[Media-watch] Fw: Crisis Newsletter: Powell lied... Hutton: Blair blows it again... WTC7 was controlled demolition

[YvonneMarshall]

Dear List-members,
A solid piece here with some good links.
Regards,
Ian Brotherhood


----- Original Message -----
From: <crisis at pro-net.co.uk>
To: <Brotherhoods at stevenston4.fsnet.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 6:30 PM
Subject: Crisis Newsletter: Powell lied... Hutton: Blair blows it again...
WTC7 was controlled demolition


to sunbscribe, unsubscribe etc please go to the end of this email

CRISIS NEWSLETTER #20, Monday, Feb 2 2004.
-------------
NEWSFLASH
Top State Department intel calls Powell a liar on CNN. Corporate media
report that enquiry will be granted.

BLAIR BLOWS IT AGAIN
When Kelly turned up dead, Blair's panic reaction was to appoint the wrong
man for the whitewash. But it would be wrong to exonerate the BBC.

911: OFFICIAL STORY CONTRADICTED YET AGAIN
WTC owner Silverstein admits WTC7 was a controlled demolition.
-----------------------

NEWSFLASH

The corporate media are reporting Monday AM that an `independent` enquiry
will be granted into the intelligence used by Bush/Blair to justify the
seizure of Iraq. Some of the members will be `experts` (minders?). What they
are not saying is that the `pressure` Bush is under is coming from events
like this:

BROWN (CNN 10.00 pm ET): And when you watched that, that talk to the U.N.
that day, did you say to yourself and to others, that's not true?

THIELMANN (Ex-senior State Department official):
Well, what I said to myself was -- and I was already retired at
that point -- that Secretary Powell was saying things to the world community
and to the American nation that we certainly had not agreed with. And, in
some cases, he was saying things that were exactly the opposite of some of
the facts that I think that he was well aware of.

BROWN: These are enormously, I think, serious accusations to make. Beyond --
I guess what I'm wanting from you is to know that this is something more
than a hunch. How do you know this?

THIELMANN: I was responsible professionally for following the intelligence

for two years prior to the October national intelligence estimate.

-----------

BLAIR BLOWS IT AGAIN

After only a few hours of triumph, Blair loyalists are grappling with the
realisation that public reaction to the Hutton Report has ranged from
surprise to outrage. Opinion polls show that despite generally favourable
reactions from the more pompous media whores immediately on publication of
the report the fix has not stuck. Phone-ins are generally reflecting public
anger in a ratio of two to one against Blair/Hutton or worse.

Hutton is the latest lurch in a continuing rollercoaster of failure as Blair
tries to escape the hubris of Iraq. The Kelly affair was created by Blair
attack dog Alaistair Campbell after Kelly had embarassed Blair, telling the
BBC's Andrew Gilligan that Blair and Campbell had sexed up the September
dossier on Iraq. It looked like a clever move at the time, distracting
attention from the issue of the missing WMDs and furthering the agenda of
media baron and New Labour godfather Rupert Murdoch to damage the BBC.

Blair was on a foreign tour last summer when the news came through that he
and Campbell had hounded senior UK arms inspector David Kelly to his death.
Possibly suffering from the heart condition which became publicly known only
later, a grey looking Blair denied any part in the decision to put the heat
on Kelly by naming him in public.

In a textbook move Blair announced an enquiry to cool the affair. But in the
panic he chose the wrong man. Hutton is an ultra-loyalist stooge with his
roots in the Protestant settler culture of Northern Ireland. His most recent
contribution to political life was, as a Law Lord, to help mass murderer
Pinochet escape justice, repatriating him to Chile on `health grounds` in
defiance of a Spanish arrest warrant.

As trailed in Crisis Newsletter last week, Hutton has no political antennae
and produced a preposterous report blaming the whole affair on the BBC and
whitewashing Blair, in flagrant contradiction to the testimony heard a few
months earlier. This was bad enough but Hutton went further, taking the
opportunity to promote a long standing goal of UK politicians and
conservative judges: the idea that you are not allowed to repeat an
allegation, however good the source, unless you can show it is true.

UK lawyers' first loyalty is officially not to their employers but the
courts. Hutton's principle would be have to be enforced by the media's in
house lawyers. Of course the principle would apply only to those in a
position to mount libel actions: politicians and the rich. To see the point
more clearly, you just have to change that word lawyer to commissar.

This got up the nose of all journalists except hardline Blair whores like
Matt Wells, media correspondent of the Guardian (like Murdoch the Guardian
Media Group could benefit hugely from a breakup of the BBC). Even the
Murdoch mob started to break ranks with William Rees-Mogg saying Hutton was
`a bad judge`.

For about twenty-four hours the battle raged. A smirking Blair told
Parliament this was not the time to discuss privatising the BBC - Blairspeak
for announcing he intended to do just that. Alaistair Campbell, generally
considered one of the ugliest characters in British public life toured the
studios doing a poor imitation of a wronged victim and making more threats
against the BBC.

But the facts dripped obstinately in. Why had Campbell told MPs he had not
changed the 45 minute claim when Hutton had seized e-mails showing that he
had? How could Hutton find no inconsistency in Blair's statement that he had
no part in naming Kelly when the evidence showed Blair had chaired the
suspiciously unminuted meeting that dealt with the question. Why did Hutton
fail to question Blair about this? It went on and on.

Charles Kennedy of the Libdems (who recently told The New Statesman of his
personal friendship with Blair, who is widely thought to be a heavy drinker,
and who is suspected by some of being one of the many CIA assets in the UK)
did his best to help, describing Hutton as `fair`. The BBC was in turmoil as
executives reeled from Hutton's accurate criticisms.

Accurate? Yes, this is no simple black and white story. The excellent BBC
freelancer Greg Palast in his widely circulated comment on Hutton has got
one thing wrong: the BBC is no paragon of accurate or fair reporting. Before
the war they never once to this writer's knowledge used the qualification
`alleged` when describing `Iraq's weapons of mass destruction`. When Blair
and Brown justified the aggression the day before the attacks started,
claiming that French President Chirac was promising to veto a second UN
resolution `in all circumstances` (they said this was a direct quote),
no-one in the BBC had the courage or initiative to check this false claim.

But the beeb had its own image to protect. Once the war was over and the
weapons not found, the Beeb tried to restore the balance with Gilligan's
report. Gilligan claimed a little more than he knew for sure, exposing him
to a counter-attack by Blair and Campbell whose every action is checked over
with an eye to judicial review by some of the six hundred staff of the
Cabinet Office.

(Crisis Newsletter played an unfortunate role here. Assuming that someone
would have checked Gilligan's story in careful detail, we sent an open email
to Dyke supporting his resistance to Blair. In return he sent us a position
paper, but as an anti-virus measure we never open file attachments. So far
the Beeb has yet to take our advice to hit back by investigating Enron and
the absurd official story of the 911 attacks)

When the matter came before Lord Hutton he followed the standard proceedure
for fixing results. A: decide who you want to win. B: apply your legal
skills to finding the slightest failure in the party destined to lose. A
useful tool is to redefine language as Hutton did with the phrase sexed up.
C: Ignore all but the most glaring failures on the other side. Display you
liberalness and generosity by excusing undeniable failures. You can say for
instance they are an understandable response to the deplorable behaviour of
the other side side.

As the first opinion polls came in the line began to dissolve. Tessa Jowell
the Blairite Culture Secretary (husband currently under criminal
investigation in Italy as a top accountant to PM, right wing media
monopolist and Blair ally Silvio Berlusconi) was on Newsnight assuring us
how much she respected the BBC. Pundits expressed concern that Hutton had
been too sympathetic to Blair, while Blair's people started to say tersely
that it was time to put a line under this.

But they can't. Gilligan is now saying he was right on the main story. Greg
Dyke, the latest in a line of one-time friends of Blair to be chewed up and
spat out, is now as disillusioned as the rest of them. Even Charles Kennedy
is calling for a proper enquiry. Robin Cook is saying correctly that if
Blair would only admit he was wrong about WMDs a lot of his troubles would
evaporate.

Why doesn't he? Crisis newsletter suspects it has something to do with
Blair's role in the wider axis of evil, Sharon, Bush, Enron, Berlusconi,
Murdoch. For them Blair, a middle ranking member of the mob, is a valuable
Mr Honesty, wheeled on like Powell to persuade the moderates. He was
particularly useful for laundering the Niger uranium forgery, essential in
getting the anti-Iraq hate campaign going in the first place.

The Niger forgery may be the axis's weak point. Its exposure in the US led
to the Bush Junta naming a covert CIA operative in pure revenge, blowing a
whole CIA front company stuffed with undercover operatives. This is why Bush
took seven seconds to answer when asked how he had been misled on the WMDs:
blaming the CIA yet again could backfire.

Short of being run out of office completely, Blair's worst week ended about
as badly as it could have done: two phyrric victories, more trouble stored
up for the future, more one time allies made to look fools. How long will it
be before Labour's bone-headed `loyalists` realise that the game is up and
dump him?

911 BREAKTHROUGH

Some 911 sceptics have argued that the twin towers were brought down by
pre-planned controlled demolitions piggy-backed onto the presumed Al Qaida
operation by greeedy property developers for whom the complex was a
financial black hole. So far the evidence has been mostly physical:
suspiciously even puffs of smoke at the start of each collapse, molten steel
found in the basement, tape recordings showing firefighters on the spot
assessing the fire as not threatening the building, and the statement of an
eminent demolition expert who witnessed the collapse.

But when the official narrative abandoned the possibility that Al Qaida
could have organised the demolition, the story was purged from the corporate
media and redefined as `conspiracy theory`. The demolition expert made an
awkward retraction and Discovery Channel punted a misleading account of how
the towers collapsed which at one crucial point totally ignored the
existence of the massive central steel columns. It also ignored the
mysterious collapse of WTC 7. WTC 7 was only the third steel frame building
in history to collapse due to fire, the first were the twin towers.

However whistleblowers on the web (www.rense.com) said that they had
participated in works that seemed designed to rig the towers with
explosives. A moment's thought would confirm that, following the 1991 WTC
attack, an obvious safety precaution to prevent a catastrophic sideways
collapse of the building in the event of an emergency like 911 might be to
rig the building or the base with charges.

Now, investigative web sites have discovered a smoking gun admission from
property tycoon Larry Silverstein, the owner of most of the complex.
Interviewed on PBS radio at the time, Silverstein states that he and the
authorities decided to 'pull WTC 7'. In the context there is no doubt that
this means demolish. But how could the building be rigged with explosives at
a couple of hours' notice? On the other hand, if the authorities knew they
might demolish the towers, why did they advise people to stay in the
building. And why would they cover up the reason for the collapse?

http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/pp_fdny.htm

TO SUBSCRIBE/UNSUBSCRIBE

Please note that due to glitches the last newsletter unsubscription requests
have yet to be fulfilled.

To ensure that emails are not lost or blocked, mailings are now numbered.

Crisis Newsletter is dividing into three lists:
1. Ian Henshall's ocasional essays or newsletters and forwarded articles
written by key thinkers and researchers
2. Single Newsflashes
3. Reports on the independent 911 investigations and the criminal networks
behind what John Le Carre has aptly called the Bush Junta

This does not mean you will be bombarded, but you can unsubscribe from just
one list. Unless you ask, you will only be unsubscribed from the list you
just received.

TO SUBSCRIBE A NEW ADDRESS OR A FRIEND EMAIL crisis at pro-net.co.uk WITH
SUBSCRIBE IN THE SUBJECT LINE AND THE DETAILS IN THE TEXT

TO BE REMOVED FROM THIS LIST EMAIL crisis at pro-net.co.uk WITH REMOVE IN THE
SUBJECT LINE.

TO BE REMOVED FROM ALL THE RELATED LISTS EMAIL crisis at pro-net.co.uk WITH
REMOVE FROM ALL LISTS IN THE SUBJECT LINE.

This is not a spam. You are on the list because you have asked, a friend has
asked or we think you should be interested, so a brief comment in the email
text would be helpful.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
>From Ian Henshall, publisher of Crisis Newsletter, www.dumpblair.co.uk and
www.911dossier.co.uk. He is also proprietor of The Tea and Coffee Plant and
chair of INK, the trade organisation for the UK alternative print media
(www.ink.uk.com). Comment is written in a strictly personal capacity. To get
future Crisis Newsletters or be removed, email to crisis at pro-net.co.uk.
-----------------------------
The Best News Web Sites, updated daily or hourly
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
http://www.legitgov.org/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/
http://english.aljazeera.net/
http://truthout.org

The Best Comment Sites
http://www.onlinejournal.com
http://www.medialens.org/
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/
http://globalresearch.ca
http://scoop.co.nz/
--------------------------------------------------