Smackdown, Part 1

I begin with an article on a subject that an email tipster alerted me to, NATO agrees on Afghan drug role for military, from October 10, 2008:

BUDAPEST, Hungary - NATO defense ministers Friday authorized their troops in Afghanistan to attack drug barons blamed for pumping up to US$100 million (euro74 million) a year into the coffers of resurgent Taliban fighters.

Sound promising?

Ah, but longtime readers of my blog are aware of the importance of heroin in Afghanistan -- and thus, they know that this is not the beginning of the story, and neither will it be the end.

Before we continue with this, perhaps we should review some history. Though I have written extensively about this in the past, I will nevertheless paint the picture again in this series of posts.

I present material from an article that appeared on October 9, 2008, entitled U.S. Study Warns of Crisis in Afghanistan:

WASHINGTON -- A draft report by U.S. intelligence agencies concludes that Afghanistan is in a downward spiral and casts serious doubt on the ability of the Afghan government to stem the rise in the Taliban's influence there, the New York Times reported on Wednesday.

The classified report finds that the breakdown in central authority in Afghanistan has been accelerated by corruption within President Hamid Karzai's government and by an increase in attacks by militants operating from Pakistan, the Times said, citing U.S. officials familiar with the document.

There are two problems. One is that Pakistan is a sanctuary for the militants; the other is that of corruption in the Kabul government.

In reviewing my Genesis series, it is not surprising that Pakistan is a sanctuary for the militants; indeed, as I often pointed out during the Genesis posts, it sure looked like Pakistan was behind the rise of the Taliban. No wonder the Taliban would flee to the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and no wonder Islamabad has been unable to root them out, and unwilling to give the US permission to enter Pakistani territory to do so.

Is it not interesting that one thing Benazir Bhutto was proposing was to get the militants out of the border area, without US help if possible, but with US help if necessary? And, of course, look what happened to her!

Then, there's the corruption in the Kabul government.

The report, a nearly completed version of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), is set to be finished after the November elections and will be the most comprehensive U.S. assessment in years on the situation in Afghanistan, the paper said.

Beyond the cross-border attacks launched by militants from neighboring Pakistan, the intelligence report asserts that many of Afghanistan's most vexing problems are of the country's own making, the officials said.

The report cites gains in the building of Afghanistan's national army. But officials said it also laid out in stark terms what it described as the destabilizing impact of the booming heroin trade, which by some estimates accounts for 50 percent of Afghanistan's economy.

Back now to NATO agrees on Afghan drug role for military from October 10, 2008:

"With regard to counter-narcotics ... ISAF can act in concert with the Afghans against facilities and facilitators supporting the insurgency," said NATO spokesman James Appathurai, referring to the NATO force.

The United States has pushed for NATO's 50,000 troops to take on a counter-narcotics role to hit back at the Taliban, whose increasing attacks have cast doubt on the prospects of a Western military victory in Afghanistan.

However, Germany, Spain and others were wary and their doubts led to NATO imposing conditions on the anti-drug mandate for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force.

Troops will only be able to act against drug facilities if authorized by their own governments; only drug producers deemed to be supporting the insurgency will be targeted; and the operation must be designed to be temporary — lasting only until the Afghan security forces are deemed able to take on the task.

So, what is going on here?

We now begin with a translation by Ferghana.Ru of an article that originally appeared in Russian, entitled US AF serving Afghani drug dealers, from November, 2007; keep in mind that, as a translation by a non-native speaker of English, it reads just a little rough in places:

Afghani drugs are as much a pressing problem of the international community as the global warming is. Existence of the problem is recognized by everybody but a solution to it is not known. An international conference on the subject took place in Kabul in late October. According to the UN report presented there, Afghani opium reaching the international market accounts 93% of the global production. Fifty percent of Afghani drugs is produced in Gilmand on the border with Pakistan, a province where British troops are quartered.

Persuading the House of Commons to send British troops to Helmand last year [as this is a 2007 article, that would be 2006 -- YD], Premier Tony Blair capitalized on the danger to Great Britain posed by Afghani heroin. Paradoxically as it is, British servicemen and their American colleagues have found themselves now dragged into the international mafia that buys drugs made in Afghanistan and smuggles them abroad.

The information this publication is based on came from various Afghani sources that cannot be identified for quite understandable reasons. All the same, indirect evidence indicates that the Western military is involved in traffic. An operation against poppy plantations was to take place in several southern and southeastern provinces of Afghanistan this May (they were to be sprayed with defoliants). Sources in administration of Kandahar and Jalalabad say, however, that commanders of the US and British contingents in these provinces made a pact with the Afghanis and cancelled the operation.

Did you catch that? "[I]ndirect evidence indicates that the Western military is involved in traffic."

Of course, since then, there has been more of an outcry on the part of the Russian Federation regarding the involvement of the US military in the heroin trade.

Sources point out that interests of the Western military involved in trafficking out of Afghanistan (usually by US military aviation) coincide with interests of Afghani chieftains who control poppy fields. Afghani officials say that 85% of all drugs produced in southern and southeastern provinces are shipped abroad by US aviation.

Again, that was a report from a year ago: "Afghani officials say that 85% of all drugs produced in southern and southeastern provinces are shipped abroad by US aviation."

There are several ways of shipping drugs abroad. Some sources maintain that the chain begins with civilian salesmen - usually Americans acting under the cover of all sorts of non-governmental organizations and security firms. They buy "goods" from Afghani wholesale dealers and take them to military bases (usually the airfield in Kandahar). A well-informed source in Afghani security structures claims in the meantime that the American military never deals with Western civilian structures and works with local Afghani officials directly. It is these officials who deal with field commanders, from Taliban more often than not, who are in charge of drug production. The Talibs control bank accounts money is transacted to in all sorts of devious ways via the Afghanis living in the United States and West Europe.

As a matter of fact, money is not the only commodity drugs are paid with. Weapons will do too. Afghani sources claim that drugs-for-weapons barter deals with the Talibs are widely used. (One cannot help recalling the "deals" between our servicemen and the mujahedin during Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s.) It may be added that the mujahedin nowadays get weapons from the northern provinces to which the merchandise is smuggled in the first place from Asian states. Insiders say that a great deal of merchandise passes via Shurtepa, a settlement on the Afghani-Turkmen border. Insiders say that weapons and munitions are ferried to the Taliban-controlled provinces of Afghanistan by American or British armored vehicles.

Does this ring any bells?



From 'The Stakes Are Too High for Us to Stop Fighting Now' An interview with FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds by Christopher Deliso August 15, 2005:

CD: Can you elaborate here on what countries you mean?

SE: It's interesting, in one of my interviews, they say "Turkish countries," but I believe they meant Turkic countries – that is, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and all the 'Stans, including Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, and [non-Turkic countries like] Afghanistan and Pakistan. All of these countries play a big part in the sort of things I have been talking about.

CD: What, you mean drug-smuggling?

SE: Among other things. Yes, that is a major part of it. It's amazing that in this whole "war on terror" thing, no one ever talks about these issues. No one asks questions about these countries – questions like, "OK, how much of their GDP depends on drugs?"

CD: But of course, you're not implying...

SE: And then to compare that little survey with what countries we've been putting military bases in --

And, it's not just today's fight in Afghanistan against the Taliban; the same connections to corrupt US officials permitted 9/11 to occur (so it could be used as cover for a bigger crime).

From State Dept. Quashed 9/11 Links To Global Drug Trade -- FBI Whistleblower by Fintan Dunne, June 7, 2004:

Because of a provisional gag order issued by Judge Reggie B. Walton which prohibits revealing specific details, Edmonds can only paint a picture in the broadest of brush strokes.

But her measured words hint at politically explosive connections between criminal drug/intelligence networks, and the 9/11 attacks.

"You have [a] network of people who obtain certain information and they take it out and sell it to... whomever would be the highest bidder. Then you have people who would be bringing into the country narcotics from the East, and their connections. [It] is only then that you really see the big picture."

"And you see certain semi-legitimate organizations that may very well have a legit front, but with very criminal illegitimate activities -- who start coming at you from these investigations."

"And the picture becomes, actually, very clear. Crystal clear."

From 'I Saw Papers That Show US Knew al-Qa'ida Would Attack Cities With Airplanes' by Andrew Buncombe; published on Friday, April 2, 2004 by the Independent/UK:

Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege".

She told The Independent yesterday: "I gave [the commission] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented. These things can be established very easily."

She added: "There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used -- but not specifically about how they would be used ­ and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities -- with skyscrapers."

[snip]

She said said it was clear there was sufficient information during the spring and summer of 2001 to indicate terrorists were planning an attack. "Most of what I told the commission -- 90 per cent of it -- related to the investigations that I was involved in or just from working in the department. Two hundred translators side by side, you get to see and hear a lot of other things as well."

"President Bush said they had no specific information about 11 September and that is accurate but only because he said 11 September," she said. There was, however, general information about the use of airplanes and that an attack was just months away.

For a wild ride, stay tuned to Stop Islamic Conquest as this series continues!

Mexican Cartels Now Grow Marijuana in US

An interesting story appeared in today's news, entitled Mexican marijuana cartels sully US forests, parks:

PORTERVILLE, Calif. - National forests and parks — long popular with Mexican marijuana-growing cartels — have become home to some of the most polluted pockets of wilderness in America because of the toxic chemicals needed to eke lucrative harvests from rocky mountainsides, federal officials said.

The grow sites have taken hold from the West Coast's Cascade Mountains, as well as on federal lands in Kentucky, Tennessee and West Virginia.

Seven hundred grow sites were discovered on U.S. Forest Service land in California alone in 2007 and 2008 — and authorities say the 1,800-square-mile Sequoia National Forest is the hardest hit.

Weed and bug sprays, some long banned in the U.S., have been smuggled to the marijuana farms. Plant growth hormones have been dumped into streams, and the water has then been diverted for miles in PVC pipes.

Rat poison has been sprinkled over the landscape to keep animals away from tender plants. And many sites are strewn with the carcasses of deer and bears poached by workers during the five-month growing season that is now ending.

"What's going on on public lands is a crisis at every level," said Forest Service agent Ron Pugh. "These are America's most precious resources, and they are being devastated by an unprecedented commercial enterprise conducted by armed foreign nationals. It is a huge mess."

This isn't just destroying our environment, our national parks and forests -- this problem destroys lives and families, too, and brings all the associated crime into communities all across America, as rival gangs fight for the money to be made by controlling the distribution of drugs in America.

The first documented marijuana cartels were discovered in Sequoia National Park in 1998. Then, officials say, tighter border controls after Sept. 11, 2001, forced industrial-scale growers to move their operations into the United States.

Millions of dollars are spent every year to find and uproot marijuana-growing operations on state and federal lands, but federal officials say no money is budgeted to clean up the environmental mess left behind after helicopters carry off the plants. They are encouraged that Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who last year secured funding for eradication, has inquired about the pollution problems.

In the meantime, the only cleanup is done by volunteers. On Tuesday, the nonprofit High Sierra Trail Crew, founded to improve access to public lands, plans to take 30 people deep into the Sequoia National Forest to carry out miles of drip irrigation pipe, tons of human garbage, volatile propane canisters, and bags and bottles of herbicides and pesticides.

"If the people of California knew what was going on out there, they'd be up in arms about this," said Shane Krogen, the nonprofit's executive director. "Helicopters full of dope are like body counts in the Vietnam War. What does it really mean?"

Tighter border controls would help, but there needs to be a presence in the forests and parks, as well: more rangers, and clean-up crews for when sites are discovered.

Last year, law enforcement agents uprooted nearly five million plants in California, nearly a half million in Kentucky and 276,000 in Washington state as the development of hybrid plants has expanded the range of climates marijuana can tolerate.

"People light up a joint, and they have no idea the amount of environmental damage associated with it," said Cicely Muldoon, deputy regional director of the Pacific West Region of the National Park Service.

As of Sept. 2, more than 2.2 million plants had been uprooted statewide. The largest single bust in the nation this year netted 482,000 plants in the remote Sierra of Tulare County, the forest service said.

Some popular parks also have suffered damage. In 2007, rangers found more than 20,000 plants in Yosemite National Park and 43,000 plants in Sequoia Kings Canyon National Park, where 159 grow sites have been discovered over the past 10 years.

Agent Patrick Foy of the California Department of Fish and Game estimated that 1.5 pounds of fertilizers and pesticides is used for every 11.5 plants.

"I've seen the pesticide residue on the plants," Foy said. "You ain't just smoking pot, bud. You're smoking some heavy-duty pesticides from Mexico."

People don't seem to realize that there is no quality-control here. People have died from the rat poison that contaminates heroin, and so on....

Scott Wanek, the western regional chief ranger for the National Park Service, said he believes the eradication efforts have touched only a small portion of the marijuana farms and that the environmental impact is much greater than anyone knows.

"Think about Sequoia," Wanek said. "The impact goes well beyond the acreage planted. They create huge networks of trail systems, and the chemicals that get into watersheds are potentially very far-reaching — all the way to drinking water for the downstream communities. We are trying to study that now."

And it comes into our homes, it comes into the schools where our children gulp down cool water after physical education....

And, the drug culture calls marijuana "the good dope". I guess that's relative to rat-poison-laced heroin?

The Heroin Lobby, Part 11

In The Heroin Lobby, Part 5, I quote Sibel Edmonds (The Highjacking of a Nation, Part 2: The Auctioning of Former Statesmen & Dime a Dozen Generals, November 29, 2006) as implicating Democrat Congressman Robert Wexler as a key player in the activities of Turkish Organized Crime to influence American policy via the American Turkish Council (ATC), an organization heavily implicated in the Sibel Edmonds case.

In The Heroin Lobby, Part 4, I point out that Congressman Wexler also plays a key role in the Turkish Coalition of America (TCA), an organization founded by G. Lincoln McCurdy, a key ATC operative and likely frontman for the Turkish Deep State (see The Turkish Lobby, Obstruction of Justice and Henry Waxman and The Heroin Lobby, Part 2). Specifically, in The Heroin Lobby, Part 4, I raised the following point:

I would be most interested to find out why Congressman Wexler is not just a member of the TCA's Congressional Caucus, but a co-chair -- and, why contributions from the TC-USA PAC to his campaign have been maxed out.

In that context, it is interesting to again review the money that Congressman Wexler has received from TC-USA PAC:

WEXLER, ROBERT VIA ROBERT WEXLER FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE, 03/16/2007, $1000.00, 27990339101

WEXLER, ROBERT VIA ROBERT WEXLER FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE, 07/25/2007, $1000.00, 28930167811

WEXLER, ROBERT VIA ROBERT WEXLER FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE, 12/11/2007, $300.00, 28930167811

Keep in mind that this is only the tip of the iceberg. Once these guys decide to steer money to a politician, that money comes from all directions. For example, two students together have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to political campaigns in this election cycle; these students are important sources of funding to the TC-USA PAC and to candidates that the TC-USA PAC backs. Included in that list of candidates is Congressman Wexler, who received the maximum allowable contribution from each of these two students:

AYASLI, BOHAN, LEXINGTON, MA 02173, SELF/STUDENT, WEXLER, ROBERT, VIA ROBERT WEXLER FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE, 03/16/2007, $2300.00, 27930593206

AYASLI, ORHAN, LEXINGTON, MA 02173, SELF/STUDENT, WEXLER, ROBERT, VIA ROBERT WEXLER FOR CONGRESS COMMITTEE, 03/16/2007, $2300.00, 27930593201

In The Heroin Lobby, Part 8 I addressed the contributions of these two students in more detail.

The point is, organizations that front for foreign -- specifically, Turkish -- organized crime are steering money to Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida.

Why?

Why is Congressman Wexler a co-chair of the TCA's Congressional Caucus, and why are they taking such good care of him?





From Former FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Calls Current 9/11 Investigation Inadequate by Jim Hogue, May 07, 2004:

JH: Can you explain more about what money you are talking about?

SE: The most significant information that we were receiving did not come from counter-terrorism investigations, and I want to emphasize this. It came from counter-intelligence, and certain criminal investigations, and issues that have to do with money laundering operations.

You get to a point where it gets very complex, where you have money laundering activities, drug related activities, and terrorist support activities converging at certain points and becoming one. In certain points -- and they [the intelligence community] are separating those portions from just the terrorist activities. And, as I said, they are citing "foreign relations" which is not the case, because we are not talking about only governmental levels. And I keep underlining semi-legit organizations and following the money. When you do that the picture gets grim. It gets really ugly.

From The Highjacking of a Nation, Part 2: The Auctioning of Former Statesmen & Dime a Dozen Generals by Sibel Edmonds, November 29, 2006:

Long gone are the days when generals were content to retire and go back home where they held their heads high as honorable patriots and heroes who had served their nation; where they marched in their towns' parades as proud distinguished men and women who had fulfilled their duty to the people. Today, as we clearly see, they perceive themselves and their authority as a commodity; they go about marketing their worth (nationally and internationally; foreign and domestic) long before they leave their positions as public servants.

[snip]

The foreign influence, the lobbyists, the current highly positioned civil servants who are determined future 'wanna be' lobbyists, and the fat cats of the Military Industrial Complex, operate successfully under the radar, with unlimited reach and power, with no scrutiny, while selling your interests, benefiting from your tax money, and serving the highest bidders regardless of what or who they may be. This deep state seems to operate at all levels of our government; from the President’s office to Congress, from the military quarters to the civil servants' offices.

From Did Speaker Hastert Accept Turkish Bribes to Deny Armenian Genocide and Approve Weapons Sales?, an interview with Amy Goodman, 2005:

Sibel Edmonds: [snip] They are not speaking about the link between the narcotics and al Qaeda. Yes, we are hearing about them coming down on some charities as the real funds behind al Qaeda, but most of al Qaeda's funding is not through these charity organizations. It's through narcotics. And have you heard anything to this date, anything about these issues which we have had information since 1997? And as I would again emphasize, we are talking about countries. And they are blocking this information, and also the fact that certain officials in this country are engaged in treason against the United States and its interests and its national security, be it the Department of State or certain elected officials.

From Former FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Calls Current 9/11 Investigation Inadequate by Jim Hogue, May 07, 2004:

JH: Here's a question that you might be able to answer: What is al-Qaeda?

SE: This is a very interesting and complex question. When you think of al-Qaeda, you are not thinking of al-Qaeda in terms of one particular country, or one particular organization. You are looking at this massive movement that stretches to tens and tens of countries. And it involves a lot of sub-organizations and sub-sub-organizations and branches and it's extremely complicated. So to just narrow it down and say al-Qaeda and the Saudis, or to say it's what they had at the camp in Afghanistan, is extremely misleading. And we don't hear the extent of the penetration that this organization and the sub-organizations have throughout the world, throughout their networks and throughout their various activities. It's extremely sophisticated. And then you involve a significant amount of money into this equation. Then things start getting a lot of overlap -- money laundering, and drugs and terrorist activities and their support networks converging in several points. That's what I'm trying to convey without being too specific. And this money travels. And you start trying to go to the root of it and it's getting into somebody's political campaign, and somebody's lobbying. And people don't want to be traced back to this money.

From 'The Stakes Are Too High for Us to Stop Fighting Now' An interview with FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds by Christopher Deliso August 15, 2005:

SE: The fact that there are no investigations -- I will give you an analogy, okay? Say if we decided to have a "war on drugs," but said in the beginning, "right, we're only going to go after the young black guys on the street level." Hey, we already have tens of thousands of them in our jails anyway, why not a few more? But we decided never to go after the middle levels, let alone the top levels...

It's like this with the so-called war on terror. We go for the Attas and Hamdis -- but never touch the guys on the top.

CD: You think they [the government] know who they are, the top guys, and where?

SE: Oh yeah, they know.

CD: So why don't they get them?

SE: It's like I told you before -- this would upset "certain foreign relations." But it would also expose certain of our elected officials, who have significant connections with high-level drugs- and weapons-smuggling -- and thus with the criminal underground, even with the terrorists themselves.

It seems to me that Democrat Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida is a politician who has been "traced back to this money", and who has "significant connections with high-level drugs- and weapons-smuggling -- and thus with the criminal underground, even with the terrorists themselves."

I think it's worth sniffing around a little more, don't you?

Proxy Fight, Part 8

We continue from Part 7 picking up where we left off reviewing The Hidden Soros Agenda: Drugs, Money, the Media, and Political Power by Cliff Kincaid, October 27, 2004:

Bloomberg.com quoted Strobe Talbott, U.S. deputy secretary of state from 1994 to 2001, as saying, "Whenever George Soros called and asked to meet, I would move heaven and earth to do so. I treated him like the foreign minister of another country because of all that he had done." Even under the Bush Administration, Soros has been considered an important and influential figure. He gave a September 16, 2003, speech at the State Department on "America in the Global Community: Building Long-Term Security."

So think about the clout he would have if he almost single-handedly buys the White House for John Kerry and plays a role in the election of several new Senators.

Rather than investigate the source of the Soros money, Washington Post columnist Harold Meyerson has praised Soros for engineering the "privatization" of the Democratic Party through funding of the "527" political groups and bypassing what he calls an incompetent Democratic Party apparatus. At the far-left "Take Back America" forum in June, Soros was photographed greeting Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who introduced him to the group. She told the crowd that, "we need people like George Soros, who is fearless and willing to step up when it counts." He stepped up with his money.

However, Meyerson and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman have attacked House Speaker Dennis Hastert for raising questions about where Soros gets his money.

Of course, anyone who has reasonable familiarity with the Sibel Edmonds case could ask where Hastert gets his money....

These guys, on both sides of the aisle, stand on politics, not on principle.

A professed believer in democracy, Soros has used the "527" loophole in a campaign finance law that he promoted to restrict the political activities of "special interests." He has set a record "for the most money donated by an individual in an election cycle." Those "special interests" turned out to be other people -- not him. He has since poured millions of dollars into anti-Bush groups and voter registration drives, some marked by alleged fraud, for the Democratic Party.

These guys who have made it under the current system are more than happy to rewrite the hundreds of pages of laws and thousands of pages of regulations that implement those laws to give the illusion that they are cleaning up politics.

What they in fact are doing is making sure they have loopholes for themselves, while placing roadblocks in the way of those who oppose them: that's why the laws coming out of Washington are so complicated -- to provide the smokescreen that hides the important stuff.

The little people are left to sort through that mess and discover what the real agenda is.

His commitment to democracy is never questioned. Typical of the pro-Soros media coverage was a USA Today story on June 1 that gave Soros credit for freeing millions of people from communism and "supporting democracy." The story ignored his insider trading conviction. While Soros provided some funding to anti-communist groups during the Cold War, his career has been designed to make money and extend his influence over nations and people. Communism was a threat because it was not hospitable to his investments.

An excellent example of how he operates is Kosovo. As indicated earlier, it is relevant to note that, after the Soros-supported war on Kosovo, a province of Yugoslavia, a Soros fund announced in 2000 that it was investing $150 million -- with loan guarantees from the U.S. Overseas Private Investment Corporation -- in the Balkans. It was called the "Southeast Europe Equity Fund." By 2002, the OPIC-supported size of the investment had risen to $200 million and OPIC announced that Soros Investment Capital, Ltd. Fund Yugoslavia had acquired a controlling stake in Eksimbanka, a private commercial bank in Serbia, and had financed the start-up of Serbia Broadband Networks, the leading cable television and broadband services company in Serbia.

An interest in Kosovo -- that places him in a league with Hillary Clinton, as we have addressed in this blog, and with John McCain, as we have addressed more in depth at this blog (see sidebar).

What's more, his "open society" doesn't extend to himself. He unregulated "hedge funds," open only to the super rich, are beyond public scrutiny or the interest of the press. In a curious chapter of his career, he reportedly invested in an energy company run by George W. Bush, in an unsuccessful attempt to buy influence with the Bush family.

What did I write above about complicated laws and little people?

By the way -- doing business with "Dubya" to try to buy influence....

Did you know that George Soros contributed to Senator McCain's 2000 Presidential bid? Senator John McCain is such a maverick in the Republican Party that he was politically attractive to George Soros in 2000.

So, we have President George W. Bush, Senator John McCain, Senator Hillary Clinton, and Senator Barack Obama -- one serving President and three presidential hopefuls.

Of those four, Bush, McCain and Clinton have been very heavily implicated in the violations of international law that have resulted in Kosovo's declaration of independence from Serbia, and, thus, in the heroin trade that plays such a large role in Balkan politics.

Of those four, George Soros has contributed to the election campaigns of three -- McCain, Clinton, and he now backs Obama for President.

George Soros is working towards the legalization of drugs, including hard narcotics -- heroin.

As noted, in another curious development, the global capitalist has become a global socialist advocating a global tax, known as the Tobin Tax, on the means by which he exploited the global capitalist system and became rich -- international currency speculation and manipulation. Soros has declared that the Tobin Tax is a "valid suggestion" for raising international revenue and that opposition to implementing the tax can be overcome. What has not been reported is that Thomas Palley, the director of the Globalization Reform Project at Soros' Open Society Institute, was a featured speaker at a January 2003 event in Washington, D.C. to discuss how to implement the tax.

"He made his money the old-fashioned way, on Wall Street," wrote Post columnist Harold Meyerson. In fact, he made his money through investment techniques that are not available to ordinary investors, and his financial interventions can affect nations and their economies.

Soros claims that the "527" organizations he funds "file detailed and frequent reports with government regulators." On the January 9 NOW With Bill Moyers program on PBS, Charles Lewis of the Soros-funded Center for Public Integrity argued that while Soros was funding 527 groups, Soros was disclosing these contributions and that the money could be tracked.

Again, that begs the question of where he gets his money.

His use of that loophole -- in a law that he promoted to restrict the influence of outside "special interests" on political campaigns -- is suspicious and curious on its face. Equally curious, Soros claims that the Bush Administration's reaction to 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq caused him to spend millions of dollars through these "527" organizations to defeat Bush. However, Soros favored the Clinton Administration's preemptive attack on Yugoslavia, in the absence of any threat to the U.S. and without U.S. Congressional authorization.

Do any of my regular readers not know what the US/NATO attack on Serbia -- and support of narcoterrorists in Kosovo -- was really about?

While Soros runs around the country talking about defeating Bush, mostly because of his Iraq policy, he is using his money to target other candidates who have prosecuted the war on drugs.

The pro-Soros national media have refused to examine the implications of a ruling by New York State Supreme Court Justice Bernard Malone. He ruled that it was improper for the Soros-backed Working Families Party to get involvement in a Democratic primary for District Attorney and he referred the case to local prosecutors and New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer for a possible criminal investigation. Thanks to the money provided by Soros, David Soares defeated incumbent District Attorney Paul Clyne in the Democratic primary. At the time of Clyne's defeat, Ethan Nadelmann of the Soros-funded Drug Policy Alliance Network said he was proud that his group had "contributed to this race" and that "what happened in Albany" has "national resonance." That suggested to some that Soros, if he is successful in putting John Kerry in the White House, would change the nation's anti-drug policy.

If Soros was trying to buy the Presidency through Kerry in 2004 to change the nation's drug policy, what is he doing by supporting Obama (and Clinton) in 2008?

The remainder of the article, which I do not review, continues under the heading The Criminals Lobby -- I encourage you to read it.

I now present another excerpt from Kosovo: Islamism's New Beachhead? by Julia Gorin, Friday, February 22, 2008:

This week merrymakers in Pristina waving Albanian and American flags shouted "KLA! KLA!" – the supposedly disbanded, heroin-financed "rebels" who trained in terrorist camps. "What is the point of fighting Islamism in Iraq," asks the Brussels Journal's Landen, "while at the same time one creates a free haven for Islamists on the European continent?" He adds, "The Jerusalem Post reported in 1998 that the [KLA] was 'provided with financial and military support from Islamic countries,' and had been ‘bolstered by hundreds of Iranian fighters or mujahedin [some of whom] were trained in Osama bin Laden’s terrorist camps in Afghanistan.'"

It is worth reminding the conservative blogosphere, which for nine years chose to ignore the region entirely or, alternately, bolster the jihadist pro-independence position, that they are helping implement a Clinton-era policy supported and co-financed by George Soros, which has been pursued from a pre-9/11 mindset. My fellow conservatives, you do not defend America or American policy when you support our pro-independence policy in Kosovo; you support Hillary and Bill Clinton, George Soros, and Osama bin Laden, who co-financed and co-trained the KLA troops that we and Germany co-financed and co-trained.

President George W. Bush has been supporting the narcoterrorists who have declared independence in Kosovo, and so have Senator John McCain and Senator Hillary Clinton.

George Soros has also supported these same narcoterrorists, and George Soros seeks the decriminalization of heroin use and, by extension, of heroin trafficking.

George Soros contributed to McCain's 2000 Presidential bid. In this campaign cycle, however, George Soros has supported Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Joseph Biden (a puppet of the heroin lobby) in their bids for the Presidency.

George Soros, although he still seems to be close to Senator Clinton, has now settled on a favorite for the Presidency -- a favorite whom Soros has backed since that favorite was a state senator in Illinois: Barack Obama.

An Interview with Sibel Edmonds, Page Two by Chris Deliso, July 1, 2004

CD: [snip] At several points you state that such organized crime networks employ "semi-legitimate organizations" as their point of interface with governments and the "legit" world. Can you explain exactly what you mean?

SE: These are organizations that might have a legitimate front -- say as a business, or a cultural center or something. And we've also heard a lot about Islamic charities as fronts for terrorist organizations, but the range is much broader and even, simpler.

CD: For example?

SE: You might have an organization supposed to be promoting the cultural affairs of a certain country within another country. Hypothetically, say, an Uzbek folklore society based in Germany. The stated purpose would be to hold folklore-related activities -- and they might even do that -- but the real activities taking place behind the scenes are criminal.

There are many things at stake in any US Presidential election, and many issues that are influenced.

An Interview with Sibel Edmonds, Page Two by Chris Deliso, July 1, 2004

CD: Such as?

SE: Everything -- from drugs to money laundering to arms sales. And yes, there are certain convergences with all these activities and international terrorism.

CD: So with these organizations we're talking about a lot of money --

SE: Huge, just massive. They don't deal with 1 million or 5 million dollars, but with hundreds of millions.

However, one important aspect of the 2008 elections...

An Interview with Sibel Edmonds, Page Two by Chris Deliso, July 1, 2004

CD: But what do think, within departments such as the Pentagon and the State Department. Do you suspect certain high officials may be profiting from terrorist-linked organized crime?

SE: I can't say anything specific with regards to these departments, because I didn't work for them. But as for the politicians, what I can say is that when you start talking about huge amounts of money, certain elected officials become automatically involved. And there are different kinds of campaign contributions -- legal and illegal, declared and undeclared.

...is that the US Presidential race has become...

Cracking the Case: An Interview With Sibel Edmonds by Scott Horton, August 22, 2005

SE: [snip] The American people have the right to know this. They are giving this grand illusion that there are some investigations, but there are none. You know, they are coming down on these charities as the finance of al-Qaeda. Well, if you were to talk about the financing of al-Qaeda, a very small percentage comes from these charity foundations. The vast majority of their financing comes from narcotics. Look, we had 4 to 6 percent of the narcotics coming from the East, coming from Pakistan, coming from Afghanistan via the Balkans to the United States. Today, three or four years after Sept. 11, that has reached over 15 percent. How is it getting here? Who are getting the proceedings from those big narcotics?

...a proxy fight...

'The Stakes Are Too High for Us to Stop Fighting Now' An interview with FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds by Christopher Deliso August 15, 2005

CD: But you can start from anywhere --

SE: That's the beauty of it. You can start from the AIPAC angle. You can start from the Plame case. You can start from my case. They all end up going to the same place, and they revolve around the same nucleus of people. There may be a lot of them, but it is one group. And they are very dangerous for all of us.

...for control of the heroin trade.

Proxy Fight, Part 7

We continue from Part 6, although we actually pick up where we left off towards the beginning of Part 4 with The Hidden Soros Agenda: Drugs, Money, the Media, and Political Power by Cliff Kincaid, October 27, 2004:

Soros was described by the New Yorker as close to Harold Ickes, a former Clinton deputy chief of staff who runs the Media Fund, one of many Soros-supported "527" groups. Soros described him as a "real pro."

Away from the scrutiny or even the notice of the establishment press, Soros has emerged as a counter-culture hero.

The drug culture magazine, Heads, calls him "Daddy Weedbucks," ran an excerpt from his book, Soros on Soros, and declared that "he drops the bucks exactly where they're needed." The September-October issue of the drug culture magazine High Times recognizes the stakes, noting that there are "ten reasons to get rid of Bush" and that one is that there will be "No legalization of pot" under Bush. The implication of the article was that the situation would change under Kerry.

None of this is being reported, however, by the major media.

His partner, Peter Lewis, whitewashed by the Post as "one of the country's 10 most generous philanthropists," was actually arrested in New Zealand for "importing" drugs, including hashish and marijuana.

The Human Halliburton

The media call him a billionaire "philanthropist" who "promotes democracy" and "democratic institutions" abroad. He has been invited to address the National Press Club on October 28, 2004, just before the election. But admitted marijuana user George Soros, who says he tried marijuana "and enjoyed it," doesn't just "give" money away. He spends money for a purpose because he wants to remake America and the world. He is depicted in a recent lengthy New Yorker article by Jane Mayer as well-intentioned, not that concerned about money, the victim of scurrilous attacks, and someone who simply wants his "ideas" to "be heard." This is typical of the fawning coverage of Soros. Mayer made a brief reference to his collaborator, Peter B. Lewis, and his funding of "efforts to decriminalize marijuana," but she failed to explore how Soros is himself committed to legalizing dangerous drugs. Mayer did disclose that a meeting was held in August, after the Democratic Party convention, of what critics call a "billionaire conspiracy" to defeat Bush. Soros and Lewis were among the participants in the meeting, which was supposed to be kept private.

Soros' strong opposition to President Bush's effort to create democratic institutions in Iraq contradicts his alleged support for democracy. But the media don't point this out because they oppose Bush's Iraq policy. Mayer, who interviewed the billionaire at length, suggests that Soros may be "looking for influence [in a Kerry Administration] to get out of Iraq" but that to pursue such an objective in exchange for his financial support to the candidate might be deemed "not appropriate" by some observers.

It would be unwise for the public to dismiss the idea that he would not demand implementation of his other "ideas," including drug legalization.

Sometimes described as an atheist or agnostic, Soros has announced a vision of a secular "open society." However, his agenda of drug legalization has remained largely hidden from public view during the current campaign.

While Soros may not want to openly talk about what he would expect out of a Kerry Administration, his allies have obviously been giving it much thought.

At the 2004 conference of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), Ethan Nadelmann of the Soros-funded Drug Policy Alliance was asked about his association with Soros and the billionaire's attempt to put John Kerry in the White House. The questioner asked, "Are we going to get some Supreme Court justices out this?" Nadelmann modestly answered, "We will see," and cautioned that it may be difficult to deliver "all the goods."

This is critical because the U.S. Supreme Court is already considering the matter of the several U.S. states that have laws on the books permitting some form of "medical marijuana" use, a violation of federal law, and could return to the subject in the future. The Court is expected to rule by June 2005 on a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision, challenged by the Bush administration, that bars federal agents from interfering with the growing and use of marijuana by two women in California.

Hollywood has already been captured by the illegal drug lobby.

At the 2004 NORML conference, Allen St. Pierre of the NORML Foundation described how various U.S. television programs "have previewed marijuana in a way ultimately positive." He named them as ER, Chicago Hope, the Practice, Sybil, Murphy Brown, Sports Night, Becker, West Wing, Roseanne, Sex in the City, Six Feet Under, Whoopi, Montel, That 70s Show, and the Larry David Show. "These shows are seen by tens of millions of people," he said. "So that's what it's so crucial that we're able to capture—and to demonstrate the change in—culture."

The challenge for the drug culture is now to capture the U.S. Government. Soros is their front man.

We pause that article, and cut now to the beginning of Kosovo: Islamism's New Beachhead? by Julia Gorin, Friday, February 22, 2008:

As Americans look quizzically at their TV sets while non-Muslim protestors in Europe torch a U.S. embassy, they should know that yesterday’s 200,000-person protest in Belgrade (whose members are separate from the fire starters) is the first time in two decades that Serbs are showing a glimmer of rational behavior--amid 20 years of the "free world" foisting terrorist neighbors upon them.

To put this in perspective, with advance apologies to any offended ethnic groups: How would Americans react if Latino gangs started ambushing police and killing government officials in California, and after a few years the U.S. sent in the troops because the gangs were outgunning the police force; following this, the gangsters started claiming atrocities—and so Russia and China bombed California and Washington in response to the "atrocities"; the foreign powers then occupied California for eight years while the gangs killed or expelled most of the non-Latinos in "revenge attacks," then backed a declaration of independence for California as a Mexican-majority state that may just unify with Mexico?

The current state of affairs is a product of a concerted, single-minded, bipartisan American effort to turn Serbs into an enemy as the U.S. tries to make friends of its enemies in the region, always at Serbian expense. "Will Russia now become the leader of the Europeans who resist the Islamization of their continent?" Thomas Landen asks in the Brussels Journal. He notes that Moscow has called on the UN to annul independence, and a UN vote may be the only thing to save us from a new world war over this Balkan province, ignored by the media and public for eight years as insignificant, despite the Balkans' history for setting off world wars.

"Indeed," continues Landen, "what will Russia do if the 16,000 NATO 'peacekeeping' troops in Kosovo attack the Serbian army when it attempts to recover its breakaway province? If Russia intervenes, then 2008 might become the year that war broke out between Russia and NATO. America, the EU, Europe's immigrant 'youths,' and Osama bin Laden would find themselves on one side, fighting Russia, China, and those Europeans who resist Islamization on the other."

Who could have envisioned such a sorry state of affairs on September 12, 2001? The answer is: anyone who noticed that our Balkan policies didn’t change following 9/11. We are now several years post-9/11, yet our government is creating Muslim states in Europe and is about to engage the United States military against European Orthodox Christians who don’t want to live under Muslim rule.

Why has the United States government, first under neolib Clinton, and now under neocon Bush, been following the same policy in the Balkans: supporting ethnic Albanian Kosovar leaders who have victimized fellow Kosovar Albanians as well as Serbs with "ethnic cleansing" -- ethnic Albanian Kosovar leaders who have extensive ties to narcotics-, human- and arms-traffickers, as well as connections to Islamic terrorists, including Sheikh Osama bin Laden?

And, what's the connection between all of this and the fact that George Soros, whose agenda is to legalize drugs, supported Senator Kerry for President in 2004? What's the connection to the fact that Soros has been betting on Senator Barack Obama all along, choosing Obama as the preferred candidate -- preferred even over Senator Hillary Clinton -- for President in 2008?

Do you think it has anything to do with that heroin bomb the Taliban threatened us with?

From Former FBI Translator Sibel Edmonds Calls Current 9/11 Investigation Inadequate by Jim Hogue, May 07, 2004:

JH: Can you explain more about what money you are talking about?

SE: The most significant information that we were receiving did not come from counter-terrorism investigations, and I want to emphasize this. It came from counter-intelligence, and certain criminal investigations, and issues that have to do with money laundering operations.

You get to a point where it gets very complex, where you have money laundering activities, drug related activities, and terrorist support activities converging at certain points and becoming one. In certain points -- and they [the intelligence community] are separating those portions from just the terrorist activities. And, as I said, they are citing "foreign relations" which is not the case, because we are not talking about only governmental levels. And I keep underlining semi-legit organizations and following the money. When you do that the picture gets grim. It gets really ugly.

....JH: Let me read you a short quote from Dr. Griffin's book, quoting from War and Globalization: The Truth Behind September 11 by Michel Chossudovsky and ask you to comment on it. "...The transfer of money to Atta [$325,000], in conjunction with the presence of the ISI chief in Washington during the week, [is] the missing link behind 9/11....The evidence confirms that al-Qaeda is supported by Pakistan's ISI (and it is amply documented that) the ISI owes its existence to the CIA."

SE: I cannot comment on that. But I can tell that once, and if, and when this issue gets to be, under real terms, investigated, you will be seeing certain people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally.

JH: Here's a question that you might be able to answer: What is al-Qaeda?

SE: This is a very interesting and complex question. When you think of al-Qaeda, you are not thinking of al-Qaeda in terms of one particular country, or one particular organization. You are looking at this massive movement that stretches to tens and tens of countries. And it involves a lot of sub-organizations and sub-sub-organizations and branches and it's extremely complicated. So to just narrow it down and say al-Qaeda and the Saudis, or to say it's what they had at the camp in Afghanistan, is extremely misleading. And we don't hear the extent of the penetration that this organization and the sub-organizations have throughout the world, throughout their networks and throughout their various activities. It's extremely sophisticated. And then you involve a significant amount of money into this equation. Then things start getting a lot of overlap -- money laundering, and drugs and terrorist activities and their support networks converging in several points. That's what I'm trying to convey without being too specific. And this money travels. And you start trying to go to the root of it and it's getting into somebody's political campaign, and somebody's lobbying. And people don't want to be traced back to this money.

Crystal clear, indeed!

Stay tuned for Part 8.

Crystal Clear

From Cracking the Case: An Interview With Sibel Edmonds by Scott Horton, August 22, 2005:

SE: No, but as I said, the reason I went to the Congress and to the 9/11 Commission had to do with criminal activities and the criminal activities I provided information on had a lot to do with 9/11. And it's very interesting for example this latest development with the 9/11 Commission and this information from the Department of Defense that had to do with Atta, right?

SH: Able Danger.

SE: And the main media is treating it as if "here's one piece of information the 9/11 Commission didn't include." I had this press conference last summer and together with 25 national security experts. These sort of people from NSA, CIA, FBI. And we provided the public during this press conference with a list of witnesses that had provided direct information, direct information. Some had to do with finance of al-Qaeda. These are people from NSA, CIA, and FBI to the 9/11 Commission, and the 9/11 Commission omitted all of this information, even though some of this information had been established as fact. One of them had to do with certain informants in April 2001. This informant provided very specific information about the attacks. The other had to do with certain information the FBI had in July and August 2001, where blueprints and building composites of certain skyscrapers were being sent to certain Middle Eastern countries, and many more information was just omitted.

From 'I Saw Papers That Show US Knew al-Qa'ida Would Attack Cities With Airplanes' by Andrew Buncombe; published on Friday, April 2, 2004 by the Independent/UK:

Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege".

She told The Independent yesterday: "I gave [the commission] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented. These things can be established very easily."

She added: "There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used -- but not specifically about how they would be used -- and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities -- with skyscrapers."

[snip]

She said it was clear there was sufficient information during the spring and summer of 2001 to indicate terrorists were planning an attack. "Most of what I told the commission -- 90 per cent of it -- related to the investigations that I was involved in or just from working in the department. Two hundred translators side by side, you get to see and hear a lot of other things as well."

"President Bush said they had no specific information about 11 September and that is accurate but only because he said 11 September," she said. There was, however, general information about the use of airplanes and that an attack was just months away.

From State Dept. Quashed 9/11 Links To Global Drug Trade -- FBI Whistleblower by Fintan Dunne, June 7, 2004:

Even as a judge prepares to permanently silence her, a former FBI translator of intelligence has implicated the US State Department in quashing investigations which had linked the 9/11 terrorist network to a global drug trafficking ring.

[snip]

"There are certain points..., where you have your drug related activities combined with money laundering and information laundering, converging with your terrorist activities," Ms. Edmonds told BreakForNews.com.

[snip]

"Intelligence is also gathered by certain semi-legitimate organizations -- to be used for their activities," said Edmonds. "It really does not boil down to countries anymore...[ ] When you have activities involving a lot of money, you have people from different nations involved.... It can be categorized under organized crime, but in a very large scale."

[snip]

Because of a provisional gag order issued by Judge Reggie B. Walton which prohibits revealing specific details, Edmonds can only paint a picture in the broadest of brush strokes.

But her measured words hint at politically explosive connections between criminal drug/intelligence networks, and the 9/11 attacks.

"You have [a] network of people who obtain certain information and they take it out and sell it to... whomever would be the highest bidder. Then you have people who would be bringing into the country narcotics from the East, and their connections. [It] is only then that you really see the big picture."

"And you see certain semi-legitimate organizations that may very well have a legit front, but with very criminal illegitimate activities -- who start coming at you from these investigations."

"And the picture becomes, actually, very clear. Crystal clear."

Key points:

"One of them had to do with certain informants in April 2001. This informant provided very specific information about the attacks. The other had to do with certain information the FBI had in July and August 2001, where blueprints and building composites of certain skyscrapers were being sent to certain Middle Eastern countries...."

"'President Bush said they had no specific information about 11 September and that is accurate but only because he said 11 September,' she said. There was, however, general information about the use of airplanes and that an attack was just months away."

"Even as a judge prepares to permanently silence her, a former FBI translator of intelligence has implicated the US State Department in quashing investigations which had linked the 9/11 terrorist network to a global drug trafficking ring."



From An Interview with Sibel Edmonds, Page Three by Chris Deliso, July 1, 2004:

CD: Hmm, well I know you can't name names, but can you tell me if any specific officials will suffer if your testimony comes out?

SE: Yes. Certain elected officials will stand trial and go to prison.

"And the picture becomes, actually, very clear.
Crystal clear."

Proxy Fight, Part 6

We pick up right where we left off in Part 5, continuing with Afghanistan: Drug Addiction Lucrative for Neolib Banksters, CIA by Kurt Nimmo, dated May 21, 2006:

It also put a pinch on the criminals and gangsters in Pakistan. "The Taliban's actions ... (destroying the opium crop) severed the ruling military junta in Pakistan from its primary source of foreign revenues and made bin Laden and the Taliban completely expendable in the eyes of the Pakistani government. It also cut off billions of dollars in revenues that had been previously laundered through western banks and Russian financial institutions connected to them," explains From the Wilderness. "Prior to the WTC attacks, credible sources, including the U.S. government, the IMF, Le Monde and the U.S. Senate placed the amount of drug cash flowing into Wall Street and U.S. banks at around $250-$300 billion a year," not exactly small potatoes.

In 2004, according to research conducted by the Democratic Policy Committee, after "decreasing dramatically under the Taliban regime, Afghanistan now [2004] produces nearly 3/4 of the world's opium. CIC [Center for International Cooperation] found that 'opium production, processing, and trafficking have surged, with revenues equaling roughly half of the legal economy of Afghanistan.' It is estimated that 1.7 million people, or 7 percent of the total population now grow poppies," all of this under the United States installed government of Hamid Karzai, the ex-Unocal employee.

Over 90% of the world's heroin now comes from Afghan poppies. And, whereas the opiates used to be moved elsewhere for refining (Turkey has played a major role), the opiates are increasingly being refined into heroin in Afghanistan. This is another surge that the Bush Administration deserves credit for -- but, again, the problem goes far beyond the Bush Administration.

But then none of this should be surprising--the CIA and neolib financiers and moneymen have long dabbled in drug dealing and drug addiction profiteering.

In addition to turning immense profits for societal parasites and other cockroach infestations on Wall Street, drug dealing is a great way for the government to intervene in the business of other nations, as Oliver North well understands (as the Contra was funded by the smuggling of cocaine). "The CIA functionally gains influence and control in governments corrupted by criminal narco-trafficking. Politically, the CIA exerts influence by leveraging narco-militarists and corrupted politicians... This is really NEO-narco-colonialism, whereby local criminal proxies do the bidding of the patron government seeking expanded influence. But because of the quid-pro-quo of protecting the criminal proxies' illicit pipelines, the result is still a functional narco-colonialism, involving a narcotics commodity in the actual practical execution of policy, with the very different twist of covert action," summarizes the CIA & Drugs website,

http://ciadrugs.homestead.com/files/index.html.

So it is not surprising, as the New York Times puts it, there is a "Sudden Rise of Violence in Afghanistan" and the predictable murder of "a U.S. citizen contractor for the State Department Bureau of International Narcotic and Law Enforcement." In Afghanistan, the Hegelian dialect is working overtime--the U.S. government engineers the Afghan opium trade, thus resulting in social problems and violence associated with illicit drug distribution and consumption, and then turns around and organizes police training programs to combat the scourge it has spawned.

And, contractors of the military industrial complex make money, as do narcotraffickers; and the Bush Adminstration is connected to both, as are many appointed and career officials in Washington, as are many in Congress, on both sides of the aisle.

As well, for the Fabian socialist globalists, it is a great way to break down borders and implement "free trade zones," that is to say unhindered thievery zones. Call it a "war on drugs" or the endless war against "terrorism" (yet another Hegelian contrivance), it is all engineered to turn the world into a large slave plantation ruled by a decadent and debased elite cadre of neoliberal criminals.

Over the top?

From 'The Stakes Are Too High for Us to Stop Fighting Now' An interview with FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds by Christopher Deliso August 15, 2005:

CD: Can you elaborate here on what countries you mean?

SE: It's interesting, in one of my interviews, they say "Turkish countries," but I believe they meant Turkic countries -- that is, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and all the 'Stans, including Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, and [non-Turkic countries like] Afghanistan and Pakistan. All of these countries play a big part in the sort of things I have been talking about.

CD: What, you mean drug-smuggling?

SE: Among other things. Yes, that is a major part of it. It's amazing that in this whole "war on terror" thing, no one ever talks about these issues. No one asks questions about these countries – questions like, "OK, how much of their GDP depends on drugs?"

CD: But of course, you're not implying...

SE: And then to compare that little survey with what countries we've been putting military bases in --

CD: I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

SE: You know how they always talk about these Islamic charities funding the terrorists, right?

CD: Yes...

SE: Well, and this is not a firm statistic, just a sort of ratio... but these charities are responsible for maybe 10 or 20 percent of al-Qaeda's fundraising. So where is the other 80 or 90 percent coming from? People, it's not so difficult!

How do our politicians stand on border security? Because weakening or eliminating borders helps the drug trade -- it makes it easier for narcotraffickers to move their stuff.

It also makes it easier for terrorists to move their stuff.

From 'The Stakes Are Too High for Us to Stop Fighting Now' An interview with FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds by Christopher Deliso August 15, 2005:

SE: The fact that there are no investigations -- I will give you an analogy, okay? Say if we decided to have a "war on drugs," but said in the beginning, "right, we're only going to go after the young black guys on the street level." Hey, we already have tens of thousands of them in our jails anyway, why not a few more? But we decided never to go after the middle levels, let alone the top levels...

It's like this with the so-called war on terror. We go for the Attas and Hamdis -- but never touch the guys on the top.

CD: You think they [the government] know who they are, the top guys, and where?

SE: Oh yeah, they know.

CD: So why don't they get them?

SE: It's like I told you before -- this would upset "certain foreign relations." But it would also expose certain of our elected officials, who have significant connections with high-level drugs- and weapons-smuggling -- and thus with the criminal underground, even with the terrorists themselves.

Stay tuned for Part 7!

Proxy Fight, Part 5

We continue from Part 4, however we detour here into some new material.

Recall, first, that in Part 4 we mentioned neolibs, and towards the end had the following quote:

Cracking the Case: An Interview With Sibel Edmonds by Scott Horton, August 22, 2005

SH: Okay, and you mention when you talk about criminal activity, drug-running, money-laundering, weapons-smuggling...

SE: And these activities overlap. It's not like okay, you have certain criminal entities that are involved in nuclear black market, and then you have certain entities bringing narcotics from the East. You have the same players when you look into these activities at high-levels you come across the same players, they are the same people.

SH: Well, when we're talking about those kind of levels of liquid cash money we probably also have to include major banks too, right?

SE: Financial institutions, yes.

Now we review an article entitled Afghanistan: Drug Addiction Lucrative for Neolib Banksters, CIA by Kurt Nimmo, dated May 21, 2006:

"An American counternarcotics official was killed and two other Americans wounded in a suicide bombing in western Afghanistan today, while heavy fighting between Taliban insurgents and Afghan police continued in two southern provinces, officials said," reports the New York Times. "We confirm that a U.S. citizen contractor for the State Department Bureau of International Narcotic and Law Enforcement, working for the police training program in Herat was killed in a vehicle-borne I.E.D. attack," Chris Harris, an American Embassy spokesman, told the newspaper. After this mention, the Times moves on to detail the increasing violence between Afghan puppet police and "militants," that is to say Afghans fighting against the occupation of their country, an entirely natural occurrence.

Let me just point out quickly that not everyone fighting against us in Afghanistan is our enemy.

What do I mean by that?

The Afghan peoples are generally fiercely independent. When they are not fighting a foreign invader (which has been seldom in recent decades) the Afghan peoples fight among themselves.

We should be careful not to hold a grudge against those Afghans who fight us; with a little imagination in our foreign policy, many of them would be very good friends.

Of course, the Times does not bother to mention that the Afghan opium trade--in fact much of the opium trade in the so-called "Golden Crescent" (Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan)--was cultivated and nurtured by the United States government and the CIA, leading to countless cases of miserable heroin addiction in America and Europe. Reading the Times, we get the impression the Taliban--at one time sponsored by the CIA and Pakistan's intelligence services, so long as they were kicking Russian hindquarter--are responsible for the opium trade all on their lonesome. As usual, the Times twists the story through omission.

There are connections between the CIA and Pakistan's ISI, on the one hand, and the heroin trade on the other. Undoubtedly, there are corrupt elements in the CIA who make money off drug trafficking. And, the decision to fund the jihad with the profits from the heroin trade was unwise.

However, there are many who seem to think the CIA is the root of all evil in the world -- and, as my readers should all know, the root of all evil in the world is really the Democrats! (HA-ha-ha...!) Seriously, the CIA has a job to do, and those who do that job honorably and well should be appreciated.

"CIA-supported Mujahedeen rebels ... engaged heavily in drug trafficking while fighting against the Soviet-supported government," writes historian William Blum. "The Agency's principal client was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, one of the leading druglords and a leading heroin refiner. CIA-supplied trucks and mules, which had carried arms into Afghanistan, were used to transport opium to laboratories along the Afghan/Pakistan border. The output provided up to one half of the heroin used annually in the United States and three-quarters of that used in Western Europe. U.S. officials admitted in 1990 that they had failed to investigate or take action against the drug operation because of a desire not to offend their Pakistani and Afghan allies," and also because selling heroin and spreading misery is highly profitable. In fact, the Soviets attempted to impose an opium ban on the country and this resulted in a revolt by tribal groups eventually exploited by the CIA and Pakistan.

We first met Gulbuddin Hekmatyar in Genesis, Part 5.

From Holy War, Inc. by Peter L. Bergen (ISBN 0-7432-0502-2), pp 68-69:

By simply handing ISI some $3 billion of American taxpayers' money, the CIA also handed the Pakistanis complete control of how the funds were distributed.²² That would turn out to be a rather expensive mistake. By the most conservative estimates, $600 million went to the Hizb party, headed by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an Islamist zealot.²³ Hizb was one of seven parties into which leaders of the Afghan resistance had organized themselves. These ranged from Hekmatyar's ultra-Islamist organization to moderate parties that favored the return of the Afghan monarchy. Hekmatyar's party had the dubious distinctions of never winning a significant battle during the war, training a variety of militant Islamists from around the world, killing significant numbers of mujahideen from other parties, and taking a virulently anti-Western line. In addition to hundreds of millions of dollars of American aid, Hekmatyar also received the lion's share of aid from the Saudis.²⁴

Considering this guy's effectiveness, I think I can say that the good news is that he has called for his forces to fight alongside of Al Qaeda.

Returning to Afghanistan: Drug Addiction Lucrative for Neolib Banksters, CIA:

"Reports issued by the UN and Drug Enforcement Administration in the early 1980s stated that by 1981 Afghan heroin producers may have captured 60 per cent of the heroin market in Western Europe and the United States. In New York City in 1979 alone, (the year the CIA-organized flow of arms to the mujahiddeen began) heroin-related deaths increased by 77 per cent. There were no Superbowl ads that year about doing drugs and aiding terror. You could say that those dead addicts had given their lives in the fight to drive back Communism," write Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair.

Making sure heroin addiction continues unabated is such a lucrative business for the CIA and Wall Street investors, Bush decided "not to destroy the opium crop in Afghanistan. President Bush, who previously linked the Afghan drug trade directly to terrorism, has now decided not to destroy the Afghan opium crop," Charles R. Smith reported for NewsMax on March 28, 2002, as Bush's illegal invasion of the country was well underway. "Several sources inside Capitol Hill noted that the CIA opposes the destruction of the Afghan opium supply because to do so might destabilize the Pakistani government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf. ... The threat to overthrow Musharraf is motivated in part by Islamic radical groups linked to the Pakistani intelligence service, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). The radical groups reportedly obtain their primary funding through opium production and trade." In fact, destroying the opium crop would have put a terrible financial squeeze on the agency and angered financiers who routinely trade in misery and death.

Again, while certain elements in the CIA are undoubtedly involved, the anti-CIA spin of the author does not bring us too much closer to the truth. From Cracking the Case: An Interview With Sibel Edmonds by Scott Horton, August 22, 2005:

SE: Correct, and I as I said, those lines are so blurry because there are certain countries that we call allies but I wouldn't call them allies, these people are, these countries are, quasi-allies.

SH: Okay, I'm going to go ahead and name some people whom I suspect inside the State Department and the Pentagon, and I suppose you won't be able to answer affirmative or negative on any of these, but I'm very curious when I read about this kind of corruption going on in the State Department, I immediately think of John Bolton and David Wurmser. Do those names mean anything to you?

SE: Well, first of all, I'm not going to answer that question at all, but also you should pay attention to the fact that some of these people have been there for a while, and some of these people had their roots in there even in the mid-1990s.

SH: So more career officials rather than political appointees.

SE: Or maybe a mixture of both.

Back to Afghanistan: Drug Addiction Lucrative for Neolib Banksters, CIA:

Naturally, the Times did not bother to mention the fact the Taliban attempted to eradicate opium production and this was likely one of the reasons Bush the Junior invaded Afghanistan. "Although the Taliban had virtually stamped out poppy production, the country now accounts for two-third of the world's heroin. As hard as it may be to believe, there is compelling evidence that the US (via the CIA) may be directly involved in narco-trafficing," notes Mike Whitney, who cites the following from Portland Independent Media:

Before 1980, Afghanistan produced 0% of the world's opium. But then the CIA moved in, and by 1986 they were producing 40% of the world's heroin supply. By 1999, they were churning out 3,200 TONS of heroin a year--nearly 80% of the total market supply. But then something unexpected happened. The Taliban rose to power, and by 2000 they had destroyed nearly all of the opium fields. Production dropped from 3,000+ tons to only 185 tons, a 94% reduction! This enormous drop in revenue subsequently hurt not only the CIA's Black Budget projects, but also the free-flow of laundered money in and out of the Controller's banks.

Before we let the Taliban off too easily as the good guys in the War on Drugs, consider this quote from Holy War, Inc. by Peter L. Bergen (ISBN 0-7432-0502-2), p 143:

Maulvi Hafeezullah, an official in the Taliban's Foreign Ministry, attacked a pile of chocolate doughnuts with gusto. Between mouthfuls of what may be the only Taliban-sanctioned indulgence, he sputtered, "We will never hand over bin Laden. The U.S. has made a monster out of one man. We can unleash a 'heroin bomb' to match your nuclear bomb."

A "heroin bomb"!

Stay tuned for Part 6!

(Mmmm -- chocolate doughnuts!)

Proxy Fight, Part 3

We continue from Part 2, but actually pick up where we left off in Part 1, reviewing The Hidden Soros Agenda: Drugs, Money, the Media, and Political Power by Cliff Kincaid, October 27, 2004:

A Soros role in formulating national drug policy is worthy of special press attention because his pro-drug legalization campaign has been considered at odds with the vast majority of Republicans and Democrats who share the view that legalization would make the drug problem far worse.

In the current campaign, however, a major transformation has taken place. Soros is said to have "privatized" or replaced the Democratic Party by subsidizing many different liberal-left organizations that comprise its political base and creating new ones, the "527" organizations.

Among the candidates who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination, Soros financially supported John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Senator Bob Graham, and Howard Dean. He has been praised by Senator Hillary Clinton and contributed to her Senate campaign and political action committee. He has also contributed to the political campaigns of Democratic Senators Tom Daschle, Carl Levin, John Corzine, Mary Landrieu, Debbie Stabenow, Charles Schumer, Joseph Biden, Patrick Leahy, Paul Sarbanes, Thomas Harkin, and Barbara Boxer. In 2002, Soros funded Al Gore for president and contributed $153,000 in "soft money" to the Democratic National Committee. Soros, who is also very close to Bill Clinton, was described by Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott as a "national treasure."

Keep in mind that the article we are reviewing here is from 2004, just days before the general election.

With that in mind, reread the last paragraph, paying particular attention to the names of politicians whom Soros was supporting: for President, he had supported John Kerry, Wesley Clark, Bob Graham, and Howard Dean; he had also contributed to the election campaigns of Democrat Senators Tom Daschle, Carl Levin, John Corzine, Mary Landrieu, Debbie Stabenow, Charles Schumer, Joseph Biden, Patrick Leahy, Paul Sarbanes, Thomas Harkin, Barbara Boxer, and, of course, Hillary Clinton.

We have certainly not looked at all of these politicians at this blog. But, if you will recall, we connected Senator Biden to ethnic Albanian organized crime in The Heroin Lobby, Part 10. And, here is George Soros contributing to the Senator Biden's campaign.

We have addressed Hillary Clinton as a favorite of the Albanian lobby. Now, it is important to make the distinction between the Albanian lobby and the ethnic Albanian organized crime lobby. The Albanian lobby had this to say about Hillary Clinton (The Candidates on Kosova ... and perhaps beyond, 2008):

(D) Senator Hillary Clinton who insisted that her husband initiate the NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999 has repeatedly declared that the bombing of Serbia was "a success". She has been the honored guest to of many Albanian fundraisers and is hailed as someone that would continue her husband's legacy as a friend and defender of Albanians. Hillary receives 63% of her campaign donations from individuals who donate $2300 or more and 37% from those who donate the maximum $4,600; in short, she is a "big money" candidate. Hillary Clinton is a socially liberal and aggressively interventionist.

While America's ethnic Albanians may believe that Hillary and Bill were supporting them, Hillary and Bill were in fact supporting ethnic Albanian organized crime and terrorist elements in Kosovo -- groups who had been responsible for the "ethnic cleansing" of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo who did not go along with the heroin- and arms-trafficking that the KLA and its associated groups were involved in.

The KLA and its associates also insisted on a violent solution to the dispute with Serbian government forces, which were the legitimate government in Kosovo at the time; consequently, any ethnic Albanians in Kosovo who did not go along with the violence were ethnically cleansed, and one Kosovar Albanian leader who sought a peaceful solution with the Serbs was killed! As quoted from The Criminalization of the State: "Independent Kosovo", a Territory under US-NATO Military Rule in Kosovo in 1999, Part 1:

Ironically Robert Gelbard, America's special envoy to Bosnia, had described the KLA last year [1998] as "terrorists". Christopher Hill, America's chief negotiator and architect of the Rambouillet agreement, "has also been a strong critic of the KLA for its alleged dealings in drugs."[3] Moreover, barely a few two months before Rambouillet, the US State Department had acknowledged (based on reports from the US Observer Mission) the role of the KLA in terrorising and uprooting ethnic Albanians:

" ... the KLA harass or kidnap anyone who comes to the police, ... KLA representatives had threatened to kill villagers and burn their homes if they did not join the KLA [a process which has continued since the NATO bombings]... [T]he KLA harassment has reached such intensity that residents of six villages in the Stimlje region are "ready to flee."[4]

While backing a "freedom movement" with links to the drug trade, the West seems also intent in bypassing the civilian Kosovo Democratic League and its leader Ibrahim Rugova who has called for an end to the bombings and expressed his desire to negotiate a peaceful settlement with the Yugoslav authorities.[5] It is worth recalling that a few days before his March 31 Press Conference, Rugova had been reported by the KLA (alongside three other leaders including Fehmi Agani) to have been killed by the Serbs.

Hillary and Bill -- and I give the "co-President" top billing, because the Albanian forum states that it was she "who insisted that her husband initiate the NATO Bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999" -- had their deal cut with narcoterrorists -- organized crime deeply involved in the trafficking of heroin, arms and sex slaves for forced prostitution, and with extensive ties to Islamic extremists, including to Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda organization, which also acquires most of its finances for jihad through heroin-trafficking.

So, the KLA (now the "government" of "Kosova") and Al Qaeda are partners not just in jihad, but in heroin-trafficking as well!

An excerpt from 'The Stakes Are Too High for Us to Stop Fighting Now' An interview with FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds by Christopher Deliso August 15, 2005:

SE: The fact that there are no investigations -- I will give you an analogy, okay? Say if we decided to have a "war on drugs," but said in the beginning, "right, we're only going to go after the young black guys on the street level." Hey, we already have tens of thousands of them in our jails anyway, why not a few more? But we decided never to go after the middle levels, let alone the top levels...

It's like this with the so-called war on terror. We go for the Attas and Hamdis -- but never touch the guys on the top.

CD: You think they [the government] know who they are, the top guys, and where?

SE: Oh yeah, they know.

CD: So why don't they get them?

SE: It's like I told you before -- this would upset "certain foreign relations." But it would also expose certain of our elected officials, who have significant connections with high-level drugs- and weapons-smuggling -- and thus with the criminal underground, even with the terrorists themselves.

Now, George Soros, the multibillionaire "philanthropist" who wants to legalize heroin and other drugs, had been supporting Hillary Clinton, giving to her re-election to the Senate and to Senator Clinton's Presidential bid. However, he ultimately switched sides.

The first two paragraphs from Money Chooses Sides by John Heilemann published Apr 16, 2007:

The investment banker Robert Wolf first met Barack Obama one afternoon in December in a midtown conference room. Obama was in town to deliver a speech at a charity dinner for children in poverty at the Mandarin Oriental—but also to pursue another, less high-minded, but more momentous, objective: to begin the process of attempting to pick Hillary Clinton’s pocket.

The conference room belonged to George Soros, the billionaire bête noire of the right. After talking to Soros for an hour about his prospective bid for the White House, Obama walked down the hall and found assembled a dozen of the city’s heaviest-hitting Democratic fund-raisers: investment banker Hassan Nemazee, Wall Street power Blair Effron, private-equity hotshot Mark Gallogly, hedge-fund manager Orin Kramer. Most had been big-time John Kerry backers in 2004. Most had a connection to the Clintons. All were officially uncommitted for 2008.

And, the first four paragraphs from Another Hedge Fund Legend Behind Obama by Christopher Glynn, Reporter April 24, 2007:

Another hedge fund superstar is backing Barack Obama for president, reported The New York Observer.

Paul Tudor Jones is hosting a fund raiser for Obama on May 19. The event will take place at Jones oceanfront Greenwich, Conn., mansion. The mansion has a 25-car garage, the newspaper reported. The newspaper went on to state an estimated 500 people are expected to attend.

In supporting Obama, Jones, a commodity trading guru who founded Tudor Investment Corp., a hedge fund company with $15 billion under management, is in league with fellow hedge fund billionaire George Soros.

In March, Soros switched his allegiance from Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) to Obama, the Illinois senator vying with Clinton for to become the Democratic nominee for the 2008 presidential election. Soros, who has an estimated net worth of $8.5 billion, has supported Obama since his 2004 campaign to become senator of the Prairie State. Clinton had long relied on the support of Soros.

But, did Soros actually switch sides when he started steering support to Senator Obama instead of to Senator Clinton?

Or, did he decide to back a horse he had been backing all along, but one which he now thought might win in the race for President?

From Cracking the Case: An Interview With Sibel Edmonds by Scott Horton, August 22, 2005:

SE: [snip] They are giving this grand illusion that there are some investigations, but there are none. You know, they are coming down on these charities as the finance of al-Qaeda. Well, if you were to talk about the financing of al-Qaeda, a very small percentage comes from these charity foundations. The vast majority of their financing comes from narcotics. Look, we had 4 to 6 percent of the narcotics coming from the East, coming from Pakistan, coming from Afghanistan via the Balkans to the United States. Today, three or four years after Sept. 11, that has reached over 15 percent. How is it getting here? Who are getting the proceedings from those big narcotics?

Stay tuned for Proxy Fight, Part 4!