PDA

View Full Version : So this fraud is going to run the C.I.A.



Down1
13th June 2011, 05:42 PM
I guess being a major fraud is a prime qualification for this agency.

90% of Petraeus’s Captured ‘Taliban’ Were Civilians
by Gareth Porter, June 13, 2011
During his intensive initial round of media interviews as commander in Afghanistan in August 2010, Gen. David Petraeus released figures to the news media that claimed spectacular success for raids by Special Operations Forces: in a 90-day period from May through July, SOF units had captured 1,355 rank-and-file Taliban, killed another 1,031, and killed or captured 365 middle- or high-ranking Taliban.

The claims of huge numbers of Taliban captured and killed continued through the rest of 2010. In December, Petraeus’s command said a total of 4,100 Taliban rank and file had been captured in the previous six months and 2,000 had been killed.

Those figures were critical to creating a new media narrative hailing the success of SOF operations as reversing what had been a losing U.S. strategy in Afghanistan.

But it turns out that more than 80 percent of those called captured Taliban fighters were released within days of having been picked up, because they were found to have been innocent civilians, according to official U.S. military data.
Even more were later released from the main U.S. detention facility at Bagram airbase called the Detention Facility in Parwan after having their files reviewed by a panel of military officers.

The timing of Petraeus’s claim of Taliban fighters captured or killed, moreover, indicates that he knew that four out of five of those he was claiming as “captured Taliban rank and file” were not Taliban fighters at all.

Checking on the claims of the number of Taliban commanders and rank and file killed is impossible, but the claims of Taliban captured could be checked against official data on admission of detainees added to Parwan.

An Afghan detained by U.S. or NATO forces can only be held in a Forward Operating Base for a maximum of 14 days before a decision must be made about whether to release the individual or send him to Parwan for longer-term detention.
IPS has now obtained an unclassified graph by Task Force 435, the military command responsible for detainee affairs, on Parwan’s monthly intake and release totals for 2010, which shows that only 270 detainees were admitted to that facility during the 90-day period from May through July 2010.

That figure also includes alleged Taliban commanders who were sent to Parwan and whom Petraeus counted separately from the rank and file figure. Thus, more than four out of every five Afghans said to have been Taliban fighters captured during that period had been released within two weeks as innocent civilians.

When Petraeus decided in mid-August to release the figure of 1,355 Taliban rank and file allegedly captured during the 90-day period, he already knew that 80 percent or more of that total had already been released.

Major Sunset R. Belinsky, the ISAF press officer for SOF operations, conceded to IPS last September that the 1,355 figure applied only to “initial detentions.”

Task Force 435 commander Adm. Robert Harward confirmed in a press briefing for journalists Nov. 30, 2010, that 80 percent of the Afghans detained by the U.S. military during the entire year to that point had been released within two weeks.

“This year, in this battle space, approximately 5,500 individuals have been detained,” Harward said, adding the crucial fact that “about 1,100 have come to the detention facility in Parwan.”

Harward did not explain the discrepancy between the two figures, however, and no journalist attending the Pentagon briefing asked for such an explanation.

Petraeus continued to exploit media ignorance of the discrepancy between the number of Taliban rank and file said to have been “captured” and the number actually sent to the FDIP.

In early December, ISAF gave Bill Roggio, a blogger for The Long War Journal Web site, the figure of more than 4,100 “enemy fighters” captured from June 1 through Nov. 30, along with 2,000 rank-and-file Taliban killed.

But during those six months, only 690 individuals were sent to Parwan, according to the Task Force 435 data—17 percent of the 4,100 Taliban rank and file claimed captured as “Taliban.”

The total of 690 detainees also includes an unknown number of commanders counted separately by Petraeus and a large number of detainees who were later released from Parwan. Considering those two factors, the actual proportion of those claimed as captured Taliban who were found not to be part of the Taliban organization rises to 90 percent or even higher.

Three hundred forty-five detainees, or 20 percent of the 1,686 total number of those who were detained in Parwan from June through November, were released upon review of their cases, according to the same Feb. 5, 2011, Task Force document obtained by IPS. The vast majority of those released from the facility had been sent to Parwan in June or later.

Detainees are released from Parwan only when the evidence against them is so obviously weak or nonexistent that U.S. officers cannot justify continuing to hold them, despite the fact that the detainees lack normal procedural rights in the “non-adversarial” hearing by the Task Force’s Detainee Review.

The deliberate confusion sowed by Petraeus by referring to anyone picked up for interrogation as a captured rank-and-file Taliban was a key element of a carefully considered strategy for creating a more favorable image of the war.

As Associated Press reporter Kimberly Dozier wrote in a Sept. 3, 2010, news analysis after an interview with Petraeus, he was very conscious that “demonstrating progress is difficult in a war fought in hundreds of small, scattered engagements, where front lines do not move and where cities do not fall.”

SOF raids, however, could be turned into a dramatic story line. “The mystique of elite, highly trained commandos swooping down on an unsuspecting Taliban leader in the dead of night plays well back home,” wrote Dozier, “especially at a time when much of the news from Afghanistan focuses on rising American deaths and frustration with the Afghan government.”

Petraeus made sure the impact of the new SOF narrative would be maximized by presenting the total of Afghans swept up in SOF raids as actual Taliban fighters.

The deceptive nature of those statistics, as now revealed by U.S. military data, raises anew the question of whether the statistics released by Petraeus on killing of alleged Taliban were similarly skewed.

(Inter Press Service)
Read more by Gareth Porter



http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2011/06/12/90-of-petraeuss-captured-taliban-were-civilians/

Hatha Sunahara
13th June 2011, 06:46 PM
You have to be a fraud yourself in order to wage a fraudulent War on Terror. The only terrorists anybody needs to worry about are colleagues of this fraudulent general, and his bosses. I don't think this guy would have any problem killing or jailing innocent American citizens as terrorists.

We live in a dangerous world where the Constitution is in shreds, we have no protection from the government, and people like this are in charge of the government.


Hatha

osoab
13th June 2011, 07:31 PM
As opposed to the assbag running things now and possibly heading DoD?

Obama's CIA Director Linked to Spies Through Communist Party Figure (http://www.usasurvival.org/ck06.08-1.2011.html)


New research from writers and researchers Trevor Loudon and Cliff Kincaid shows that Leon Panetta, the CIA director being considered on Thursday for the position of Secretary of Defense, had a previously undisclosed personal and friendly relationship with Hugh DeLacy, a prominent member of the Communist Party USA. DeLacy visited such countries as China and Nicaragua and was himself a personal contact of identified Soviet spies Solomon Adler and Frank Coe and accused spy John Stewart Service. Panetta spoke at DeLacy’s memorial service, directed a series of letters to him personally as “Dear Hugh,” and placed a tribute to him in the Congressional Record.
Former Washington State Rep. DeLacy, named by Communist Party lawyer John Abt as a fellow member of the party, remained a communist operative until his death in 1986.
One “Dear Hugh” letter from then-Rep. Panetta to DeLacy offered a summary of a report on U.S. military operations that Panetta said was “unavailable for distribution.” Panetta concludes the March 24, 1977, letter, “If there is anything I can do for you in the future, Hugh, please feel free to call on me.”
The Panetta SecDef hearing is being held June 9 by the Senate Armed Services Committee at 9:30 a.m. in open session in Room SD-G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, with a closed session later in the day in Room SVC-217, the Office of Senate Security in the Capitol Visitor Center.
Like DeLacy, Panetta shared a preference for communist regimes in Latin America, including the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. DeLacy had visited Nicaragua and had honored the Sandinistas, who were pawns of the Soviets and Cubans in Central America, while Panetta, as a member of Congress in 1983, strongly opposed President Reagan’s effort to undermine the Sandinista regime through CIA covert action. In addition, Panetta actively collaborated with the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), a Washington, D.C. think tank that provided a cover for Chilean Marxist and Cuban agent Orlando Letelier to conduct communist political influence operations in the nation’s capital. Panetta, a member of Congress from 1977 to 1993, was a vocal opponent of Chile’s anti-communist government. In 1986, Panetta publicly endorsed protests against Reagan's “illegal and extraordinarily vicious wars against the poor of Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala.”
“Panetta’s bias in favor of revolutionary Marxist movements in Latin America helps explain why the CIA has been spectacularly unsuccessful in stopping the advance of Hugo Chavez and his minions south of the U.S. border,” Trevor Loudon and Cliff Kincaid said in a joint statement. “His only apparent success as CIA director has been the killing of Osama bin Laden, an impressive operation that has nevertheless backfired in the sense of sending a nuclear-armed Pakistan into the arms of Communist China.”
“It is astounding that Panetta was confirmed as Obama’s CIA director without any of this being considered by the U.S. Senate,” Loudon and Kincaid went on. “But now that Panetta is set to move on to another critical national security post -- Secretary of Defense -- with new Senate hearings being held on Thursday, it is time to get all of this information out in the open. One of the most important matters that deserves scrutiny is Panetta’s apparent failure to be forthcoming about his personal relationship with DeLacy. It is time for the Senate to investigate this previously undisclosed relationship.”
Loudon and Kincaid, writers and researchers on national security issues, have assembled critical information about Panetta from important sources that have apparently been overlooked by Senate investigators and even FBI agents who investigated Panetta’s background. Among these sources, Loudon reviewed the Hugh DeLacy papers at the University of Washington, while Kincaid examined hearings conducted on “Communist Political Subversion” by the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities and “Un-American Activities in California” by the California Senate Fact-Finding Committee on Un-American Activities.
“When this information is examined in context,” Loudon and Kincaid stated, “it is clear that Panetta, whose nomination to be CIA director was considered mystifying even to those in the intelligence business, has been a key component of a network of left-wing activists and socialist organizations for over two decades. These individuals and groups include not only Hugh DeLacy and his communist associates but the communist-dominated Progressive Party, Democratic Socialists of America and the neo-Marxist New American Movement. Panetta, in short, was a player in the network that sponsored the political career of a young Barack Obama in Chicago. This helps explain why Panetta was picked, seemingly out of nowhere, for the CIA job.”
(Loudon, who runs the New Zeal blog http://trevorloudon.com/, and Kincaid, president of America’s Survival, Inc. www.usasurvival.org (http://www.usasurvival.org/) , specialize in researching and reporting on anti-American extremist political movements with foreign connections, funding, and sponsorship.)
For more information, please go to www.usasurvival.org (http://www.usasurvival.org/)

Hatha Sunahara
13th June 2011, 08:24 PM
Panetta is one of a group of 'appointees' that have an entire career as appointees. James Schlesinger was one from a long time ago. Kissinger was one. Whoever is in the President's Cabinet or in charge of the intelligence apparatus is part of the agentur of the powers that really run everything. These are the people who carry out the agenda of the shadow government, and you do not know who is ordering them to do what they do (in a coordinated fashion)--you are supposed to believe that they work for the President, and are carrying out 'Obama's Policies'. Does anybody believe that Obama has any policies, other than the ones that are given to him by the real power? All these people are members of the Coucil on Foreign Relations. Including Obama who denies it has any importance to him. Why is anyone surprised that these people run the government. They are not agents of the American people. They represent the people who have usurped our power.


Hatha

osoab
13th June 2011, 08:25 PM
Nicely said Hatha.

Twisted Titan
13th June 2011, 09:25 PM
you have to be a fraud yourself in order to wage a fraudulent war on terror. The only terrorists anybody needs to worry about are colleagues of this fraudulent general, and his bosses. I don't think this guy would have any problem killing or jailing innocent american citizens as terrorists.

We live in a dangerous world where the constitution is in shreds, we have no protection from the government, and people like this are in charge of the government.


Hatha


we have protection from the gubbermint..........

joboo
13th June 2011, 09:43 PM
Pretty much every household has a gun in Iraq, and Afghanistan. The houses that have more than one, get everything over one taken away to be used as drop guns so soldiers can drop a gun on someone after killing themclaiming they were taliban/al-qaeda/insurgents/not super happy and smiling to be invaded.

There is a duality to every law passed. It all comes back to anyone that is not part of the program...enter domestic terrorists...aka the I don't particularly agree dropping bombs on everything is going to fix anything crowd.

Bush said you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists, and so many people never blinked an eye aka. Full stop on that ultimatum. Holy fuck...uhm...what?!?

This whole kill the terrorists mentality game is structured against everyone that resists the playbook.

It's a perpetual crime against everyone, and it keeps going.

MAGNES
25th June 2011, 07:20 AM
I guess being a major fraud is a prime qualification for this agency.

http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2011/06/12/90-of-petraeuss-captured-taliban-were-civilians/

Petraeeuss just testified he is for torture, what happened to Obongo closing Guantanamo,
promoting this guy, the lines between CIA and MIL have been blurred now, more complete
central power, remember how Bush had to deal with some resistance and leaks.

willie pete
25th June 2011, 07:26 AM
same players......just a rearrangement of the chairs

gunDriller
25th June 2011, 07:40 AM
same players......just a rearrangement of the chairs

Yep, just like Neocon (i.e. Talmud-worshipper/ Israel loyalist) Wolfowitz going from the Bush/Cheney admin. to head the World Bank.

I mean, just like Neocon (i.e. Talmud-worshipper/ Israel loyalist) Clinton going from the Obama admin. to head the World Bank.

The names change & the positions change, but who pulls the strings remains the same <== I can't WAIT until I hear my brother say this. He's making progress - he said the Dem's & Repub's are virtually the same.

willie pete
25th June 2011, 08:08 AM
Yep, just like Neocon (i.e. Talmud-worshipper/ Israel loyalist) Wolfowitz going from the Bush/Cheney admin. to head the World Bank.

I mean, just like Neocon (i.e. Talmud-worshipper/ Israel loyalist) Clinton going from the Obama admin. to head the World Bank.

The names change & the positions change, but who pulls the strings remains the same <== I can't WAIT until I hear my brother say this. He's making progress - he said the Dem's & Repub's are virtually the same.



the dems & repubs are practically the same.....there's not much difference in any of them...look at McCain, what a piece of work, I don't understand why the people of AZ keep that shyster in office, oh and I'm not picking on him, almost all of them are the same regardless of the party, and I'm not against someone being rich, but "LOOK" ( http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=W&year=2009&filter=C ) at the networths of congress, these people have no business setting and drafting, because they're bias and greedy

one example: John Kerry→net worth(2009) $238,812,296

keehah
25th June 2011, 09:40 AM
Or like the next fraud to front the crimminals come 2012, Rick Perry:

http://www.enviroknow.com/2011/06/23/rick-perry-al-gore-1988/

Rick Perry, who entered the Texas legislature as a Democrat in 1984, served as Al Gore’s Texas Campaign Chairman in the 1988 presidential campaign.

http://www.enviroknow.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/perry.jpg

Horn
25th June 2011, 01:00 PM
I don't think I've see any numbers in the past decade that haven't been skewed.

gunDriller
25th June 2011, 07:35 PM
I don't think I've see any numbers in the past decade that haven't been skewed.

very true.

i would love to see a MSM news person think for a minute.

just one minute.

GNP is growing at what, 2% a year.

but that is measured in a currency that is inflating much faster than 2% a year. i think 12% a year is quite conservative # for inflation in the US, assuming you don't live on computers alone.

that means the US economy is contracting at a rate of about 10% a year. and about 10% of that spending is new Obama try-to-save-the-economy government spending.

in addition to the Bush-Cheney War of Terror spending - which is counted in the GNP.

in Sonoma County, some of the Obama $ went to fund a county program that promoted 3 things -
* talking about community gardening
* helping doctors "transform" their medical practice, whatever that means.
* telling people to exercise more.

LITERALLY.

so the economy is contracting at a rate of about 10% a year, in terms of real goods, give or take.

if we admit that half of the Obama programs are useless bullshit, then the economy is contracting at a rate of 15% a year, give or take.

if we admit that all of the War of Terror spending is useless bullshit, then the economy is contracting at a rate of 20 to 25% a year, give or take.


so in other words, what we have now is like a Great Depression, with iPods and a Police State run by Israel added to the mix.

perhaps America was better off during the Great Depression. it was a more free country, people had farms to grow stuff, they shot each other less, and there were fewer chimp-outs.