 23 meeting in 2010, FBI Director Robert Mueller and Chidambaram discussed the case of Headley, who is in US custody.

The cable said: 'Chidambaram insisted that the GOI (Government of India) have access to Headley: 'we must be able to say we had access, even if Headley did not speak'. He also requested access to Headley's spouse, Shaiza, who he said is in Chicago so GOI investigators can question her on the meaning of her alleged message to Headley that she `saw your graduation'.'

snip

During the meeting, Chidambaram confided that 'I have a feeling in my bones that Headley was not acting alone' in India and expressed frustration over what he characterised as Headley's false claim that he had no accomplices in India, the daily reported.
more...

http://www.sify.com/news/wikileaks-headley-wasn-t-acting-alone-said-chidambaram-news-international-kmsrulfeaab.html




Before I report STORY #4, I want to preface my report with a story that I should have highlighted on last year's list, but neglected to. Every year, the International Energy Agency (IEA) publishes their World Energy Outlook, a forecast of trends in global oil production and energy consumption for the next 25 years. While their goal is to exist as an independent agency providing unbiased and accurate projections for the 28 national governments that support the agency, that isn't always the case. In 2009, even as the IEA's chief economist http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/warning-oil-supplies-are-running-out-fast-1766585.html">Dr. Fatih Barol said that global production is http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3998965">likely to peak in about 10 years, there were whistleblowers claiming that the IEA's pretense at independence was not all it appeared to be:


Key oil figures were distorted by US pressure, says whistleblower
Exclusive:
Watchdog's estimates of reserves inflated says top official

The world is much closer to running out of http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/oil">oil than official estimates admit, according to a whistleblower at the International http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/energy">Energy Agency who claims it has been deliberately underplaying a looming shortage for fear of triggering panic buying.

snip

Now the "http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/peak-oil">peak oil" theory is gaining support at the heart of the global energy establishment. "The IEA in 2005 was predicting oil supplies could rise as high as 120m barrels a day by 2030 although it was forced to reduce this gradually to 116m and then 105m last year," said the IEA source, who was unwilling to be identified for fear of reprisals inside the industry. "The 120m figure always was nonsense but even today's number is much higher than can be justified and the IEA knows this.

"Many inside the organisation believe that maintaining oil supplies at even 90m to 95m barrels a day would be impossible but there are fears that panic could spread on the financial markets if the figures were brought down further. And the Americans fear the end of oil supremacy because it would threaten their power over access to oil resources," he added.

A second senior IEA source, who has now left but was also unwilling to give his name, said a key rule at the organisation was that it was "imperative not to anger the Americans" but the fact was that there was not as much oil in the world as had been admitted. "We have entered the 'peak oil' zone. I think that the situation is really bad," he added.

more...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/peak-oil-international-energy-agency



Though The Guardian is a mainstream British publication, this story was ignored by American MSM last year. So what does the IEA have to say this year?


STORY #4: IEA Confirms Global Production of Conventional Oil Peaked in 2006

This should have been the biggest story of the year. On November 9, the 2010 IEA World Energy Outlook became http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/">available. On page 6 of the http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2010/WEO2010_ES_English.pdf">executive summary, the IEA tucked this nugget of data within an otherwise innocuous sentence:

"Crude oil output reaches an undulating plateau of around 68-69 mb/d by 2020, but never regains its all-time peak of 70 mb/d reached in 2006, while production of natural gas liquids (NGLs) and uncoventional oil grows strongly."

The IEA did not emphasize that part of the sentence, I did. Perhaps the whistleblowers were correct that US pressure to underplay a looming shortage has had an effect on the IEA. That might also explain the MSM silence on the revelation:


IEA acknowledges peak oil
by Stuart Staniford
3.5
Average: 3.5 (2 votes)

Please Log in or register to rate this article.

If you go to the http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2009/WEO2009_es_english.pdf">executive summary of the 2009 International Energy Agency World Energy Outlook, and search for "peak oil", your browser will come up empty. The whole subject was so beneath the dignity of a serious energy agency that they didn't even bother mentioning it.

However, yesterday, the 2010 IEA World Energy Outlook became http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/">available. And if you repeat the exercise in that http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2010/WEO2010_ES_English.pdf">executive summary, you will come upon a section titled:
Will peak oil be a guest or the spectre at the feast?
Followed by an explicit discussion of the whole question. The IEA's position is summarized in the graph above - conventional crude oil production has already peaked in 2006! Suddenly, the subject of impending peak has gone from not worthy of discussion to in the past already!

snip

Alas, if you rely on the New York Times, you'd still be in the dark. The http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/business/global/10oil.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=iea%20world%20energy%20outlook&st=Search">piece on the report doesn't make a peep about peak oil (being focussed entirely on the China demand growth aspect of the report, which is admittedly interesting and important).

more...

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-11-11/iea-acknowledges-peak-oil



What does this mean in layman's terms? Remember back in the late 90's when you would drive into a gas station, see a sign that said Regular Unleaded - $1.20 and think, "That Clinton! If he didn't 'wag the dog' in the Middle East, gas would be so cheap!" Well, those were the good ol' days, and those days are never coming back. Conventional oil generally refers to light sweet crude, the kind of oil that in the past was the easiest to find and is always the cheapest to refine. Naturally, this is the type of oil that is the highest in demand by consumers in civilized countries. We will never be able to produce as much as we did in 2006, no matter how high demand gets! So to make up the difference and hopefully avoid the lines at the gas station prevalent in 1973 and 1979 there will be an increase in the production of uncoventional oil, which to their credit the IEA mentioned in their report. What they did not mention was how much more expensive it is to refine Venezuelan heavy oil or Canadian tar sands and how much more the consumer would have to pay.

But the economic ramifications of Peak Oil are much deeper than just paying more at the pump. There are http://www.oildecline.com/">many http://www.peakoil.net/about-peak-oil">websites that provide http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html">detailed descriptions, but here is a succinct explanation of why:

What does peak oil mean for our societies?

Our industrial societies and our financial systems were built on the assumption of continual growth – growth based on ever more readily available cheap fossil fuels. Oil in particular is the most convenient and multi-purposed of these fossil fuels. Oil currently accounts for about 43% of the world's total fuel consumption , and 95% of global energy used for transportation . Oil and gas are feedstocks for plastics, paints, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, electronic components, tyres and much more. Oil is so important that the peak will have vast implications across the realms of war and geopolitics, medicine, culture, transport and trade, economic stability and food production. Significantly, for every one joule of food consumed in the United States, around 10 joules of fossil fuel energy have been used to produce it.

http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php


When the full ramifications of Peak Oil become too severe to ignore, I believe that there will be a tremendous outcry similar to the one we experienced during the economic meltdown in the autumn of 2008 with the same plaintive question, "Why didn't anyone see this coming?!" When that happens, I hope that http://archive.richardheinberg.com/endorsements/thepartysover">Richard Heinberg will be around to say, "I told you so!" Another prophet-turned-historian, Kenneth Deffeyes will hopefully do the same. I agree with his analysis of the IEA's current predicament, that they are trying to say, http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-11-24/iea%E2%80%99s-new-peak">“look, oil production peaked five years ago and nothing catastrophic happened” – that is if you ignore the worst global recession in 80 years which certainly was helped along by the $147 a barrel oil we had two years ago. But there is one no longer around who first piqued my curiosity in the 2004 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446320/">documentary The End of Suburbia. At an Association for the Study of Peak Oil (ASPO) seminar in May 2003, when asked when he thought Peak Oil would occur, Dr. Ali Samsam Bakhtiari, Corporate Planning Directorate of the National Iranian Oil Company stated, "I think it's between 2005 and 2007. That's what my model shows".

No wonder Michael Ruppert called him "The Prophet Ali" on http://sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2007/01/124771.pdf">page 562 of his book, Crossing the Rubicon. Every Peak Oil researcher, starting with http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/">M. King Hubbert in 1949 on to many others not mentioned here working today, should be accorded such praise for efforts and their prescient voices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 04:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thanks for putting this on the greatest page!
:kick:

:patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
walldude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 04:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. I can't comment on these stories as I was told
Edited on Thu Dec-30-10 04:04 PM by walldude
on DU yesterday that this is just more... Anti-Obama hysteria. :rofl:

but I will K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 04:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. HAH!
Everything's under control, situation normal...RIGHT!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 04:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. K&R and thanks again for all you do robertpaulsen. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. You're welcome, Bob!
It's been one crazy year, hasn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 05:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Yep, and now it's ending with this "weather"...take care!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SpiralHawk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
7. What scumbaggery...the Republicons have no respect for the USA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kickysnana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. How could an unelected President have to power to negotiate such a thing?
Off course he was the actor playing the President. Obviously others were running the country (Ollie North).

How is it the American people allowed such a thing?

My Mom and I never got through to my Dad. My Dad (rest in peace Dad) would give the shirt off his back to a stranger, any race or creed in need that was in his presence or at the behest of someone he knew, but he could not grasp the concept that HE was killing innocents and ruining lives by supporting these criminals. That was "those people".

My pea-brained theory was he was in basic training when the War in Japan ended and served in occupied Japan as a vehicle mechanic. I think he bought the propaganda of the War and felt somehow not as good as his brother and cousins who were in during the entire war and saw combat. He worked Unisys and TSI military systems and was in the environment 9 hours a day until he retired at 70. He loved his work and was healthy.

When I was just out of high I tried staying away for a little over a year but I realized that he was never going to get it. He just thought I was being "silly and had been brainwashed by my liberal education" and would tolerate my absence rather than be wrong about his life. He knew I loved him, you cannot help how you feel and he was a great Dad, just a half lousy American. So I accepted the him as he was to a point. Mom and I always debated with him now and again hoping he would come around.

Sorry I got off track. Lost Dad this year and it is that time of year.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 06:42 AM
Response to Reply #15
34. Thanks for the story.
I share the recent loss of a parent so I understand.




"How is it the American people allowed such a thing?"

They were kept in the dark. I think even many right wing types would be appalled if they knew what the GOP has done over the years. Of course much was also done with the blessing of complicit Democrats. Take torture, for example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. Great double headline!
Republicons apparently have no respect for the average Americans ability to add 2 and 2!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #16
49. 2 + 2? That's higher math.
Just stay where you are, the authorities will be along shortly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #7
32. Obviously they care nothing
for representative democracy. Otherwise they would be moral enough to quit tampering with elections and election results, among other evils. They're kind of like some unearthly treasonous scum life form.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 05:15 PM
Response to Original message
8. Comtinued excellent work from you --
adn your fellow journalists. :applause:

The the more that is exposed the better chance we have of fighting it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleko Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 05:21 PM
Response to Original message
9. Awesome compilation.
Too much to absorb, so... bookmarked.

Thank you, Robert!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinnie From Indy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
10. Great work! I would caution against using Sibel Edmonds as a credible source in the future though
She is a flim-flam artist. Simply read her depositions that are available on the internet and it should be obvious that she is less than honest and an opportunist in the extreme.

Cheers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 08:26 PM
Response to Reply #10
18. Thanks, but I have yet to read a credible refutation of Sibel Edmonds' testimony.
There isn't much out there both by and about Sibel Edmonds that I haven't read. Sure, she has her enemies (most of them reich-wing tools) but since Edmonds has gone under oath with her sworn testimony, none of her detractors have gone as far to refute her. You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but as far as know, her testimony still stands legally unchallenged.

Happy New Year!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #18
28. Thank you for clarifying this matter....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinnie From Indy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 04:22 AM
Response to Reply #18
31. Hey! Feel free to feel about Edmonds any way you like.
I would offer that there is a substantial amount of information about Edmonds out there that casts her as less than credible.

You write,
"her testimony still stands legally unchallenged"

Have you even read her depositions posted on Bradblog? Any first year law student would make mincemeat out of her testimony if given a chance.

Cheers!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #31
56. Certainly. You're free to your feelings as well.
Of course I've read her deposition on Bradblog. One of the links in the first paragraph of my OP takes you to last year's http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7417073">UNDER THE RUG post where STORY #1 is about that August 2009 testimony that Project Censored missed and MSM didn't want you to know.

Obviously, you and I will never be able to agree on this subject, but I happen to think she was quite formidable during cross-examination by Bruce Fein, who as a former Assoc. Deputy Attorney General in the Reagan Administration could hardly be considered a "first year law student". If her testimony was "less than credible", Fein had a simple solution at his fingertips: charge her with perjury. That he didn't do so, that prior to her testimony her case was gagged under the state secrets privilege by the Bush administration, that even under the Obama administration the FBI attempted to http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7345">block her testimony with a two page letter of http://www.bradblog.com/Docs/FBIResponse_SibelEdmondsRequestToTestify_ValerieCaproni_080609.pdf">objection to her attorneys and the Department of Justice http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7346">pressured the Ohio Commission to drop the subpoenae speaks volumes about her veracity.

But hey, that's just my opinion. Happy New Year!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vinnie From Indy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 03:08 PM
Response to Reply #56
59. Happy New Year to you as well. Cheers!
I think Fein did an excellent job of laying a foundation to severely attack Edmond's credibility. For any fair minded DU'er that wants to read the deposition for themselves it can be found at Bradblog. Fein's cross-examination begins on page 106.

Fein establishes that Edmonds had ZERO experience in intelligence gathering, world diplomacy and a host of other areas prior to being hired as "independent contractor" with the FBI as a translator. Not only was she a contract employee, she herself admits that in the roughly 120 DAYS she was employed at the FBI, she only worked part-time (15-20hrs. per week). Edmond's went from working at her husbands small company as an administrator to super-spy in what amounts to a few dozen hours as a contract employee at the FBI.

As I see it, Edmonds has done a masterful job at taking a 6 month stint as a contract employee of the FBI as a translator and turned it into a career as a courageous defender of freedom and intrepid whistleblower. Remarkably, she has offered ZERO hard evidence that any of her wild claims are true after her INITIAL allegations against another employee at the FBI. Please note that her INITIAL claims of misconduct against another employee were found to be credible by a DOJ investigation and Sen Grassley etc. This is an absolutely crucial point so I will repeat it. Her INITIAL claims were found to be partially credible. It was after this point that Edmonds began her new career as an accusation hurler. Once she had her initial claims validated by the DOJ inspector and a few Senators, she was off to the races. From that point forward, Edmonds has been nothing but an accusation factory. She has accused people in Congress, the White House, State Department, the Chicago Mayor's office and a few other places of committing grand acts of treason against the United States. To date she has provided ZERO evidence that her claims are true. Whenever she is challenged on these later accusations, she uses the validation that her initial claims were true as proof her later accusations are true even when those later accusations are demonstrably untrue on their face (i.e. Jan Schakowsky).

Edmonds now supports herself (probably quite nicely) as a courageous defender of freedom and down trodden whistleblower. Her book is in the works and she will no doubt have a movie coming soon. Only in America folks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-11 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #59
64. THIS is an absolutely crucial point that bears repeating.
Sibel Edmonds' deposition was under oath. At any time afterward, Fein could have challenged her veracity with the charge of perjury. My point that her testimony remains legally unchallenged still stands.

There are some mischaracterizations in your post that need to be addressed. First, at no time has Edmonds ever pretended to be a "super-spy". On the contrary, Edmonds has characterized herself as a http://americanjudas.blogspot.com/2010/11/plameedmondsaipacgate-update-rosen.html">"lowly translator". There is nothing that you list in your post that Fein "establishes" that Edmonds herself had not been completely open about in interviews with the press prior to her deposition.

You are quite right that her initial claims were found to be credible by a DOJ investigaton. But for you to say: "It was after this point that Edmonds began her new career as an accusation hurler" is chronologically incorrect. Yes, the investigation began in 2002 and at that point some officials offered their opinion that they found her to be credible. But it wasn't until January 2005 that Inspector General Glenn Fine released an http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/0501/final.pdf">unclassified summary that the investigation, which was completed with a full report in July 2004, concluded that many of her allegations had a basis in fact. This was completed after she had made her allegations related to the September 11 terror attacks which she related in an interview with the 9/11 Commission, who then reduced her testimony to two footnotes in the final report. More important, the investigation was completed after Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked the state secrets privelege to gag her, which occurred on May 13, 2004 and was in direct response to the 9/11 allegations that she planned to file a deposition on in the case Burnett v. Al Baraka Investment & Dev. Corp. Far from being "off to the races" as you put it, from this point on Sibel Edmonds had to tread extremely carefully through any interview to avoid facing imprisonment.

Actually, to be completely accurate, Edmonds had to worry about the possibility of imprisonment just for talking long before May 13, 2004. On http://www.fas.org/irp/news/2002/10/doj101802.html">October 18, 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft, in response to her lawsuit filed July 22, 2002, against the Department of Justice, the FBI, and several high-level officials, alleging that she was wrongfully terminated from the FBI in retaliation for reporting criminal activities committed by government officials and employees, invoked the State Secrets Privilege in order to prevent disclosure of the nature of Edmonds' work on the grounds that it would endanger national security, and asked that the suit be dismissed. Then on http://dissidentvoice.org/2008/01/%E2%80%9Cwe-can%E2%80%99t-afford-to-let-them-spill-the-beans%E2%80%9D/">December 11, 2003, in response to her deposition in the Burnett v. Al Baraka 9/11 case, Ashcroft again invoking the State Secrets Privilege, filed a motion calling for Edmonds' deposition to be suppressed and for the entire case to be dismissed. All this occurred prior to the gagging on http://www.fas.org/sgp/jud/edmonds051404.pdf">May 13, 2004, where Ashcroft took the unprecedented step of http://www.pogoarchives.org/m/gp/a/POGO%20facts.pdf">retroactively classifying as Top Secret all of the material and statements that had been provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2002 relating to Edmonds' own lawsuit, as well as the letters that had been sent by the Senators and republished by a watchdog group, Project On Government Oversight (POGO). Ashcroft’s reclassification was successful; Edmonds was barred from testifying in the 9/11 class action suit, and on July 6, 2004, her own suit was dismissed on state secrets grounds. No wonder Edmonds has been called "the most gagged woman in America"!

Edmonds has always been adamant that http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0402-01.htm">"documented" evidence exists that, if there were a full legitimate investigation, would expose the full criminal enterprise that she discovered a small part of detailed in her http://www.justacitizen.com/images/Gallery%20Draft2%20for%20Web.htm">State Secrets Privilege Gallery. Which leads again to the obvious question: if her claims are so incredible that, as you say, they are "less than credible", why gag her? Why not expose her in court and put her away for perjuring herself? You can come up with any excuse you want, but the fact is: they didn't! Her testimony stands.

Finally, I would like to address your last paragraph:

"Edmonds now supports herself (probably quite nicely) as a courageous defender of freedom and down trodden whistleblower. Her book is in the works and she will no doubt have a movie coming soon. Only in America folks!"

Be careful with that argument, Vinnie. This is the same reich-wing smear used by the enemies of Joe and Valerie Wilson to diminish their claims of illegality within the government and make the story about the victim, not the perpetrator. The implication that Edmonds' motive for being a whistleblower is financial is no different than the Fox-fueled echo chamber pointing at the Vanity Fair pics to say, "Well, look at how down trodden they are!" Understand, I'm not calling you out for being reich-wing, I'm saying your argument is a slippery slope toward an ad hominem attack. You seem like an intelligent guy to me, please don't go there. I'm more than willing to discuss the truth where Sibel Edmonds is concerned from now to eternity, as long as we can find a common ground that the truth where she is concerned is not all about her, it's about the crimes she is alleging and the dark actors responsible. So let's start, as I did in my OP, with Dick Armitage and Marc Grossman. Do you believe they are guilty of the crimes that Edmonds alleges in her deposition? What do you think of her allegations that Grossman was one of three officials – the other two, she says, are http://sibeledmonds.blogspot.com/2006/09/doug-feith-richard-perle-and-marc.html">Richard Perle and Douglas Feith – who had been watched by both Valerie Plame's Brewster Jennings & Associates CIA team, and by the major FBI investigation of organized crime and governmental corruption on which she herself was working until being terminated in April 2002? Why has there not been a thorough binding investigation with subpoena power into the international criminal conspiracy hidden with semi-legitimate organizations like the ATC and AACC implicating such powerful figures as James Baker, Henry Kissinger and Dick Cheney? Once you address these questions, then maybe we can delve into Sibel Edmonds as a person, and why and when we both became interested in her.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shraby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 05:41 PM
Response to Original message
11. You go RP!! Too much gets swept under the rugs. Thing is
the piles under the rugs gets too big, people start to trip over them and find them. Yes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 05:44 PM
Response to Original message
12. Carter wanted to use his second term to press for U.S. energy independence . Can you imagine if ...
that had happened????


"The significance of Reagan’s victory on modern American history can hardly be overstated. For instance, while Carter wanted to use his second term to press for U.S. energy independence and to secure a lasting Middle East peace, Reagan had little use for such policies and instead pushed through an anti-government agenda of tax cuts for the wealthy and deregulation of corporations."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 06:45 AM
Response to Reply #12
35. Yes, energy independence was out of the question!
Fuel efficiency actually declined under the Reagan Administration.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #12
47. That's the real tragedy.
There is a direct connection between the events in STORY #1 and the future repercussions of STORY #4. If Carter had been re-elected, the energy independence we would have achieved would have been through a completely redesigned energy infrastructure focused on renewable energy. President Carter was very much http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tPePpMxJaA&playnext=1&list=PL96416706BE048D4B&index=50">aware of Peak Oil and believed it would occur even sooner than it did. Under his leadership, America would have been prepared. Now we are woefully unprepared, thanks in particular to the oil-rich BFEE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CTyankee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #12
61. It's tragic, you're right. Ihate to say "what if?" but that was truly the end of any
major turnaround in energy policy, that could have saved us the misery we are in now...how sad...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
13. Reagan is the M$Ms hero! They LOVE Reagan and all the misery
that came from his two terms of systematic destruction of the US Constitution. I would say I am beyond disgusted with the M$M, but I never watch TV anymore and refuse to go to any M$M website for the news.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. +1. Isn't it a bit like living in an alternate universe
or being surrounded by people who live in an alternate universe-when you don't watch TV or consume online MSM stories? Sometimes I feel like one of the few who hasn't been assimilated into the Borg collective-even here!

The scary thing is that Reagan isn't just the M$M's hero; he's the New Dem hero as well. They LOVE his policies!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toucano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. That's exactly how it feels.
They're the borg and they share one brain, which is focused on the pop star or sex scandal du jour.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 06:46 AM
Response to Reply #13
36. Plus one!
Tweety is especially enamored with Saint Ronnie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BrklynLiberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 07:14 PM
Response to Original message
14. Thank you for this outstanding post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
19. knr nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
20. Thanks!
Story #2 got a bit of play...but then died. Thanks for your links/updates and for the rest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KoKo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 09:10 PM
Response to Original message
21. BTW...we are lucky to have folks who chronicle this for the future....
You and a few others are leaving the "mouse tracks" that others will one day follow. We are lucky to have those who are working to do this. Perhaps "leaving bread crumb trail" is also an analogy.

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mistertrickster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 09:27 PM
Response to Original message
23. Okay, dumb question: what was "surprising" about the October surprise?
Edited on Thu Dec-30-10 10:17 PM by mistertrickster
That the Ayatollah didn't release the hostages and he said he would or something?

ON EDIT--

Wiki says the "October Surprise" would have been Carter bringing the hostages home a few weeks before the election. Reagan couldn't let that happen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 10:22 PM
Response to Reply #23
25. The surprise was
They got away with it.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #23
43. You got it. A surprise release of the hostages is what the Reagan-Bush campaign feared.
Edited on Fri Dec-31-10 11:51 AM by JackRiddler
So they had a committee and meetings to prevent what they called a potential "October Surprise," and these led to a secret deal with the Iranians to delay the hostage release until after the 1980 election, which would have been treason. In exchange Iran got much-needed arms shipments, which began already in 1981 and not in 1985 as the Iran-Contra official lore has it. Spare parts especially were vital to the Iranian war effort against Iraq, as the Iranian military tech had been supplied by the US. The then-president of Iran, Bani-Sadr, who ended up in exile, is among those in the know who have confirmed this happened, already in the 1980s. But WTF would he know, right? Carter's White House adviser on Iran, Gary Sick, published an excellent case for showing the secret deal in his book "October Surprise," already in 1992. The key see-no-evil cover-up man serving the Bush mob on the Democratic side of the 1992 committee investigation was one Lee Hamilton, pretend "bipartisan" leader, who later performed a similar function as the co-chair of the 9/11 Commission.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 10:21 PM
Response to Original message
24. You have never disappointed me
I've never regretted opening one of your threads.

Thanks once again.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
26. Truth: robertpaulsen.
The guy should have his picture in the dictionary for that word, the most important in a democracy.

Have you considered a career in politics? I'd not only vote for you, I'd volunteer to help get you elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #26
50. Same for you, Octafish!
I hope you have a wonderful New Year! I appreciate all your support. I've thought about a future possibility of running for office (I'd probably start with city council to address some local issues) but for now I'm focused on my activism. But thanks for the positivity!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-10 11:24 PM
Response to Original message
27. Wow, K&R
Bookmarking this for later. Dynamite stuff here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluesbreaker Donating Member (205 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 12:09 AM
Response to Original message
29. Great Job!
Thank you for giving greater exposure to these important discoveries. Keep up the good work!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 03:44 AM
Response to Original message
30. KNR - Happy New Year, Bob!
Here's to another year of news you won't see elsewhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #30
55. Thanks leveymg!
And thanks for all your great work exposing the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 06:34 AM
Response to Original message
33. K&R
The reason they want us to ignore 'peak oil' is because the vultures want to make ever more profit from an ever more valuable diminishing commodity. We would not even have to suffer from the decline of fossil fuel if there was a will to do something about it now. But since the corporations, and particularly the oil industry, control this nation we will continue along our merry way until it destroys us. Needless to say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 03:20 PM
Response to Reply #33
52. Excellent point! Where would we be now if the bastards hadn't stole the election from Gore?!
:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pam4water Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 07:31 AM
Response to Original message
37. Big K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
38. bookmarked for news on Obama's hero -
Raygun is junk
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
felix_numinous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 10:35 AM
Response to Original message
39. K&R
I didn't know a task force could approve a president's innocence. I thought that could only be done in court.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 11:23 AM
Response to Original message
40. K & R + Thanks, RP! + Everyone, PLEASE share OP!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 11:36 AM
Response to Original message
41. The first 1% of State Department cables released reveal massive abuses of empire, contrary to...
the official spin of "old news" and "good people trying hard to keep the world in order."

(Check out the link in my sig line, which compiles cables stories, and go there to add stories you've seen.)

Of course, that's only "censored" in the US corporate media, which given Internet access to world and alternative press is in danger of suddenly becoming irrelevant. (Something that Wikileaks is demonstrating and why it's now treated by the supporters of empire as Worse than Terrorists.)

.

Your four choices are excellent and a welcome read, thanks for the work.

The story about IEA acknowledging Peak Oil is hands-down the most consequential, and most obviously censored. (We need a new word that indicates voluntary denial to point of suicide, since no one's actually stopping the corporate media from reporting on it.)

Since you've got all this formatted and it's so good, please post it Elsewhere!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #41
48. Great work, Jack! I'm bookmarking that thread in your sig line!
It's quite an astounding contradiction, the official MSM lines that there's no real revelations in the cables, yet Assange and/or Manning constitute a threat. The truth is they do constitute a threat, not to us (the people), but to them (the empire). I have a feeling that there will be more of this to add to next year's UNDER THE RUG series, though I am seeing a number of ads on Project Censored in support of WikiLeaks, so maybe they'll give this story the proper perspective it deserves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jimlup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
42. Nice!
Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
44. K&R 2010 times! I always suspected the Reaganites were behind the hostage situation!
It's good to have documented proof of what those bastards did! :grr:

"Shadow government," indeed! Go fuck yourself, Ollie!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 12:19 PM
Response to Original message
45. Kicked and recommended.
Thanks for the thread, robertpaulsen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gibby2433 Donating Member (96 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
46. Interesting, as I was reading this article...
...a random "news" channel was on the television behind me, reporting the usual relevant and important information required to make me an "informed citizen." As such, they were talking about Gov. Richardson of New Mexico's decision NOT to pardon Billy the Kid.

And we wonder why this is the dumbest country on the planet.

Thanks for the great article!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
51. K & R for Truth!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richard Steele Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
53. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-10 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
54. Thanks for doing all this work.
I will bookmark it as I have only read the first two entries so far.

On the Rosen case, I always believed he was telling the truth, that they did was 'par for the course' and that our government officials, Cheney et al were selling this country out all the time, its secrets etc.

However, I had hoped the case would go forward so that Cheney and Condi and all the others listed on the witness list, would finally be placed under oath.

As for him essentially bribing AIPAC now, if he has information about spying, and he is stating that publicly, shouldn't he be brought in for questioning right now? He is offering to keep quiet about crimes of treason in return for money. I thought if anyone did that the government would descend upon them immediately.

He just got a case accusing him of spying dismissed. He now says he knows AIPAC has a spying ring. So he seems to be contradicting his own defense. That it was normal procedure but now he's threatening them with exposing 'normal procedure'. Is it just me or is there something wrong with this picture?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 02:16 PM
Response to Original message
57. A 2011 kick n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wildbilln864 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-11 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
58. kick! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
60. k/r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bobthedrummer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 04:22 PM
Response to Original message
62. k
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Angry Dragon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-02-11 05:29 PM
Response to Original message
63. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 06:51 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC