Admiral Fallon is out -- the Bin Laden Trades

Home (Main Menu)

Why are we in Iraq?

Admiral Fallon is out


False Flag Prospects, 2008 -- Top Three US Target Cities

Part 5 of the Bin Laden Trades.

See Part 1

See Part 2

See Part 3

See Part 4

Commentator 1 wrote on 3-9-08:

``As posted 6 weeks ago, March 21 [2008] is a significant date for 'Financial Terrorism' -- and exacerbating the failing health of the US and World economies. Beware of the belated-Ides.

"Billions of put option contracts are betting that the stock market will crash by March 21st [2008], signaled by the rouge put option trades on the NASDAQ-100 index through the Power Share (QQQQ) contracts" ....

"What we're looking at is roughly 3 BILLION DOLLARS of put option contacts putting pressure on the market. This is not the only put option contracts with huge imbalances. The entity or individual offering these sales can only make most of this money if the market drops 30%-40% within the next 8 weeks. If the market does not drop, the entity or individual involved stands to lose over $3 billion just for engaging in these contracts!."

This follows on the heels of the billions which were lost on the original "Bin Laden Trades" which were made prior to 9/11/01; and which aftermath and giant loss went strangely silent afterwards, i.e. it was unreported in the media about who-lost-what.

I suppose that identities are protected in these trades, and we only know the brokerages involved (usually Alex Brown is playing a large role) but still...

... given the implications for the World economy, where any small push could in theory cause a "teetering giant" like the shaky US economy ... to rapidly fall into the abyss, converting a mild recession into possibly a real depression, this kind of important financial information should not be protected ...

I am still of the belief that the large losses back in September '07 were taken by parties who had inside information (and very good credit) and enough reason to believe that a plan was already in motion. Since it did not happen then, that does not mean that the same plot is not still waiting for the better timing. One nuke from Minot is still missing, you will recall; or is it?

It is possible that this later version of Financial Terrorism, which is set for March 21 [2008] is a follow-on attempt by the same party from September [2007] (if it was not part of the Soc Gen scandal).

Adding to the unease is CNN announcing that "A Political Earthquake" has just occurred as a result of the loss and political implication of a Democrat with zero experience (and physicist! no less, who stutters and is not charismatic) named Foster, who won Hastert's seat in a Special Election this weekend [3-8-08].

This was the Republicans' longest held seat, and the loss could trigger some kind of Machiavellian counter-move as a desperation ploy ...

Let's just hope that lost-nuke was never really lost after all.''

Commentator 1 also wrote:

``What missing nuke? The investigation is little more than a whitewash, so far. Was a "false-flag" operation averted by the brave souls [at Minot and Barksdale] who snitched?

Why has Congress not been holding public hearings into the incident?

The only reason for the high level stupor, aside from steroid-abuse in Baseball being of more concern to legislators than missing nukes ...''

Commentator 2 wrote:

``I couldn't seem to figure out why the US has few actual home repossessions on the books. The actual losses to date are way under what is claimed to be the potential.

The Fed has already pumped in $150 bil to the banks. Sunday [3-16-08] papers say the Fed will pump another $300 billion directly into the large investment banks as done with Bear Stearns. This total of $450 billion is far in excess of what actual losse have occcured in the subprime mortage mess.

So I got to thinking .. what am I missing ? Shazzam !.. a little bitty news item report on Carlyle Capital Company in Zurich. Seems this tiny company, a subsidiary of the mighty Carlyle Group had to "borrow" $150 mil from their daddy to cover a margin call.. now they have been told to put up more cash to cover another call. WHY???

It seem they were "buying" sub-primes and then borrowing on the paper -- get this!!! they used the paper for collateral. They used the collateral to borrow 30 times the actual paper face value. These ... sold the paper THIRTY TIMES. Where did they learns these tricks? Now the Fed says they needed to keep Bear Stearns from failing.

Somebody's rockin' my dreamboat!

Oh! did I seem to read that GHWB [George Herbert Walker Bush] was in Carlyle along with all of Reagan's cronies like Carlucci, the ex defense secretary?

Jesse James would be embarrassed by the lack of style of these guys. After all, the bad guy is supposed to use a pistol, not a pen. No guts.

See this article:''

``London. David Rubenstein, co-founder of the Carlyle Group, pledged Thursday [3-13-08] to "make amends" to investors in a fund that is facing collapse and has ties to his firm.

"We're working to find ways to help people to deal with losses and maybe recover some capital," Rubenstein said in a telephone interview.

The fund, Carlyle Capital, came to the brink of collapse on Thursday after discussions on refinancing failed, prompting a default on its debt. The fund's inability to strike a deal in talks with creditors late on Wednesday, despite help from Rubenstein and the Carlyle Group's strong ties to lenders, sent renewed shudders around global markets. Investors fear that more funds will run into trouble as clients seek withdrawals.

"I thought we'd work out a way to solve the problem but each of the banks were so worried about their own credit situation," Rubenstein said. "The result is not a happy one. Over 20 years we had good investment judgment but we're not infallible."

Rubenstein said that the banks recognized this was "an unusual situation" and he did not expect the fund's collapse to have any repercussion on the Carlyle Group's relationships with the lenders, which include most Wall Street banks. The Carlyle Group shares some investors with the fund [Carlyle Capital], which is run by Carlyle Group executives who also own about 15 percent of the fund, but Carlyle Group does not own any of its assets ...

Last month, Carlyle Capital was managing $21.7 billion in assets - mostly triple-A rated mortgage debt issued by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Like many of its peers, it had leveraged itself aggressively, borrowing $31 for each dollar of equity, according to its annual report. Lenders include DeutscheBank, Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch and JPMorgan Chase.

As those investments lost value and banks worried about their debt exposure, creditors demanded that Carlyle Capital put up more and more funds as collateral for the loans. A $150 million credit line from its parent, the Carlyle Group, was not enough to keep it out of trouble.

By Wednesday [3-12-08], it had defaulted on about $16.6 billion of debt and some lenders started to liquidate assets.

Talks to halt liquidations and revive the fund's finances failed late Wedne sday after the value of collateral declined further, prompting an additionl $97.5 million in margin calls.

The fund's shares, which were first offered in July 2007 and are traded on the Amsterdam Stock Exchange, are now worth 43 cents each, compared with $19 when they started trading last summer. They have dropped more than 90 percent since the company's problems became public last week.

In a statement on Wednesday, the Carlyle Group stressed that it had not purchased any of Carlyle Capital's securities and was linked to the fund only by name, the credit line and the fact that about 15 percent of the fund's securities are owned by Carlyle Group employees.

The fund is run by John Stomber, a managing director at the Carlyle Group and a former executive at Cerberus Capital Management.''

Commentator 3 wrote:

``The book "Fiasco: The American Military Adventure in Iraq" has been widely recommended. I read a few chapters and it seems excellent but I still cannot bring myself to read it.''

Commentator 4 wrote:

Speaking of good books on the Iraq War, I recommend `The Fall of the House of Bush' by Craig Unger.

Craig Unger also wrote `House of Bush, House of Saud.'

Commentator 1 wrote:

``I am still thinking about the article by Jim Holt ...

... which concludes with what may (or may not) be an accurate summary of the secret agenda of the eight years of Cheney/Bush and all the still hidden Mayberry-Machiavellian scheming ... which had the almost "successful" goal in the Iraq invasion, of:

... $30 trillion in oil wealth, assured American geopolitical regional supremacy, and cheap[er gas for voters.

In terms of realpolitik, the invasion of Iraq is not a fiasco; it is a resounding success ... "it implies that a secret and highly ambitious plan turned out just the way its devisers foresaw, and that almost never happens."

How deep did this ambitious plan go?

Was 9/11 part of it ?

Is it sustainable through a "regime change"? ...

History may record Dick Cheney to be the evil mastermind, not of just the decade, but of all time, if 9/11 turned out to be part of the scheme ...''

Top -- Home

ARTICLE from The London Review of Books, cover date 18 October 2007, by Jim Holt

``It's the Oil

Iraq is `unwinnable', a `quagmire', a `fiasco': so goes the received opinion. But there is good reason to think that, from the Bush-Cheney perspective, it is none of these things. Indeed, the US may be `stuck' precisely where Bush et al want it to be, which is why there is no `exit strategy'.

Iraq has 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves. That is more than five times the total in the United States. And, because of its long isolation, it is the least explored of the world's oil-rich nations. A mere two thousand wells have been drilled across the entire country; in Texas alone there are a million. It has been estimated, by the Council on Foreign Relations, that Iraq may have a further 220 billion barrels of undiscovered oil; another study puts the figure at 300 billion.

If these estimates are anywhere close to the mark, US forces are now sitting on one quarter of the world's oil resources. The value of Iraqi oil, largely light crude with low production costs, would be of the order of $30 trillion at today's prices. For purposes of comparison, the projected total cost of the US invasion/occupation is around $1 trillion.

Who will get Iraq's oil? One of the Bush administration's `benchmarks' for the Iraqi government is the passage of a law to distribute oil revenues. The draft law that the US has written for the Iraqi congress would cede nearly all the oil to Western companies.

The Iraq National Oil Company would retain control of 17 of Iraq's 80 existing oilfields, leaving the rest, including all yet to be discovered oil, under foreign corporate control for 30 years. `The foreign companies would not have to invest their earnings in the Iraqi economy,' the analyst Antonia Juhasz wrote in the New York Times in March [2007], after the draft law was leaked. `They could even ride out Iraq's current "instability" by signing contracts now, while the Iraqi government is at its weakest, and then wait at least two years before even setting foot in the country.'

As negotiations over the oil law stalled in September [2007], the provincial government in Kurdistan simply signed a separate deal with the Dallas-based Hunt Oil Company, headed by a close political ally of President Bush.

How will the US maintain hegemony over Iraqi oil? By establishing permanent military bases in Iraq. Five self-sufficient `super-bases' are in various stages of completion. All are well away from the urban areas where most casualties have occurred. There has been precious little reporting on these bases in the American press ...

In February last year [2006], the Washington Post reporter Thomas Ricks described one such facility, the Balad Air Base, forty miles north of Baghdad. A piece of (well-fortified) American suburbia in the middle of the Iraqi desert, Balad has fast-food joints, a miniature golf course, a football field, a cinema and distinct neighbourhoods, among them, `KBR-land', named after the Halliburton subsidiary that has done most of the construction work at the base.

Although few of the 20,000 American troops stationed [at Balad Air Base] have ever had any contact with an Iraqi, the runway at the base is one of the world's busiest. `We are behind only Heathrow right now,' an air force commander told Ricks.

The Defense Department was initially coy about these bases. In 2003, Donald Rumsfeld said: `I have never, that I can recall, heard the subject of a permanent base in Iraq discussed in any meeting.' But this summer the Bush administration began to talk openly about stationing American troops in Iraq for years, even decades, to come.

Several visitors to the White House have told the New York Times that the president himself has become fond of referring to the `Korea model'. When the House of Representatives voted to bar funding for `permanent bases' in Iraq, the new term of choice became `enduring bases', as if three or four decades wasn't effectively an eternity.

But will the US be able to maintain an indefinite military presence in Iraq? It will plausibly claim a rationale to stay there for as long as civil conflict simmers, or until every groupuscule that conveniently brands itself as `al-Qaida' is exterminated ...

Presiding over this Balkanised Iraq will be a weak federal government in Baghdad, propped up and overseen by the Pentagon-scale US embassy that has just been constructed, a green zone within the Green Zone. As for the number of US troops permanently stationed in Iraq, ... the five super-bases can accommodate between ten and twenty thousand troops each ... Their main day-to-day function will be to protect the oil infrastructure ...

Then there is the case of Iran, which is more complicated. In the short term, Iran has done quite well out of the Iraq war. Iraq's ruling Shia coalition is now dominated by a faction friendly to Tehran, and the US has willy-nilly armed and trained the most pro-Iranian elements in the Iraqi military ...

If the price of oil were suddenly to drop to, say, $40 a barrel (from a current price just north of $80), the repressive regime in Tehran would lose its steady income. And that is an outcome the US could easily achieve by opening the Iraqi oil spigot for as long as necessary (perhaps taking down Venezuela's oil-cocky Hugo Chávez into the bargain) ...

Was the strategy of invading Iraq to take control of its oil resources actually hammered out by Cheney's 2001 energy task force? One can't know for sure, since the deliberations of that task force, made up largely of oil and energy company executives, have been kept secret by the administration on the grounds of `executive privilege' ...

The occupation may seem horribly botched on the face of it, but the Bush administration's cavalier attitude towards `nation-building' has all but ensured that Iraq will end up as an American protectorate for the next few decades, a necessary condition for the extraction of its oil wealth.

If the US had managed to create a strong, democratic government in an Iraq effectively secured by its own army and police force, and had then departed, what would have stopped that government from taking control of its own oil, like every other regime in the Middle East?

On the assumption that the Bush-Cheney strategy is oil-centred, the tactics, dissolving the army, de-Baathification, a final `surge' that has hastened internal migration, could scarcely have been more effective. The costs, a few billion dollars a month plus a few dozen American fatalities ... are negligible compared to $30 trillion in oil wealth ... The invasion of Iraq is not a fiasco; it is a resounding success ...''

Jim Holt writes for the New York Times Magazine and the New Yorker.


NEWS ARTICLE from The Chicago Tribune, 3-17-08, By James Oliphant, Tribune Correspondent

``NEW YORK -- ... Turning to British courts is not new for aggrieved international plaintiffs. England has nothing like a 1st Amendment, which provides constitutional protection for writers in the U.S. Under British law, an author may have to prove a statement is true ...

In the wake of the Sept. 11 [2001] attacks, wealthy Saudis have chosen Britain as the forum to defend themselves from the writings of U.S.-based authors who have tried to penetrate the opaque realm of terror finance.

Craig Unger, who wrote the best seller "House of Bush, House of Saud," said his publisher, Random House, decided not to publish the book in Britain due to fears of a libel action ...''

Top -- Home

ARTICLE from Global Research, 3-17-08, by Prof. Marjorie Cohn

``Beware an Attack on Iran

Is the Bush administration ramping up for an attack on Iran? The signs seem to point in that direction. On March 11 [2008], Navy Admiral William Fallon, commander of the U.S. forces in the Middle East, retired early because of differences with Washington on Iran policy. And now, Dick Cheney's current Middle East tour may be designed to prepare our Arab allies for an imminent "preemptive" war against Iran.

Bush and Cheney have long been rattling the sabers in Iran's direction. The disaster they created in Iraq isn't going well, no matter how they spin it. They may feel that engaging the United States militarily in Iran would make it harder to elect anyone other than the seasoned military man, John McCain. The Republican presidential candidate just happens to be touring Iraq with Sen. Joe Lieberman, one of the strongest advocates of a U.S. military strike on Iran. Lieberman is likely on McCain's short list for a vice-presidential running mate ...

The White House has been spewing pugilistic rhetoric toward Iran. In spite of the unanimous conclusion of the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran is not developing nukes, Bush immediately declared, "I have said Iran is dangerous, and the NIE estimate doesn't do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world - quite the contrary."

News reports on Monday [3-17-08] announced that Dick Cheney is on a surprise weeklong visit to Iraq, Israel, the occupied Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, Oman and Turkey. High on Cheney's agenda is the topic of U.S. policy toward Iran.

Connect the dots. They paint a very frightening picture.''

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and the President of the National Lawyers Guild. She is the author of "Cowboy Republic: Six Ways the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law." Her articles are archived at


ARTICLE from The First Post, 3-17-08

``Prepare for war against Iran

The sacking of a US admiral proves Bush is still in the mood to attack Iran ...

It is surprising so little has been made of last week's sacking of Admiral William Fallon, the US commander responsible for the region that includes Iraq, Iran and the Gulf - for it suggests George Bush and Dick Cheney still nurture ambitions to attack Iran. They know this has to be done in the next month or so ...

In an interview in Esquire,

the admiral warned against the obsession with Iran's nuclear programme. "Where five or six pots are boiling over, our nation cannot afford to be mesmerised by one problem," he said, adding that he favoured more engagement with Iran ...

The electoral timetable points to an attack soon. The Majlis vote in Iran has just reinforced the hardliners, and Bush knows he must strike before the presidential election gets underway in the US. The neocon advisers have never missed a beat in their warning: "Bush and Cheney won't allow Iran to go nuclear on their watch."''


EDITORIAL from The Honolulu Star-Bulletin,

Vol. 13, Issue 76 - Sunday, March 16, 2008

``Administration should heed Fallon's wisdom

The commander of U.S. Middle East forces has retired after publicly voicing his policy differences with the Bush administration ...

Fallon, who spent two years in Hawaii as head of the U.S. Pacific Command, apparently broke form by voicing his differing opinions, in addition to butting heads with Gen. David Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq who is his subordinate, but who enjoys great favor at the White House.

The administration has shown little tolerance for independent thought among its military advisers even when expressed reluctantly.

Gen. Eric Shinseki found this to be true. When questioned during a hearing before the Senate in 2003, the Kauai-born West Point graduate gave a straightforward assessment that several hundred thousand soldiers would be needed to stabilize Iraq after an invasion. His prescient judgment was ridiculed by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, among others. The general then found himself marginalized until he retired.

Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba, a Wahiawa High School graduate, was forced into retirement after civilian Pentagon officials deemed "overzealous" his investigation of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and because he had questioned statements by Rumsfeld that he was unaware of the scope of mistreatment at the facility ...''


EDITORIAL from The Sacramento Bee, 3-14-08

``... In contrast to administration policy, Fallon opposed long-term troop escalation in Iraq (the "surge") and believed the Iraq war was stretching the U.S. military thin, particularly in Asia.

And when President Bush was warning of World War III if Iran were to get the knowledge to make a nuclear weapon, Fallon was publicly saying: "This constant drum beat of conflict ... is not helpful and not useful."

Fallon successfully blocked sending a third aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf. The final straw seemed to be the April [2008] Esquire Magazine article on Fallon ...

So what should Congress do? Follow the advice of Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., in two key areas:

  • Use April [2008] committee hearings to, in Webb's words, bring Fallon "more aggressively into the oversight process with respect to the occupation of Iraq and the overall strategic approach to resolving the issues of the region" particularly on the pace of troop reductions.

  • Resurrect Webb's bill (S.759/H.R. 3119) that would prevent the Bush administration from launching pre-emptive military activities against Iran without the approval of the Congress. This bill would undo the damage done by the ill-considered Kyl-Lieberman Iran Amendment that passed in September [2007]. As Webb said, that amendment designating the Revolutionary Guard of the Iranian government as a foreign terrorist organization left the administration free to interpret the resolution as a congressional OK to strike at Iran ...''


    ARTICLE from Esquire, 3-11-08, By Thomas P.M. Barnett

    ``The Man Between War and Peace

    ... While Admiral Fallon's boss, President George W. Bush, regularly trash-talks his way to World War III and his administration casually casts Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as this century's Hitler (a crown it has awarded once before, to deadly effect), it's left to Fallon -- and apparently Fallon alone -- to argue that, as he told Al Jazeera last fall: "This constant drumbeat of not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions." ...

    Last December [2007], when the National Intelligence Estimate [NIE] downgraded the immediate nuclear threat from Iran, it seemed as if Fallon's caution was justified ...

    Fallon says that he is determined to draw down in Iraq. One of the reasons Fallon says he banished the term "long war" from Centcom's vocabulary is that he believes real victory in this struggle will be defined in economic terms first, and so the emphasis on war struck him as "too narrow." But the term also signaled a long haul that Fallon simply finds unacceptable. He wants troop levels in Iraq down now ...''

    Top -- Home

    ARTICLE from Global Research, 2-23-08, by Captain Eric H. May

    ``False Flag Prospects, 2008 -- Top Three US Target Cities

    The easiest way to carry out a false flag attack is by setting up a military exercise that simulates the very attack you want to carry out. As I'll detail below, this is exactly how government perpetrators in the US and UK handled the 9/11/01 and 7/7/05 "terror" attacks, which were in reality government attacks blamed on "terrorists." ...

    The 9/11, 2001 attacks in the United States and the 7/7, 2005 attacks in the United Kingdom both have smoking guns proving that the mass murderers were not foreign terrorists but domestic tyrants. Each country's government was conducting military exercises that simulated the exact events that were to occur.

    The US 9/11 Commission stumbled across strong evidence of treason by Dick Cheney when it interviewed Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, who was present in Cheney's famous command bunker as Flight 77 sped toward Washington, DC. Cheney was at the center of national military exercises simulating terrorist hijackings of US aircraft -- at the very time that those hijackings were occurring in real life. On May 23, 2003, Secretary Mineta testified:

    "During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

    9/11 Commission co-chairman Lee Hamilton failed to follow up on the bombshell revelation, and quickly switched the topic. Thanks to YouTube, Mineta's astounding revelation and Hamilton's amazing reaction are both viewable on a three minute clip:

    [The role of war games in paralyzing the ability of local commanders to prevent the attacks on 9-11-2001 is described in detail in "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael C. Ruppert

    On the web see]

    In the case of the 7/7/05 London railway bombings, there is same-day evidence in a BBC interview with former Scotland Yard anti-terrorism agent, Peter Power, who was a contract employee working in government exercises:

    POWER: "At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now."

    BBC HOST: "To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?"

    POWER: "Precisely."

    For a one minute excerpt containing the statements above, refer to

    ... how it is that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC 7 twenty minutes before it happened:

    Fox news damned itself by announcing that WTC 7 had collapsed -- even as it showed a live shot of downtown New York with WTC 7 still standing. A few seconds later the building collapsed, understandably confusing the newscasters:

    The owner of all three buildings was Larry Silverstein, who had recently doubled the insurance value of the Twin Towers. Amazingly, "Lucky Larry," later stated in a PBS interview that he and the New York Fire Department agreed to a controlled demolition of WTC 7 ...

    ... Top Three US Target Cities

    Last year I published "Next 9/11, Summer 2007?" in response to the same kind of requests that have led me to publish this essay as a 2008 update. My 2007 three most likely cities for the next 9/11 were Houston, Chicago and Portland. This year the same three cities are still most endangered, in light of the fact that the US military has designated Texas, Indiana and Oregon as three of its four target states in the 2008 version of its Noble Resolve military exercises. Granted, Chicago is in Illinois, not Indiana, but Indiana is quite close, and has been used to stage forces for terror exercises conducted in Chicago in recent years ...

    Here is a brief target analysis of the top three cities:

    Primary Target: Houston. Over the past four years military and police veterans like me have been alerting the public to government exercises aiming at the nuclear destruction of Houston petro-suburbs. Five times in those four years we were able to predict to within a day major petrochemical explosions in those petro-suburbs ...

    As the center of Big Oil and the Bush Family, Houston remains the most endangered city in America. Any patriotic group, like mine, trying to alert its home city to the dangers of a false flag attack should read my recent article, "The 1/31 Nuke: Proof for Ron Paul" about the successful interdiction of a 2006 attempt against Texas City:

    Secondary Target: Chicago. While Houston is the most endangered city, the most endangered building -- the best candidate to be the next World Trade Center -- is the Sears Tower. Official sources have pronounced it just that ever since the original 9/11 attack, when they said it was on the Al Qaeda hit list. Larry Silverstein, who bought the Twin Towers two months before 9/11, led a group that purchased the Sears Tower on 3/11, 2004, the day of the Madrid bombings ...

    Tertiary Target: Portland. Portland, called "Little Beirut" by Bush cronies because of its enmity to Bush 41 and Bush 43, only made my top three list last summer, when it was designated as a target for a nuclear attack by successive exercises Noble Resolve and TOPOFF. The language in an official press release stated the case plainly enough: "Noble Resolve will coordinate with officials in Oregon to model a nuclear attack on Portland." ...

    For another professional perspective on how great the danger ... I refer the reader to the analysis of my colleague, Major William B. Fox (USMC):


    "Good morning. At this moment, somewhere in the world, terrorists are planning new attacks on our country. Their goal is to bring destruction to our shores that will make September the 11th pale by comparison." -- George W. Bush, Feb. 13, 2008

    I can't think of a more important question than the one of where the next 9/11 will be attempted. Common sense dictates to all of us who understand the truth about 9/11 that its perpetrators must strike again ...

    Why on earth would those already guilty of high treason, mass murder and war crimes fail to follow up on their earlier efforts? They understand quite well that the Global War is going badly and the Homeland State is becoming onerous, and that only a reapplication of false flag terror will force the American people to proceed with our post-9/11 national insanity ...''

    Captain May is a former Army military intelligence and public affairs officer, as well as a former NBC editorial writer. His political and military analyses have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, the Houston Chronicle and Military Intelligence Magazine.

    For more information, or his interview schedule, refer to his homesite:

    Top -- Home

    Commentator 4 wrote:

    ``The gangsters have taken another hit, and Admiral Fallon deserves the credit. Meanwhile, the oil glut is intensifying as the U. S. miltary has been able to nullify Bush's laughable sabre rattling, increasing the probability of $40 per barrel oil before the end of 2008. The terror premium could soon evaporate, and the price of oil could drop to $70 per barrel ovenight.

    What will the Oil Gang do about this? More to the point, what will the Oil Jackals (Russia, Iran, etc.) do about it? To re-establish the apparent threat to the Iranian oil fields, will the Iranians now release Sadr's Mahdi Army against American forces in Iraq? Also, the Saudis may think it's to their advantage to fund a major Iraqi Sunni attack on us. The sooner we get off oil the better. Let them drink their oil.''

    ``Commentator 4 wrote:

    The gangsters have taken another hit ...

    Commentator 1 wrote on Mon, 24 Mar 2008:

    According to the scarce information which is available, the net out-of-pocket cash loss in these option trades, which are fully documented trades, is close to ten billion dollars from adding up all the reported loss of the two trading deadlines together. There is no indication that the two differing time periods were actually connected by a single person or group, however. The only thing that stands out as linking them is that the risk undertaken was so extraordinary as to be unthinkable in a normal economy.

    The net loss from the anomalous trades could be much more, since we only know about the big trades which were reported only because they were so unusual in the risk which was undertaken that no bank or even no "rogue trader" would ever even consider them as remotely possible to succeed.

    That is: many people play the options market and make large bets the wrong way on options, that is not unusual ... but without "inside" information of a major international incident (like 9/11 or a surprise attack on Iran) these were "out of the ball-park" in terms of risk and improbability. Even 9/11 would not have near enough of a financial impact on the markets (without a possible recession) to make such a improbably risk pay-off. The party or parties involved in the trades HAD TO BE convinced that war with Iran, or something on that same scale, was going to happen prior to last week [week of 10-17-08]. They also had to be wealthy.

    Many will write-off the whole incident as meaningless, or rationalize it as somehow related to Bear Stearns or Soc Gen, etc (even though neither bank was involved, at least not by name, or even by rumor) ...

    Commentator 4 wrote:

    ... and Admiral Fallon deserves the credit.

    Commentator 1 wrote:

    ... the Wiki entry on this great patriot has been updated:

    "On March 11, 2008, [Admiral Fallon] announced his resignation from CENTCOM [head of the Iraq war effort] and retirement from active duty, citing administrative complications caused in part by an article in Esquire Magazine, which described him as the only thing standing between the Bush Administration and war with Iran."

    ... I have been pondering the significance of Cheney's visit.

    Given his penchant for Machiavellian plotting, it would not surprise anyone if there is/was not something of significance involving Iran which was going-on behind the scenes. But it would take something really extraordinary to justify war with Iran this close to an election.

    How about "Cheney's helicopter gets shot down" as a prelude to a surprise attack?

    Of course, he turns up later, in a few years, in the Dubai Hilton. Along with Ken Lay ...''


    The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict:

    by Joseph E. Stiglitz, and Linda J. Bilmes


    ``The $3,000,000,000,000 War is a Domestic Issue

    Posted March 3, 2008

    ``... while there is almost nothing about the Iraq war that can be labeled a success, we can declare that it has been exceedingly successful in showing how intertwined foreign and domestic policy actually are. In the book The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, along with co-author Linda Bilmes, argue that, even using "conservative assumptions," the Iraq war will cost at least $3,000,000,000,000, and likely as much as $5,000,000,000,000.

    Stiglitz also argues that the war has played a major role in the current subprime credit crisis and our long, hard slog toward recession. Because of the cost of the war, the Fed flooded the system with credit. "The regulators were looking the other way and money was being lent to anybody this side of a life-support system," Stiglitz told The Australian's Peter Wilson ...

    As Crooked Timber's Daniel Davies notes, "the cost of the Iraq War could have underwritten Social Security for fifty years." ...''

    rixhex56 wrote:

    ``... If the Iraqi's were the ones to actually run the gas and oil companies, get contracts for rebuilding water, sewer and electric. If they could at least work with other contractors to rebuild schools and hospitals. But Bush gave Exxon, Hunt and BP no bid contracts for oil. He had Bectel do water and sewer, but they are notorious for taking the money and leaving town, which they did again.

    And lest we forget, there was also Halliburton, which has since moved to Saudi Arabia, but without completing one job. Small wonder there is still violence in Iraq! If we turned it all over to them, my guess they would sort it out in whatever way they decide. But then Bush and Chaney and all those big oil people would be outta luck.''


    ``The Three Trillion Dollar War: Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard Economist Linda Bilmes on the True Cost of the US Invasion and Occupation of Iraq ...


    Joseph Stiglitz, Winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics. He is a professor at Columbia University and the former chief economist at the World Bank. He is the co-author of the new book The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict.

    Linda Bilmes, Professor of public finance at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. She is co-author of the new book The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict ...

    JUAN GONZALEZ: While President Bush claimed the war has nothing to do with the economy, one of the country's leading economists has just published a book that puts an estimated price tag on the war in Iraq. The number may surprise you: $3 trillion ...

    AMY GOODMAN: Joseph Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes join us now in our firehouse studio to discuss their new book ... We welcome you both to Democracy Now!

    Joseph Stiglitz, how did you come up with that price tag, $3 trillion?

    JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, the way you approach this problem is basically adding. You begin with the budgetary numbers ...

    And then you go beyond that to the macroeconomic cost -- the fact that the war has been associated with an increasing price of oil. We're spending money on oil exports, Saudi Arabia, other oil-exporting countries. It's money that's not being spent here at home.

    There are a whole set of macroeconomic costs, which have depressed the economy. What's happened is, to offset those costs, the Federal Reserve has flooded the economy with liquidity, looked the other way when you needed tighter regulation, and that's what led to the housing bubble, the consumption boom. And we were living off of borrowed money. The war was totally financed by deficits. And eventually, a day of reckoning had to come, and now it's come.

    JUAN GONZALEZ: ... I'd like to ask you about the oil, in particular, because obviously many critics initially, when the war began, criticized it as a war to dominate Iraq's oil. But as you point out, the price of oil has skyrocketed from about $25 a barrel to $100 a barrel since the war began. And what portion of that rise, you also try to attribute to the actual Iraq war, right?

    JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, we were very conservative in our book. When we say $3 trillion, that's really an underestimate. We attributed, in our book, only $5 to $10 to the war itself. But if you look back, in 2003, futures markets, which take into account increases in demand, increases in supply, they knew that China was going to have increased demand, but they thought there would be increases in supply from the Middle East, they thought the price would remain at $25 for the next ten years or more.

    What changed that equation was the Iraq war. They couldn't elicit the increase of supply in the Middle East BECAUSE OF THE TURMOIL THAT WE BROUGHT THERE. So we think, actually, the true numbers, not the $5 or $10 that we used, because we didn't want to get in a quibble, but really a much larger fraction of the difference between $25 that it was at the time in 2003 and the $100 we face today ...

    AMY GOODMAN: We turn to a clip of Andrew Natsios, the former administrator of USAID, the Agency for International Development. During an appearance on Nightline with Ted Koppel in April of 2003, Natsios predicted it would cost the United States $1.7 billion to rebuild Iraq.

    TED KOPPEL: I think you'll agree, this is a much bigger project than any that's been talked about. Indeed, I understand that more money is expected to be spent on this than was spent on the entire Marshall Plan for the rebuilding of Europe after World War II.

    ANDREW NATSIOS: No, no, no, no. This doesn't even compare remotely with the size of the Marshall Plan.

    TED KOPPEL: The Marshall Plan was $97 billion.

    ANDREW NATSIOS: This is $1.7 billion ...

    TED KOPPEL: Alright, ... when you talk about 1.7, you're not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is going to be done for $1.7 billion.

    ANDREW NATSIOS: Well, in terms of the American taxpayers' contribution, I do. This is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries who have already made pledges ... and Iraqi oil revenues ...

    They're going to get in $20 billion a year in oil revenues. But the American part of this will be $1.7 billion ...

    TED KOPPEL: I want to be sure that I understood you correctly. You're saying that the top cost for the US taxpayer will be $1.7 billion, no more than that? ...

    ANDREW NATSIOS: That is correct ...

    AMY GOODMAN: That was Andrew Natsios in 2003. He, at the time, was head of USAID, the Agency for International Development ...

    Linda Bilmes, your response to Andrew Natsios?

    LINDA BILMES: Well, ... we spent three times per Iraqi what we spent per European in the Marshall Plan. And the amount that we have spent in trying to rebuild Iraq has far eclipsed what Andrew Natsios had said ...

    AMY GOODMAN: Who is profiting from this war?

    JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, actually, there are two big gainers in this war and only two: the oil companies and the defense contractors. And you see that where the pools of wealth are being created. One of the big pools of wealth are in the Middle East, the countries that are the oil exporters. We are transferring hundreds of billions of dollars from American consumers, businesses, to the oil exporters. You can look at it as simple as that.

    AMY GOODMAN: Which countries?

    JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, Saudia Arabia, Iran, Venezuela. You know, if you asked who were the countries that we would not want to help, many of them would be on the list that we have been helping.

    AMY GOODMAN: So, what do you think of our headline today: President Bush helps the Axis of Evil? Iran and Venezuela, they benefit from the war in Iraq ...

    JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Exactly. And one of the things that, you know, as economists, we talk about opportunity cost, what you could have done with $3 trillion to win the hearts and minds, to advance security.

    One of the aspects of this, everybody talks about security. While we were focusing on weapons of mass destruction that did not exist in Iraq, another country joined the nuclear club: North Korea ...

    While we were focusing on Iraq, the problems in Afghanistan got worse, and the problem of security in Afghanistan is much worse than it was five years ago. So there's not only an economic opportunity cost; there's a security opportunity cost ...

    AMY GOODMAN: Joe Stiglitz, you mentioned Halliburton. Talk more specifically about these corporations. Of course, Halliburton, the Vice President's company.

    JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, I mean, one of the big issues here is how you elect contracts. You know, I think, as I said earlier, that privatizing the military makes no sense ...

    But if you're going to do privatizing, you want to do it efficiently. And there, you want to have competitive bidding. But the Bush administration has over and over again used sole-source contracting. And it's even worse than that. Often these are cost-plus contracts. So they're sole-source, cost-plus. And cost-plus, what does that mean? They get reimbursed for whatever they spend, plus. Meanwhile, one of the things that we discovered was that the number of auditors has actually gone down ...

    LINDA BILMES: Yeah, and if I could jump in here.

    AMY GOODMAN: Linda Bilmes.

    LINDA BILMES: This raises one of the other real problems with the war, which is how it has been financed. The administration has, and this is the first war that has ever been financed in this way, has financed the entire war with these so-called emergency supplementals.

    Now, emergency supplementals circumvent the normal budget process and the normal budget caps, and they're intended for situations like Hurricane Katrina, where you want to get the money so quickly to the area that you don't have time to actually scrutinize the money in detail. But we've had now five years, twenty-five emergency supplementals ...

    So it's absolutely inevitable that you would have profiteering, corruption, cost overruns for these huge contracts, which are let with virtually no scrutiny whatsoever ...

    AMY GOODMAN: You end your book, The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict, with the chapter, "Learning from Our Mistakes: Reforms for the Future." What are the remedies right now, Joe Stiglitz?

    JOSEPH STIGLITZ: Well, there are actually a whole set of reforms ...

    We think it's absolutely imperative that Americans have the information to know what this is costing them ...

    It has to be based on not only the cost today, but the cost in the future, the cost to the veterans, disability, the costs hidden in all of the other departments. Social Security Disability payments are going to be going up by tens of billions of dollars ...

    You also want to know what are the costs to the rest of the economy, because there's an incentive to push costs from the budget to the rest of society.

    If the VA doesn't have enough money, people are going to wind up, if they can afford it, buying some of this themselves.

    Because you save money on body armor, families that could have went out and bought the body armor. The cost to our society is the same. In fact, the cost to society is worse, forcing it onto individuals, because some of them couldn't afford it ...

    I think the critical issue in writing this book is, if we're going to be here for another hundred years, is that the best way of increasing our overall security? ...''


    See Part 1


    [Nymex oil futures peaked at an intraday high of $78.40 on July 14 [2006] but averaged $66.25 for the year, compared with $56.70 in 2005 and $41.47 in 2004 ...


    NEWS ARTICLE from The Plain Dealer, 10-19-07,

    by John Wilen, Associated Press

    ``NEW YORK -- Oil prices surpassed $90 a barrel for the first time Thursday [10-18-07] ... Light, sweet crude for November delivery hit $90.02 ... Thursday was the fifth day in a row crude prices have set new records ...''

    {The Oil Gang goes laughing to the bank.}]

    The Latest News

    Third Millenium -- Top -- Home -- What's New