SANDY HOOK COVENANT; Adam Lanza DID NOT Have Ryan’s ID, Police ‘Transposed’ Names, Origin Of ID Rumor Was Ryan Lanza!!
March 15, 2014 (AE) – The entire media, including a very special journalist commissioned to interview and then represent Peter Lanza to the media, have all repeatedly stated a Sandy Hook “myth”, which has no basis in fact… this would be the charge that “Adam Lanza was carrying Ryan Lanza’s identification (ID)”… there is no evidence of this, in fact, the origins of this rumor can be traced back to Ryan Lanza himself.
All details are in the video below…
**WATCH AT 720P HD**
CAST OF CHARACTERS & TOPICS (IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER):
New Yorker Magazine
Sandy Hook Hoax
Sandy Hook Massacre
St. Rose Of Lima School
Reps Walter Jones and Stephen Lynch hold 3.12.14 Press Conf. ON RESOLUTION TO DECLASSIFY 9/11 REPORT
***MEDIA ADVISORY*** JONES AND LYNCH TO HOST PRESS CONFERENCE ON RESOLUTION TO DECLASSIFY 9/11 REPORT
WASHINGTON – On Wednesday, March 12, Representatives Walter B. Jones (NC-3) and Stephen Lynch (MA-8) will hold a bipartisan press conference on H. Res. 428, a resolution they have introduced to make public 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001 that were initially classified by President George W. Bush and have remained classified under President Barack Obama. The resolution states that declassification of the pages is necessary to provide the American public with the full truth surrounding the tragic events of September 11, 2001, particularly relating to the involvement of foreign governments.
Also attending the press conference will be representatives from 9/11 Families United for Justice Against Terrorism and family members of victims killed at each of the three 9/11 attack locations. Former Senator Bob Graham (see below) (D-FL), who co-chaired the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11, will speak via video message.
Wednesday, March 12 at 11:30 am
What: Press conference on recently-introduced H. Res. 428
Who: Congressman Walter B. Jones (NC-3), Congressman Stephen Lynch (MA-8), former Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) via video message, representatives from 9/11 Families United for Justice Against Terrorism, and family members of victims killed at each of the three 9/11 attack locations
When: Wednesday, March 12 at 11:30 am
Where: Cannon House Office Building Room 5C, located on the fifth floor of CHOB near 509
The chairmen of the Joint Inquiry on 9/11 Sen Bob Graham and Rep Porter Goss are in “conflict of interest”. Or are we dealing with something far more serious?
The chairmen of the Joint Inquiry have dubious links to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) which is known to have actively supported Al Qaeda and the Taliban.
Moreover, according to intelligence sources, including the FBI, Pakistan’s ISI played a role in financing the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
The two Joint Inquiry chairmen Sen Bob Graham and Rep Porter Goss were fully cognizant of the “Pakistani ISI connection” and the role played by its former head, General Mahmoud Ahmad.
Why then did they choose to exclude an examination of the role of the ISI from the Joint Inquiry’s 858 page Report?
While hinting to “Saudi support and involvement” in 9/11, the Report fails to mention that the Pakistani government, its military and intelligence apparatus (ISI), have actively supported and financed a number of terrorist organizations, with the support of Washington.
Was it “an intelligence failure” to seek the cooperation of the Pakistani government in the “war on terrorism” in an agreement brokered by the head of the ISI, a spy agency, which is known to support the Islamic brigades?
This support by Pakistan’s ISI to various “Islamic terrorist” organizations was pursued prior as well as in the wake of 9/11, despite the commitment of the Pakistani government to “cooperate” with Washington
In late August 2001, barely a couple of weeks before September 11, Senator Bob Graham, Representative Porter Goss and Senator Jon Kyl were on a top level mission in Islamabad, which was barely mentioned by the US media.
Meetings were held with President Pervez Musharraf and with Pakistan’s military and intelligence brass including the head of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) General Mahmoud Ahmad. Amply documented, the ISI is known to support a number of Islamic terrorist organizations. (See Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) at http://www.cfrterrorism.org/coalition/pakistan2.html )
According to the FBI, Indian Intelligence and several press reports, the ISI Head was instrumental in providing financial support to the 9/11 terrorists. General Mahmoud Ahmad had allegedly ordered the transfer of $100.000 to the presumed 9/11 ring-leader Mohamed Atta.
On the morning of September 11, the three lawmakers Bob Graham, Porter Goss and Jon Kyl (who were part of the Congressional delegation to Pakistan) were having breakfast on Capitol Hill with General Ahmad, the alleged “money-man” (to use the FBI expression) behind the 9/11 hijackers. Also present at this meeting were Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.S. Maleeha Lodhi and several members of the Senate and House Intelligence committees. This meeting was described by one press report as a “follow-up meeting” to that held in Pakistan in late August.
When the twin towers were attacked, General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan’s intelligence service, was, in Senator Graham’s own words, “very empathetic, sympathetic to the people of the United States,” (Stuart News Company Press Journal (Vero Beach, FL), September 12, 2001).
Bob Graham’s description of the General Ahmad, contrasts with that of the Washington Post:
“On the morning of Sept. 11, Goss and Graham were having breakfast with a Pakistani general named Mahmud Ahmed — the soon-to-be-sacked head of Pakistan’s intelligence service. Ahmed ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.” (Washington Post, 18 May 2002).
While the Joint inquiry has collected mountains of intelligence material, through careful omission, the numerous press and intelligence reports in the public domain (mainstream media, alternative media, etc), which confirm that key members of the Bush Administration were involved in acts of political camouflage, have been carefully removed from the Joint inquiry’s hearings.
3 August 2003
The following text published in Global Outlook , Winter 2003, provides details on the breakfast meeting hosted by Sen Bob Gram and Rep. Porter Goss on the morning of September 11.
In late August 2001, barely a couple of weeks before 9/11, Senator Bob Graham, Representative Porter Goss and Senator Jon Kyl were in Islamabad for consultations. Meetings were held with President Musharraf and with Pakistan’s military and intelligence brass including the head of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) General Mahmoud Ahmad. An AFP report confirms that the US Congressional delegation also met the Afghan ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul Salam Zaeef. At this meeting, which was barely mentioned by the US media, “Zaeef assured the US delegation [on behalf of the Afghan government] that the Taliban would never allow bin Laden to use Afghanistan to launch attacks on the US or any other country.” 1
Note the sequencing of these meetings. Bob Graham and Porter Goss were in Islamabad in late August 2001. The meetings with President Musharraf and the Afghan Ambassador were on the 27th of August, the mission was still in Islamabad on the 30th of August, General Mahmoud Ahmad arrived in Washington on an official visit of consultations barely a few days later (September 4th). During his visit to Washington, General Mahmoud met his counterpart CIA director George Tenet and high ranking officials of the Bush administration.2
9/11 “Follow-up Meeting” on Capitol Hill
On the morning of September 11, the three lawmakers Bob Graham, Porter Goss and Jon Kyl (who were part of the Congressional delegation to Pakistan) were having breakfast on Capitol Hill with General Ahmad, the alleged “money-man” behind the 9-11 hijackers. Also present at this meeting were Pakistan’s ambassador to the U.S. Maleeha Lodhi and several members of the Senate and House Intelligence committees were also present. This meeting was described by one press report as a “follow-up meeting” to that held in Pakistan in late August. “On 8/30, Senate Intelligence Committee chair Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) ‘was on a mission to learn more about terrorism.’ (…) On 9/11, Graham was back in DC ‘in a follow-up meeting with’ Pakistan intelligence agency chief Mahmud Ahmed and House Intelligence Committee chair Porter Goss (R-FL)” 3 (The Hotline, 1 October 2002):
“When the news [of the attacks on the World Trade Center] came, the two Florida lawmakers who lead the House and Senate intelligence committees were having breakfast with the head of the Pakistani intelligence service. Rep. Porter Goss, R-Sanibel, Sen. Bob Graham and other members of the House Intelligence Committee were talking about terrorism issues with the Pakistani official when a member of Goss’ staff handed a note to Goss, who handed it to Graham. “We were talking about terrorism, specifically terrorism generated from Afghanistan,” Graham said.
Mahmood Ahmed, director general of Pakistan’s intelligence service, was “very empathetic, sympathetic to the people of the United States,” Graham said.
Goss could not be reached Tuesday [September 11]. He was whisked away with much of the House leadership to an undisclosed “secure location.” Graham, meanwhile, participated in late-afternoon briefings with top officials from the CIA and FBI.” 4
While trivializing the importance of the 9/11 breakfast meeting, The Miami Herald (16 September 2001) confirms that General Ahmad also met Secretary of State Colin Powell in the wake of the 9/11 attacks: “Graham said the Pakistani intelligence official with whom he met, a top general in the government, was forced to stay all week in Washington because of the shutdown of air traffic ‘He was marooned here, and I think that gave Secretary of State Powell and others in the administration a chance to really talk with him’. Graham said.”5
Again the political significance of the personal relationship between General Mahmoud (the alleged “money man” behind 9/11) and Secretary of State Colin Powell is casually dismissed. According to The Miami Herald, the high level meeting between the two men was not planned in advance. It took place on the spur of the moment because of the shut down of air traffic, which prevented General Mahmoud from flying back home to Islamabad on a commercial flight, when in all probability the General and his delegation were traveling on a chartered government plane. With the exception of the Florida press (and Salon.com, 14 September), not a word was mentioned in the US media’s September coverage of 9-11 concerning this mysterious breakfast reunion.
“A Cloak but No Dagger”
Eight months later on the 18th of May, two days after the “BUSH KNEW” headline hit the tabloids, the Washington Post published an article on Porter Goss, entitled: “A Cloak But No Dagger; An Ex-Spy Says He Seeks Solutions, Not Scapegoats for 9/11″. Focusing on his career as a CIA agent, the article largely served to underscore the integrity and commitment of Porter Goss to waging a “war on terrorism”. Yet in an isolated paragraph, the article acknowledges the mysterious 9/11 breakfast meeting with ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad, while also confirming that “Ahmad :ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban”:
“Now the main question facing Goss, as he helps steer a joint House-Senate investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks, is why nobody in the far-flung intelligence bureaucracy — 13 agencies spending billions of dollars — paid attention to the enemy among us. Until it was too late.
Goss says he is looking for solutions, not scapegoats. “A lot of nonsense,” he calls this week’s uproar about a CIA briefing that alerted President Bush, five weeks before Sept. 11, that Osama bin Laden’s associates might be planning airline hijackings.
“None of this is news, but it’s all part of the finger-pointing,” Goss declared yesterday in a rare display of pique. “It’s foolishness.” [This statement comes from the man who was having breakfast with the alleged "money-man" behind 9-11 on the morning of September 11]
(…) Goss has repeatedly refused to blame an “intelligence failure” for the terror attacks. As a 10-year veteran of the CIA’s clandestine operations wing, Goss prefers to praise the agency’s “fine work.”
On the morning of Sept. 11, Goss and Graham were having breakfast with a Pakistani general named Mahmud Ahmed — the soon-to-be-sacked head of Pakistan’s intelligence service. Ahmed ran a spy agency notoriously close to Osama bin Laden and the Taliban. 6 (Washington Post, 18 May 2002)
“Putting Two and Two together”
While the Washington Post scores in on the “notoriously close” links between General Ahmad and Osama bin Laden, it fails to dwell on the more important question: what were Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham and other members of the Senate and House intelligence committees doing together with the alleged 9/11 “money-man” at breakfast on the morning of 9/11. In other words, the Washington Post report does not go one inch further in begging the real question: Was this mysterious breakfast venue a “political lapse”, an intelligence failure or something far more serious? How come the very same individuals (Goss and Graham) who had developed a personal rapport with General Ahmad, had been entrusted under the joint committee inquiry “to reveal the truth on 9-11.”(see p. )
The media trivialises the breakfast meeting, it presents it as a simple fait divers and fails to “put two and two together”. Neither does it acknowledge the fact, amply documented, that “the money-man” behind the hijackers had been entrusted by the Pakistani government to discuss the precise terms of Pakistan’s “collaboration” in the “war on terrorism” in meetings held behind closed doors at the State department on the 12th and 13th of September. 11 7(See Michel Chossudovsky, op cit)
When the “foreknowledge” issue hit the street on May 16th, “Chairman Porter Goss said an existing congressional inquiry has so far found ‘no smoking gun’ that would warrant another inquiry.” 8 This statement points to an obvious “cover-up”. The smoking gun was right there sitting in the plush surroundings of the Congressional breakfast venue on Capitol on the morning of September 11.
1 Agence France Presse (AFP), 28 August 2001.
2. Michel Chossudovsky, Political Deception, The Missing Link behind 9/11, Global Outlook, No. 2, 2002, See also . http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html ; See also Michel Chossudovsky, Cover-up or Complicity of the Bush Administration? The Role of Pakistan’s Military Intelligence (ISI) in the September 11 Attacks, November 2001, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html
3. The Hotline, 1 October 2002.
4 Stuart News Company Press Journal, Vero Beach, FL, 12 September 2001.
5 Miami Herald, 16 September 2001.
6. Washington Post, 18 May 2002.
7. Michel Chossudovsky, op. cit.
8. White House Bulletin, 17 May 2002.
Prior Knowledge? Spanish Interior Ministry was making security preparations for a terrorist attack, days before the blasts
Translated Article found on JackBlood.com (defunct)
By Mario Andrade
Spanish Newspaper Source: La Rioja
The Spanish Ministry of Interior was on maximum alert, just days prior to the terrorist attack in Madrid. The ministry deployed over 200 agents, heavily-armed and equipped with riot gear. Officials stated that the reason for the security alert was to protect the nation’s capitol against a possible terror attack from the Basque ETA terrorist group.
The security forces were convinced that the ETA terrorists were going to return to Madrid, in spite of their previous attempt to smuggle explosives into the capitol. Just two weeks ago, t he police in Spain reported they had foiled a big attack by the Basque separatist guerrillas, ETA. Police arrested two suspected members of ETA as they drove towards the capital, Madrid, in a pick up truck carrying eleven hundred pounds of explosives.
Today, more than 190 people were killed and some 1,247 injured in a series of bomb blasts, which ripped through three Madrid railway stations.
Two days before what has been called ‘the worst attack in Western Europe since World War II,’ the riot police in Madrid began setting up checkpoints in order to find cars with explosives. They began patrolling commercial areas, train stations, airports, stadiums, large crowds and government buildings. The officers were also in charge of patrolling the so-called ‘hot neighborhoods,’ in Madrid, where ETA terrorists have known to hide.
The police presence had become visible since last Monday, when an ‘immediate response security team’ was deployed. The immediate response team also conducted night air surveillance, using helicopters equipped with night vision cameras.
Last January, Spain witnessed a scandal that involved a meeting between Spanish government officials and Basque ETA terrorists. Among the government officials who met with the alleged terrorists was Josep-Lluis Carod-Rovira, a Republican Left party leader. Almost immediately after the meeting was reported, the opposition political parties asked why Spanish intelligence officers, who apparently knew about the alleged meeting and reported it to the government, did not arrest the ETA leaders.
Nevertheless, Jose Maria Aznar denied any possible wrongdoing by his government and said the only blame was with Josep-Lluis Carod-Rovira, who attended the meeting in January with top ETA operatives.
March 9, 2014 (AE) – Coming soon… “Sandy Hook Covenant”… but until then, a few short videos.
This is dedicated to “the crazy ones”, who are just asking questions:
CAST OF CHARACTERS & TOPICS (IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER):
New World Religion
Sandy Hook Hoax
Sandy Hook Massacre
Sandy Hook Promise
Recording proves that Ukraine Snipers who shot protesters and police were hired by Opposition itself!
As noted by Russ Baker, a lot of the news coming out of Ukraine seems eerily familiar—and not in a good way.
And whatayaknow, the Russian state television channel RT has now published a leaked telephone conversation between Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton. In it, Paet relays some important takeaways from his recent trip to Ukraine. Among the highlights: that opposition protestors and police killed by sniper fire in the early days of the protests — which galvanized world attention — were actually the victims of guns hired by the opposition.
Skip to the 8:20 mark to hear it. LINK HERE
This follows on the heels of a leaked conversation between State Department officials over who would be best to install in the next Ukrainian government. As it would turn out, their choice became the next prime minister. Funny how things work out.
US intelligence and its ersatz-comrades at the National Endowment for Democracy have long been known to cook up shady protest movements. But Russian intelligence is just as much a player in the game. Though not known conclusively at the present time, it’s widely believed that each call was recorded and leaked by the FSB.
- See more at: Who What Why
A special panel recently authorized by Congress to review the FBI’s efforts to reform itself in the aftermath of the 9/11 Commission report will examine the case of a mole the agency had in direct contact with Osama bin Laden during the early 1990s, a key congressman said Wednesday.
The existence of the FBI mole and his dealings with bin Laden were omitted from the official investigations into the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks but were disclosed in an exclusive report Wednesday morning in The Washington Times.
Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican and chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee that funds the FBI, said the panel would take a close look at what came of the human source that the FBI’s Los Angeles field office cultivated in 1993. The source’s contributions, which included helping “thwart” a terrorist plot in Los Angeles, were never mentioned in the more than 500-page official report published in 2004 by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
In an interview with The Times on Wednesday evening, Mr. Wolf said the details surrounding the source represent “exactly the type of activity” that the newly established panel will examine.
The panel, which is also being dubbed a “commission,” was created in late January under language Mr. Wolf crafted for Congress‘ 2013 omnibus appropriations bill that President Obama ultimately signed into law.
Former Attorney General Edwin Meese, former Ambassador Tim Roemer, who also served in Congress, and longtime national security analyst and Georgetown University professor Bruce Hoffman have been appointed to serve on the commission, which also is tasked with probing the success and failure with which the FBI “is addressing the evolving threat of terrorism today.”
“I cannot think of three more qualified individuals to serve on the commission,” Mr. Wolf said in a Jan. 27 statement announcing the panel. “They are all men of integrity and have significant credibility and expertise on counterterrorism policy.”
At the time, Mr. Meese said it “is imperative that as we move further away from the 9/11 attacks, we make sure the bureau is evolving to address the ever-changing threat from al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups.”
It’s a point that seems all the more pertinent in light of the revelations in The Times report, which homed in on testimony that Edward J. Curran, a former top official in the FBI’s Los Angeles office, gave in a little-noticed employment dispute case involving a counterterrorism agent at the bureau.
As the case played out in federal court in 2010, Mr. Curran testified that the FBI had placed a human source in direct contact with bin Laden in 1993 and ascertained that the al Qaeda leader was looking to finance a terrorist attack in the United States. (AKA Sting Operation? Maybe the one that took off in 1993 and the WTC?)
“It was the only source I know in the bureau where we had a source right in al Qaeda, directly involved,” Mr. Curran told the court in support of the discrimination lawsuit filed against the bureau by his former agent, Bassem Youssef.
Mr. Curran gave the testimony in an essentially empty courtroom, and thus it escaped notice from the media or terrorism specialists. The Times was recently alerted to the existence of the testimony while working on a broader report about al Qaeda’s origins.
Members of the Sept. 11 commission, congressional intelligence committees and terrorism analysts told The Times they are floored that the information is just now emerging publicly and that it raises questions about what else Americans might not have been told about the origins of al Qaeda and its early interest in attacking the United States.
The 9/11 Commission report broadly outlines how, during the early 1990s, bin Laden was seeking to expand al Qaeda globally — an effort that included “building alliances extended into the United States,” and that “the Blind Sheikh, whom bin Laden admired, was also in the network.” (The “Blind Sheikh WAS blamed for the 93 WTC attack / an FBI Sting, entrapment op)
But the report downplays the notion that bin Laden was actively plotting or seeking to finance any specific attacks inside the United States as far back as 1993 — two pieces of information that, according to Mr. Curran’s testimony and contemporaneous documents, the FBI’s Los Angeles field office corroborated at the time.
Alternatively, the report outlines how all of the attacks pursued by bin Laden during that period were against U.S. assets outside the United States.
It remains to be seen whether the newly created commission might uncover information that will change that assessment.
In 1998, he authored language that resulted in the creation of the National Commission on Terrorism, also known as the Bremer Commission. That panel’s final report, released in 2000 just months before the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, highlighted the threat from bin Laden and al Qaeda.
He said the goal for the new “commission is to look at everything, so we don’t make a mistake and let something happen that could be prevented.”
Washington directly supporting Svoboda neo-Nazi party fighting in Ukraine / McCain (Israel) warn Putin / Klitschko Busted Plotting overthrow …
Latest Ukraine Updates….
Svoboda is a Neo-Nazi Party, Ukraine’s fourth biggest party holding 36 seats out of 450 in parliament. They’re also part of the Alliance of European National Movements along with the BNP and Jobbik. Svoboda is supported directly by Washington.
Go here for more revealing pics and story
John McCain to Vladimir Putin: Don’t meddle in [Our Meddling in] Ukraine 23 Feb 2014 Sen. John McCain, R-Iraq Meddler-Ariz., has a message for Russian President Vladimir Putin: let Ukrainians choose their own future. McCain appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation” in the wake of a tumultuous few days in Ukraine during which President Viktor Yanukovych fled to a more Russian-aligned city in the east and protestors assumed control of the capital and the Parliament.[Creepy neocon hypocrite John McCain warns Putin about 'meddling.' Hello, Pot? This is Kettle...]
Anonymous Ukraine releases Klitschko emails showing treason 23 Feb 2014 Anonymous Ukraine is battling forces in Ukraine that are funded and directed from the West and attempting to overthrow the democratically elected government of the sovereign country of Ukraine. A member of Anonymous Ukraine who wishes to remain anonymous spoke to the Voice of Russia about the operations and the recent release of emails between Vitali Klitschko and the Lithuanian Presidential advisor. The emails show that Klitschko was intentionally planning to destabilize the country, is being instructed and funded from abroad, and has his accounts in Germany.
Ukraine: another piece in US-NATO-EU neo-con puzzle 21 Feb 2014 A monstrous crime is being committed in Ukraine right before the eyes of the world and the western media is helping to cover it up and distract the attention of the entire world from the core fact that the events in Ukraine are not a popular uprising, but a carefully orchestrated synthetic coup d’état brought about by long entrenched western color revolution infrastructure that was installed by US/NATO/EU to bring about the illegal act of regime change on the sovereign country of Ukraine… Under the UN Charter all attempts by the US/NATO/EU to influence the events in Ukraine so as to bring about a resolution that conforms to their own interests are illegal.
Please check our archives and search engine to learn more about the history of the Sinaloa Cartel, El Chapo, and US Govt support of Mexican Cartels in general.
At least on the surface, the U.S. and Mexico scored a major PR victory Saturday with the arrest of the most powerful drug kingpin in the world, Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzmán Loera. The long-time boss of Mexico’s notorious Sinaloa cartel, the biggest supplier of illegal drugs to the United States, is now in custody. The question is, why now?
After all, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has had El Chapo in its sights almost nonstop. They knew his whereabouts on any given day since at least mid-2010, as WhoWhatWhy previously reported.
More curious is evidence that, for years, the DEA has been in direct contact with Sinaloa leadership through an intermediary, choosing not to arrest the kingpin in exchange for intelligence on rival cartels.
Both the U.S. and Mexico have at times been accused of strategically favoring Chapo’s Sinaloa over other cartels, such as the paramilitary “Los Zetas”—a charge both countries deny.
The arrest of a top Sinaloa leader two years ago added fuel to the fire. Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla, Chapo’s logistics coordinator, is facing federal drug charges in Chicago and alleges that, as part of a “divide and conquer” strategy against the cartels, the United States helped arm the cartel through Operation Fast and Furious. That operation, run out of Arizona by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), allowed more than two thousand AK-47 style rifles and even a few 50-caliber guns to slip across the border and right into Sinaloa territory.
The official picture of the drug war has always been a clean one, depicting the authorities and the cartels as separate foes. But Zambada-Niebla’s claims paint a picture of a more tangled relationship. Nevertheless, if the U.S., in effect, protected Guzmán just as police treat informants, things have clearly changed.
Did Chapo finally become a liability for the authorities? Was it time for this chess piece to be removed from the board?
The mainstream media have created an image of Chapo as elusive, a narco-terrorist the U.S. security apparatus doesn’t much understand. “So hidden was he that there was uncertainty what he looked like, but American officials believe they have the right man,” the New York Times initially reported, before scrubbing that sentence in follow-up stories.
Even this weekend, The Associated Press, which broke the story of Chapo’s arrest, tweeted (in Spanish) that El Chapo is “the Osama bin Laden of Mexico.” That tweet, too, was deleted, though the AP’s bin Laden association stays afloat elsewhere.
But Chapo’s image as “elusive” appears inconsistent with the facts, and suggests that “perception management” may be at work, as authorities spin reports with the image of Chapo they want to create.
Regardless of what happens next—and why he was arrested now—the underbelly of U.S. efforts in the so-called “drug war” is growing more exposed.
There are still many questions, but one thing is clear: stopping El Chapo won’t significantly slow down the flow of illegal narcotics across the border.
Keep a critical eye on the narco coverage in the coming days.
- See more at: Who What Why
We here at The Jack Blood Show have already called the 2016 “selection” for the republicans. Even the “OLD Grand Party” will have a hard time messing this up. 2016 was turning into a perfect storm for a THIRD President Bush… Jebby Bush. Seems outrageous to you? I bet you said that in 2000 too.
Team Hillary is nothing if not desperate. This is her last go ’round!
When examining the murderous debacle known as the Benghazi attack, it’s not hard to see Mrs Clinton’s bloody fingerprints all over it. Why? Cui Bono? We contend that Romney backers, potentially Israel’s Mossad, and “retired” General Patreus (among others) colluded at Benghazi, and in Egypt; to damage Obama’s foreign policy Cred just days before the 2012 foreign policy debate. It didn’t work. The State Dept.’s Prior knowledge, stand down, and cover up… Lay this directly at the hooves of one Hillary Clinton.
*(Some of you may remember that just after Benghazi, Mrs Clinton allegedly hit her head and was thereafter “fuzzy” on the details. At the hearing she was eventually forced to attend, she was defiant; stating that the TRUTH about how Benghazi happened “Didn’t matter”.)
Why would these criminal politicians and military men risk treason? The Clintons knew that if Obama were to be reelected, Hillary would have little chance in 2016. Had Mitt been selected, a democrat would have a much better chance in 2016, which is already shaping up to be an “anybody but a democrat” year.
This brings us back to 2014 and the mid term elections: This will either give Obama his “Trifecta” controlling the House, the Senate, and the White House…. (last time he had this they rammed through “Obama-Care” and the 1 trillion plus “stimulus plan”…. ) The “House can remain divided”, which has caused a backlash on Obama for the last 4 years, or the Dems can lose both the House and the Senate; casting the blame of the next two years leading up to 2016 squarely on the GOP.
A recent news item came our way, stating that Hillary has managed to get at least one DNC “Superpac” to pull financial support for the Mid Terms.
(See it here or below) All eggs are seeming being stored in the 2016 basket! Only the Clinton (or Bush) war machine has this kind of political power.
The problem here for Mrs Clinton is that if this doesn’t happen, and the prevailing Democrats incur the ire of voters, the final nail in Hillary’s coffin is hammered home. However, and this is the alleged plan, IF the GOP wins back control of the Senate, and keeps control of the House of Reps…. Blame can then be cast on the republicans, and Team Hillary can go for the hail Mary in 2016. (Blocking every may runner along the way)
Such is the hubris coming from Clinton that she doesn’t seem all that concerned about being caught using her influence staging a dive in the 2014 Mid Terms. One might say that this particular hubris is justified by the wholesale worship of koolaid drinking Democrats, and the complete devotion of the money masters who own them.
ALSO: It should be noted that this didn’t work so well for the GOP in 2008. After Democrats won the 2006 mid-terms,Bush fatigue was just too great, and the Sen McCain /Gov Palin ticket was doomed to fail. Enter Obama.
As I’ve said…. This is all out desperation time for team Clinton, and knowing her by the trail of dead behind the Clinton dynasty… She is capable of anything!
Meanwhile… the rest of us that have been able to see through the ONE WAR PARTY collusion, and Wall Street’s endless funnel of Federal Reserve funny money fixing our “elections”… Have we finally had enough! Or, will it be another round of “thank you sir, may I have another”?
Its time to either grow that 3rd party everyone seems to be itching for, the PEOPLE’S PARTY…. Or boycott these sham selections as they happen!
~ Jack Blood