[…] by David Cairns, an ‘official in the European Union department of the Foreign Office.’ A familiar ring? In November 1997 the JFK Assassination Records Review Board released Pentagon documents which, according to the Reuters’ report on this, show that ‘The Pentagon drew up plans to mount a bloody “terror campaign” in the United States…. […]
[…] source. The results are there to be seen in your daily newspaper: story after story attributed to no one in particular: ‘Speaking on condition of anonymity, a Pentagon official said’, ‘White House sources denied’. So the news gets fuzzier – some would say it becomes more propagandistic – as sources disappear. Ambitious and calculating […]
[…] ‘He was very concerned about getting along with the administration…… and “playing along” really meant to sustain the conceptions of the policy makers – particularly at the Pentagon and the Vice-President’s office – that Saddam Hussein was a real and imminent danger. ‘To do that, you had to accept some of these alarming reports […]
[…] administration. (2) Young asked Cook why the British government supports the US so slavishly. ‘Because of the Ministry of Defence’s fanatical determination to keep close to the Pentagon. They will never do anything that puts that relationship out of line. The truth is that it is the pivot of all military careers and a […]
[…] a natural order – or at least, should be made so. Hence, as we have also discussed, the efforts of Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney at the Pentagon to establish the pre-emptive principle as a part of the US strategic furniture. Despite mounting near-unilateral military efforts in Iraq and the Balkans, the doctrinal case […]
[…] was helping the USA in its war with the Soviets in Afghanistan, and (b) US arms corporations were making money selling weapons systems and planes to the Pentagon which were being passed on to the Pakistan military as part of the price of co-operation in ‘the war on terror’. In short: Pakistan acquired the […]
[…] Sir Michael is among a number of senior British commanders who are said to question Britain’s backing for a US invasion of Iraq, and are sceptical of Pentagon claims about Saddam Hussein’s links with the al-Qa’ida terror organisation and his stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction.’ (1) Even more off-message On 25 January 2004 […]
[…] analyses of apparent anomalies in the official story. Try, for starters, the section titled ‘The missing wings’ which to me seems to show that whatever struck the Pentagon it wasn’t an airliner. Then go to < http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/refute.htm > in which those arguments are apparently refuted. For a critical but non-conspiratorial look, try Seth Ackerman’s […]
[…] change their record-keeping procedures with astonishing rapidity. Only the file clerks who suffer through each of these reorganizations can track down and locate the cold files. The Pentagon could not even find the name of the office within Military Intelligence that coordinated its old Sensitive Document files. As the World War II era clerks […]
[…] can never be verified. His (or her) most important sources are unidentified, unworthy of belief or simply unavailable to the public. (Some examples: ‘According to a high-ranking Pentagon official’, ‘according to Bruce Roberts, author of the Gemstone File’, ‘according to a secret CIA report’, etc.) Citations of this sort are the investigative equivalent of […]
