I believe in elite conspiracy theory -- because I was part of one ...

[HamdenRice]

As the administration takes the country and the world into a catastrophic downward spiral, one of the issues that comes up again and again is whether certain "conspiracy theories" about the administration are plausible. Was there government complicity in 9/11? Did elements within the DOD purposely hype intelligence? Have electronic voting machines been hacked to deliver the 2004 election to Bush? Each of these allegations require us to believe there was a conspiracy.

One rote answer to every allegation of conspiracy is that conspiracies are impossible to keep secret, especially those that would involve as many people as 9/11, voting fraud or faked intelligence.

The reason I increasingly believe in the conspiracy theories is that -- I confess -- I was part of an elite institution/corporate/government conspiracy. I participated at a very low level. And unlike the conspiracies we worry about today, I would characterize the conspiracy I participated in as a conspiracy for good.

Here's the odd part. Even though our cover was blown nearly two decades ago (in 1986, I think) and what we did is public record, I am still reluctant to discuss it or write about it on a public bulletin board.

The conspiracy I am talking about was called the Study Group on South Africa. I was basically a graduate student hired as a "consultant" -- but I was basically a ghost writer, note taker and overall gofer. The Study Group was run out of two big foundations -- first one, then the other. The public image was that we were ad hoc do-gooders, who gathered information for US decision-makers and made policy recommendations. Secretly, however, we hosted discrete contacts between the South African government and the African National Congress at conferences in the US. This was when it was illegal for South Africans to meet ANC representatives, and politically impossible for ANC to talk to the SA government, because Mandela and other leaders werew still in prison.


Representatives of corporations that did business in South Africa participated, as did some high ranking staff members of certain liberal Senators. (One thing that struck me and changed my view of some corporations, was that some corporate representatives were truly agonized over their dilemma, and took significant risks to their profits by illegally desegregating their South African facilities.)

One memorable meeting concerned a currency crisis in South Africa. For reasons that were not initially clear to me, it was held in the basement conference room of the foundation -- a room that I had not known existed. A representative of the ANC and a representative of the South African reserve bank each gave conflicting half hour presentations on what the west's banks should do. Then a representative of Chase Manhattan Bank (it was whispered he was directly representing David Rockefeller) made something like a cryptic two sentence response to the effect that the "presentation by the representative of the ANC was more convincing". The next day, western banks refused to roll over South Africa's external debt. The representative from the ANC who gave the winning presentation was then a high level, but relatively unknown ANC bureaucrat (I think head economist of the political-military committee), named Thabo Mbeki, today South Africa's president.

The reason I am relating this is not just to tell war stories (although that's part of it), but because I remember how terribly important we all thought discretion was. I don't remember anyone ever telling me directly that it was secret, but it was understood. I have rarely talked about it since, even though the existence and work of the Study Group became public in 1986. A NY Times article in (I think 1986) reported these secret discussions, and that meant that neither the SA government, nor ANC representatives could easily participate. But before that time, another young consultant was kind of marginalized from the work of the Group because it was whispered he lacked discretion.

So I can certainly understand how the espirit de corp of a secret group works, and from my experience it is plausible that any of the alleged conspiracies of evil we worry about could be taking place.

[crispini]

1. wow! cool story!

:kick:

[SteppingRazor]

2. Couple things...

I think this is a useful anecdote for the DOD hyping intelligence. However... This is hardly the same as intentionally murdering thousands of U.S. citizens. And the voting macchine thing would be a MASSIVE conspiracy. Thousands of people would have to be involved in the business, state and federal sectors. It almost defies possibility. Almost.

[eleny]

3. But is that true for the voting machines?

I saw the demonstration given to Howard Dean that was televised. It doesn't take a massive number of people. You just have to convince states to purchase your machines. Once they do that, the vote tallies might be changed by one person for an entire election.

[halobeam]

11. and for added measure

I don't think the citizens who were "fanatics" that oppressed specific voters needed to be "briefed" so to speak... they just followed along the lines of the party. They were just given the opportunity to go through the open door. That would lessen the numbers of those who "planned" the theft. It's really ugly, but there are so many racist people in this world, they just need a place to act out. It was a perfect storm.

[crispini]

13. ok, here's the problem with that.

they would have to be changed county by county. so the hacker would have to hack into each county. not saying it couldn't be done, but there would have to be a lot of effort (read, lots of time or lots of people) or coordination with, oh, the manufacturers (again, the conspiracy just got a lot bigger.)

[eleny]

18. Not so if a person has access to a central tabulator

That was what Dean's demonstration illustrated. Once you have that central tabulator, county by county tabulation is a thing of the past. That's my understanding of the demonstration and why voting rights people have their hair on fire over this issue.

[crispini]

20. The central tabs are *at* the county level, though.

The precincts report in to their county's central tabulator. Because each county could have different technology. We have ES&S, the county to the north of us has Diebold, etc.

Not saying it's not possible, but there are something like five different voting software vendors in our state. So in order to fix even the most populated counties, there would have to be several different hacking efforts, or several different voting companies in on it.

[eleny]

23. Correct me if I'm sideways...

But I thought that I read here recently at DU that Diebold is now trying to sell the idea of a central tabulator beyond the county level. Does that ring a bell with you? I recall being horrified when I read it. It was within the last few weeks. I can search for it later today as that's a terribly worrisome step.

Thanks for your clarifiction, btw. I will search for that Diebold info today.

A scary thought just occurred to me. Companies do tend to buy each other out. I wonder how long it will take before Deibold tries to putchase ES&S? How long would it take before the voting machine companies consolidate - "to make elections run more smoothly"? :scared:

[crispini]

28. Now *that* I hadn't heard.

I'll go have a look in Elections ... I haven't read over there for awhile.

Yeah, consolidation would be bad. Didn't someone just buy Sequoia? I have to admit, I like a certain degree of decentralized mess just because, IMO, I think it's harder to steal just by being a more complex system. The more they centralize the whole thing the easier it is for just a few people to know how to work it. Open Source is the way.

[eleny]

36. I'm for messy decentralization!

One thing we need is to get over counting as fast as possible. I'm for eyeballs counting slowly and us finding out the results a week or so later.

[eleny]

39. I found the posting about the new Diebold service

Crispini, I realize the source for this posting hits a sore spot. So I found the Diebold web site dedicated to the project. So this project is a reality. Diebold wants to keep local information on it's own servers. http://accuproject.com/default.aspx


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=203&topic_id=388364

"NEW CONSUMER REPORT --
EXACTLY WHAT YOU DON'T WANT: YOUR ELECTIONS ON DIEBOLD'S SERVER

Black Box Voting has obtained information on a new product that
Diebold will try to sell to elections officials. The "AccuProject"
election management software seems like a fine idea, until you
look at the feature which seems to involve keeping your sensitive
elections documents on Diebold's server. Do you really want the
Diebold guy this close to your elections as they are prepared,
planned, and carried out?"

[Teena]

38. No need to buy them out....

I read that the two companies, Deibold and ES and S are actually owned by brothers Todd and Bob Urosevich already. It is my understanding that a group of machines can be accessed by one person, have the codes changed, and not have the change be detected afterward. This can happen after the results are in or even before by crooked elections officials if they have access. Florida and Ohio had, and in some cases still have, plenty of rotten apples to carry this out.

[Teena]

31. But...

in my area of Ohio we still had punch cards. We had no discernable election problems - Kerry was the BIG winner, of course. All of the other counties with only punch cards reported no problems, unless you count voter disenfranchisement, long lines, etc. We had several first time voters, at the local state university, show up to vote after having registered plenty early. They were told their registrations must have gotten lost in the mail. This had to have happened months in advance in some cases. In the counties that had voting machines, election fraud did take place. Ohio is a heavily populated state, so it is possible that by using several different kinds of fraud, the objective could be easily reached. I don't think it would take a lot of people to do this, but considering that our largely Republican state government is one of the most corrupt in the nation I'm sure they had no trouble finding people to take part in the fraud.

[Peace Patriot]

49. Two companies tabulated 80% of the country's votes using SECRET,

PROPRIETARY programming code--code so secret that not even our elected secretaries of state are permitted to review it--both of these companies with Bush Cartel and far rightwing connections. That's all you need to know. The '04 election was non-transparent, unverifiable and invalid.

The Carter Center said this about our election system--that it did not meet MINIMUM standards for transparency and verifiability, and they therefore COULD NOT monitor the 2004 election.

When you add to this basic condition of non-transparency--two partisan corporations tabulating the vote with secret formulae--the fact that a third of the country had not even a basic "paper trail" (let alone a paper ballot backup)--meaning that those votes do not even exist, they CANNOT be recounted; that auditing is 1% at best (totally inadequate); that recounts are extremely difficult to obtain, cost millions of dollars, and, in the case of Ohio, were conducted illegally (non-random) with no consequences to the perps, and all sorts of other anti-transparent conditions, and conditions ripe for fraud (such as extremely insecure, hackable machines), you really must realize that we had a fraudulent election SYSTEM going in. The fraud occurred long BEFORE the election--when those contracts with private corporations were signed containing "trade secret" vote tabulation!

Go to your local county elections center and ask to see the votes, so that you can count them yourself. If they have any paper ballots, they won't let you see them. If all they have is electronic records re-confirming electronic tabulation, what is the use of "seeing" that? And if you ask to see a comparison of the actual votes with the electronic vote tabulation, they will tell you that, a) you are not permitted to see the votes (if they exist), and b) the vote tabulation is a TRADE SECRET!

You will have to file a lawsuit in order to even begin to verify the election.

Two companies, both highly partisan, counted most of the votes in secret, and fed the result of their secret formulae to the corporate news monopolies, who proceeded to "adjust" and falsify their own exit polls (showing a Kerry win) to "fit" the "official result" (Bush won) that was derived behind closed doors, with almost no checks and balances along the way.

Consider these conditions--a non-transparent, unverifiable, unverified, SECRET vote tabulation by partisan Bushites, and then consider this: The ONLY INDEPENDENT INDICATOR of WHAT REALLY HAPPENED--the exit polls--said KERRY WON.

A fact that the news monopolies conspired to hide from the American people.

Conditions were deliberately created (for instance, by Tom Delay blocking a "paper trail" requirement for electronic voting machines, and by the laxity of all oversight of these systems) to make it impossible to prove who won!

THAT is an invalid election, by definition. And...

AND!

Kerry won the exit polls--a separate indicator of the will of the people.

And this doesn't even get into ALL THE OTHER EVIDENCE of electronic and other kinds of election fraud--for instance, several studies that show a big difference between paper ballots (such as absentee ballots) and electronic results, with the latter always favoring Bush, or dozens of reported incidents of electronic touchscreens CHANGING Kerry votes to Bush votes. There is a ton of evidence like this, of electronic voting machine anomalies virtually all favoring Bush, of inexplicable numbers, and of Republican election officials blatantly violating the rights of minority and other Democratic voters.

But you don't even need this evidence, and you don't need the exit polls, and you don't need all the other evidence that Bush does not represent the majority of Americans (poll after poll after poll, going back over a year, on every issue--60% to 70% against), to know that this election was not valid, and that the conditions for an honest election were not present.

A non-transparent election system, and...AND a lot of evidence of a wrong outcome.

The flip was from a 3% Kerry win to a 2.5% Bush win. The 3% Kerry win (exit polls) was AFTER all the Democratic vote suppression (the exit polls only count those who made it to the voting booth). That flip could have EASILY been accomplished by one of many kinds of hacking in these extremely insecure electronic voting machines and tabulators, committed by only a handful of people--ONE hacker in each of the eastern time zone states where the evidence shows that the vote flip was concentrated. ONE HACK of the state's central tabulator, pre-programmed to do its deed and erase any trace of itself--flipping only a small percentage of votes in the states needed to win.

Who is checking? And HOW COULD they check? The precincts don't report how any particular voter voted. And in the best of circumstances, with the electronic voting--the optiscan--you have the ballot dumped into a box, while the "vote" (now turned into electrons) goes into the central tabulator. And what happens to the ballot? You think it gets counted anywhere? It does not. There is almost NO auditing. That physical ballot (the only proof of the vote) follows along LATER--AFTER the totals have already gone to CNN, ABC and brethren, and the winner is declared. The actual ballot gets IGNORED, and eventually thrown in the garbage. And that's in the best scenario. With the touchscreens, there IS no ballot.

When you combine these conditions with the obvious culture within the Republican Party in 2004, of fraudulently depriving Democrats of their vote wherever Bush needed it--by shorting Democratic areas on precincts and voting machines, by unfairly challenging the registrations of black voters, by disappearing 50,000 absentee ballots in a Democratic area two days before the election, by shredding Hispanic and Native American voter registration cards in western states (an operation paid for by the RNC), and on and on, the case for a stolen election becomes very strong. To hack the election would take only a handful of people operating within a culture of lies, deception and secrecy. And it's not as if the Bush regime was known for its insistence on fair play.

But I want to reiterate that the conditions for an honest election were not present. That is the main reality we must face, and MUST CHANGE. The burden of proof of an honest vote count must be on the election system and its officials, with complete transparency as the prime requirement. What we had was NO transparency. That MUST be changed. The burden should NOT be on a bunch of poor citizens scrambling after these officials, and trying to track a bunch of ELECTRONS from one machine to the next, and getting obstructed and lied to every step of the way!

(Note: It's my guess that Ohio--the most blatant Dem vote suppression--occurred because Kerry's win was so big. The electronic fraud was pre-programmed, and set to be as unnoticeable as possible, small percentages here and there--easily programmable. But it wasn't enough, and last minute tweaks were more risky, for instance, in most cases requiring company service personnel to go on site during the election. Blackwell was told to squeeze tighter--and then things started happening such as the extra voting machines for black precincts being kept in storage, creating 2 to 10 hour voting lines.)

(Note 2: Why were the Democratic Party leaders SILENT about Bushite companies counting our votes in secret? The answer is corruption. $4 billion alloted to the states to purchase these lemons--a mighty temptation to public officials. Lavish electronic voting machine company lobbying--such as the recent Beverly Hills junket for election officials from around the country, sponsored by Diebold, ES&S and Sequoia--a week of fun, sun and high end shopping, followed by a graduation ceremony in which OUR election officials were given "graduation awards."* The heady power of brokering these big business deals. Future job offers. "Revolving door" employment--just as with the military. Our party officials--who have sold out our right to vote for these lavish perks--are now beholden to PRIVATE companies for their election.)

*Check it out for yourself. Last week, at the Beverly Hilton...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=203x380340

[Mairead]

30. Actually, it was pointed out at the 'Mystery Pollster' site by a visiting

cloggie that the average number of deformed votes needed per precinct was very low--well within the capability of a few people acting out of a shared but uncoordinated desire to deliver the election to Bush.

[Teena]

33. Yes!

My point, exactly!

[electropop]

16. These things can all be pulled off by small groups.

The Iraq war started out in a small, well-controlled cabal. As it expanded, they gradually brainwashed the populace so that it smoothly transitioned from tiny conspiracy to mass insanity.

Regarding 9/11, it apparently required no more than a few dozen people to pull it off, regardless of who you think directed them. There were a few dozen more who knew something was up. It just didn't take many people to cause all the death and destruction. Whether you think some of them on "our" side intentionally allowed it to proceed (ie were conspirators), it certainly didn't require thousands of conspirators.

[Peace Patriot]

50. "...they gradually brainwashed the populace so that it smoothly

transitioned from tiny conspiracy to mass insanity." --electropop

I don't know that the Iraq war conspiracy was so tiny. It involved many former Iran-Contra Reaganites, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), massively funded far right think tanks, all of the Bush regime's top people and most of their subordinates, and all of Bush's "pod people" in Congress. Rumsfeld said, just after 9/11, about intelligence on Iraq, "pull everything in, related or not...", and that's what they did--and they purged anybody who wouldn't go along. So we're talking hundreds of people--not to mention all those within the news monopolies who were also complicit, some of them (Judith Miller, Bob Novak) quite directly complicit.

Also, I know for certain that the Bush Cartel FAILED to brainwash the populace and that there was no mass insanity--just insanity among Bushcons, their lapdog press and their dittoheads.

I've followed the opinion polls closely, and you'd be amazed what they show.

58% of the American people opposed the Iraq war BEFORE the invasion. Feb. '03. Before all the lies were exposed; before the full horror and costs were known. 58%! I'll never forget that stat. And it was across the board in all polls.

Of that 58%, about half opposed the war outright. The other half would only support a UN peacekeeping mission (world consensus)--not unilateral, preemptive war by Bush.

So, the vast majority of Americans didn't trust Bush then. THEN.

The opposition to the war has continued to grow ever since--with only a brief dip during the weeks of the worst fighting, when US troops were at highest risk (obviously due to a desire not to endanger them further); then it went right back up, and is over 60% today.

The idea that there was any kind of majority support for this war is a total ILLUSION, perpetrated by the war profiteering news monopolies.

And these are mostly news monopoly polls--generally weighted toward Republicans--so you can safely surmise that the numbers against Bush's war are even higher. I've also found in these polls that the great majority of Americans disagree with every major Bush policy, foreign and domestic, way up in the 60% to 70% range. Amazing--and you'd never know it from the "news commentary."

The American people are not insane (most of us). We are disempowered and DISENFRANCHISED. The will of the majority is not being implemented--on all issues, not just the war.

-------

I don't disagree with your basic premise--that a small group can conspire to commit a great crime. We've seen too many examples. It is undeniable. And I find it kind of amusing when naysayers about election fraud say that it would take a conspiracy of thousands. First of all, they obviously don't know anything about electronic voting, and how easy it is to hack these systems. Secondly, they can't seem to grok how criminal Republican Party culture has become under Bush. I think we could easily round up a couple of thousand Bushite Republicans who would commit almost any crime they were asked to commit, for Jesus W. Bush, and keep it well covered up (with that old brotherly secret handshake of the have's). The Bush Cartel also has unlimited funds to buy whatever crimes they need committed.

It's upsetting to some people to have their faith in American democracy challenged. They like to believe that, somehow, despite all, the system "works." That it might not be working in some very fundamental ways is very unsettling to them, and they can't really face it. They won't listen to the facts. It goes in one ear and out the other. And they will reach for any lame excuse in order not to believe it. I do feel for them. I think they are struggling with intense brainwashing by the corporate news monopolies--which lied to them (falsified the exit poll data) to convince them that Bush won--and, if they're Democrats, they are struggling with the paucity of good leadership in their own party.

I myself was not shocked by Stolen Election II. I knew something about electronic voting, and didn't trust the Bush Cartel one bit. I pretty much had it figured on election night, and my guesses on how they did it have been strongly verified by the available evidence. What I HAVE BEEN shocked at is the corruption in the Democratic Party leadership on electronic voting--and especially Bushite companies controlling the vote tabulation with secret, proprietary programming code. Are the Democrats insane, or what?

But I've learned enough about our election system now to realize that it's mostly just plain old corruption in what are now big business deals--the buying and selling of our right to vote--and maybe also some war profiteering (war Democrats who don't really care that Bush has slaughtered tens of thousands of people in Iraq and tortured others, and is looting the poor there, and here).

We are going to need a BIG BROOM to restore the integrity of our elections, and recover our democracy. And it is not only Republicans whom we need to oust, once we get back our right to vote (still doable, friends--let's get on it!)

[electropop]

53. Good points, all.

I think that most conspiracies start with a small core and spread. Probably 3 or 4 neocons cooked up the general outlines of Iraq, and found a receptive audience in their circle of sociopaths. But yeah, by the time it was publicly visible, it probably involved many hundreds. And they are fanatical enough that it really is possible for them to commit and cover up any size of crime, at least in the sense that no co-conspirators would leak it.

And yup, the electronic portion of the election theft requires no more than a handful of people to pull it off. The publicly visible portions such as goon squads and enough machines require more people, but again, fanatics will keep their yaps shut.

And yeah, I have to wonder: if the few polls the corporate media will share, show Bush in some trouble, imagine how much trouble he is really in.

It's a more and more frequent occurrence for me to run into Republicans who have finally had their fill, or reached their limit of tolerance on some issue. Today, a former co-worker, big right-winger, visited the office. His issue is not wanting the religious right to run his life, so they've just lost his support. He basically said that if we run anybody halfway credible next time, he's voting Dem. Kerry was too slimy for him, and frankly, I agree. We need a 100% genuiine and proud liberal. Republican-lite will not cut it. Boxer/Conyers in '08! As for cleaning house, we should run real Dems in the primaries. But whomever wins the primaries, we have to back them, even if it means holding our noses. Consider the alternative.

[purple in the south]

29. one person here convinced county over seers

to buy new software from diebold for 2002 elections for our optiscan voting.. she was elections commisioner ..she resigned this year after our count went red and is now consulting for diebold... i am just suspicious in nature...

[nashville_brook]

35. welcome purple!

yikes -- it's easy to corrupt at county level. it's expected. tolerated too as long as it involves college sports. why not voting or anything else?

[RagAss]

54. True....

Two people at the most... a programmer and a network person.....

[Dhalgren]

7. One other thing to remember,

a very massive conspiracy may only require the active/knowing participation of a relatively small number of people. So when anti-conspiracy folks talk about the "thousands of people needed" to pull off some of these things, most of those "thousands" have no idea they are part of a conspiracy...

[SteppingRazor]

8. That is a good and well-taken point.

Still not ready to concede the sort of epic voter fraud that many of us fear here, but you do make a good point.

[rman]

37. The actual hacking of voting machines may not be epic

But there is irrefutable evidence of other 'anomalies' that all favor Repubs. One is a clear shortage of voting machines in many dem counties.

Many people seem to agree that there was some tampering of the elections, just not enough to make a difference.

What reason is there to think Rebups would be capable of tampering, but not be capable of actually affecting the outcome of an election? The two largest voting machine manufacturer-operators are heavily republican corporations.

And if all the election anomalies are coincidental, then that's a lot of coincidents. If it is a conspiracy, then all in all it's pretty epic.

[HamdenRice]

15. Bingo -- that's the point!

And also, that when people believe in something, then you can get a surprising number of people to keep their mouths shut.

[Rich Hunt]

41. yeah

....then there are a whole lot of other people who go along with it because it suits their prejudices, or because they're timid, or lazy, or unwilling to face reality, etc.

[HamdenRice]

9. I think the level of conspiracy needed is misunderstood ..

I agree with eleny on this. It really only takes a state republican official and a corporate officer of the voting machine company. What little info that has leaked out suggests the programmers were told that they were engaged in an exercise to see whether the machines could be hacked, or to prevent Democrats from hacking.

As for the 9/11 conspiracy, again, it could be very small. Remember, Richard Clark says he was basically "screaming" all August 2001 about what was happening. The conspiracy would simply be a few people at the top receiving information (like a PDB that says "Bin Laden Determined to Attack...") and not doing anything about it, not ordering the machinery into gear to thwart it. It could be as few people as Bush and Cheney, simply deciding not to act. But I would throw in the evil Rumsfeld and the incompetent Rice to make it an even four.

[SteppingRazor]

12. Well, you're talking about LIHOP...

The MIHOP conspiracy is another matter -- setting explosives, remote controlled planes, or whathaveyou.

[rman]

32. There's evidence of terror financing by US officials

or at least strong and persistent hints to that.


"...we don't hear the extent of the penetration that (Al Queda) 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. 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."

"...once this issue gets to be investigated, you will be seeing certain people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally."

"There is direct evidence involving no more then ten American names that I recognized, some are heads of government agencies or politicians - but I don’t want to go any further than that."
-- Sibel Edmonds


Something along the same lines is said by Indira Singh, who has testified before the 9-11 Citizens' Commission.


Have you taken the time to listen to the story of either? Or is it a foregone conclusion that what they say is nonsense? Just lies, or perhaps mistaken?

[Teena]

25. Don't forget...

Richard Myers. I have read many times that Richard Myers, when asked when fighter jets were sent to intercept the planes on 9/11, said they were not sent until after the Pentagon was hit. However, Rumsfeld called the thing that hit the Pentagon a "missile," which would certainly explain the 18 foot diameter hole that was created on impact. The problem lies in that, apparently, it was planned that a missile would be shot at Flight 77, miss it, and accidentally hit the Pentagon. But Myers's answer about jets not being scrambled until after the Pentagon attack blew that story. The question from reporters would then be, "why didn't the missile batteries that surround the Pentagon work that day?" at which point, no one seems to have an answer. According to David Ray Griffin, author of A New Pearl Harbor, our country's defense mechanisms had to be deliberately told NOT to work, because they are actually designed to automatically defend us if need be. Imagine that! The planners were too stupid to say that they DID work as they are meant to, but missed the plane and hit the building instead. If I had planned it, that's what I would have said. I guess they should have discussed the plan a little more thoroughly.

[Peace Patriot]

51. Yeah, Teena! And welcome to DU! This Pentagon thing bothers me like

the loose string in a tapestry. How could they not have defended the Pentagon? Their not defending our nation's capital is bad enough--no planes in the air, an Air Force stand-down, with almost an hour's notice. But they couldn't even defend the Pentagon? Not even an ack-ack gun on the roof? Nothing. My tinfoil antennae have been abuzz about that ever since it happened. (The word from Arcturus is that the human race is on the line, currently, as to whether we will join Galactic Civilization, or de-evolve back to before stone implements--or worse, kill all life on the planet with a "limited nuclear exchange" (yup), which will mean that our DNA gets archived for ten million years, while the Designers consider ways to re-design it and seed it somewhere else. They've all got out their popcorn.)

[Minstrel Boy]

17. "Thousands of people" - please explain why.

Compartmentalization means only a very few know everything. Most in the chain only know their part, and their part, in itself, may not even be criminal.

Special Forces Lt Col Dan Marvin, in the intro to the book Without Smoking Gun, writes that "the compartmentalization of various aspects of covert operations impairs every effort to put all of the pieces of the puzzle together, even in any one part of the multi-faceted system of organized subterfuge. Super-secret - and sometimes heinous - activities on behalf of our government are therby masked, permitting total independence of operations, with little or no regard for international law, while affording higher authority total immunity from prosecution."

[H2O Man]

26. True. n/t

[Teena]

19. What about...

the possibilty that, individually and in secret, those wanting to commit election fraud met with people who were given access to tabulators and voting machine-accessible computers. By not letting each crook know that others were also doing this and allowing each individual to believe that it was small-scale operation, the less worried they were about a major scandal breaking out later and more confident that they were doing their party a commendable favor. in the case of Clint Curtis, didn't Tom Feeney convince him to write the vote-switching software by telling him he would be PREVENTING election fraud (thereby benefitting the Republican party) by doing so?

[titoresque]

21. yes but as often

is the case with conspiracies this one part of it, in the big scheme is what this poster was directly involved in. I'm no authority here but I bet if there was one conspiracy at that time regarding this issue...there quite possibly was more going on. It usually always seems to be a ripple affect. Maybe not the greatest analogy?

[HamdenRice]

22. You reminded me of that !!!

As I mentioned, I was just a grad student/consultant, and I was amazed at some of the things I heard.

But I wondered what was discussed when the president of the foundation, the national security staffer of the liberal senator, the former Naval intelligence/national security staff member, the ANC rep and National Party rep talked about when they were behind doors closed even to the foundation vice president and program officers.

I'm sure it was stuff that would make my hair stand on end.

[Eloriel]

34. Not even close, SteppingRazor -- it wouln't take but about THREE

people total, or maybe even ONE. And there are a number of ways to accomplish it:

All you do is rig the softwre -- as it's manufactured!!! -- to tally the votes in a certain way, according to a particular algorithm, let's say, and also rig it to only "come alive" and do its work under certain circumstances, AND to self-delete after the job is done.

Another, and the Diebold (and probably others) already fit this: let the machines be accessible from Diebold central office -- or, really, where the software is built which has been just outside the country in Vancouver, B.C. All you have to do is go into a number of counties AS the votes are being "counted" in the county office. Easy as pie, and undetectable too. You keep gross vote totals the same, you just jigger with the internal numbers a bit.

Further, just because something shows on the screen agreeing that you pressed Kerry doesn't mean that's what gets recorded. And it takes NO talent, and very little instruction (aka: 1st semester work) to show one thing on the screen while printing and recording something different (or causing three different outcomes).

Edit: there are many, many other ways, but perhaps this gives you a bit of an idea.

You also have to ask yourself this: if you're worred about people and conspiracies and the impossibility of keeping those secrets, what about all the vote suppression (also illegal) that happened ALL AROUND THE COUNTRY. Wasn't that a conspiracy? Have you heard of anyone on the inside coming forward to confess? ANd you're not likely to, either, yet there it was for all the world to see.

[HamdenRice]

40. Very important point here ...

The anti-conspiracy idea is that there are all these county level tabulations. But if there was a voting fraud conspiracy, most of it would have been at the machine level, not the tabulation level. As I understand it, the machines were hackable.

[ironman202]

4. that's not a conspiracy

that's just back channel diplomacy. Happens all the time. Not that I'm minimizing what you did, it a neat story.

[NIGHT TRIPPER]

10. define conspiracy

please--
websters online-
come back and share what you find-

and I think you'll find voter fraud may easily fall into that category

[HamdenRice]

14. My point: back channel diplomacy IS a conspiracy ...

Remember, these contact were illegal under South African law. About a hundred people, including South Africans violating their own country's laws, participated.

Also, it made me understand that what you read in the newspapers is not how the world works.

[rman]

27. "Happens all the time." - You got that right. nt

[Peace Patriot]

52. That's what I was thinking, too, ironman202. That's what happens in

back-channel diplomacy all the time, in many different situations. And it's normal procedure for any kind of political campaign, public interest lawsuit, or public pressure campaign. If you're going to file a lawsuit against the oil companies, say, for fixing prices, or polluting, you may not want to signal your intention to them. Your group may have many meetings in which it's understood that you don't go blabbing around what evidence you have or what you're going to do with it. The reasons for discretion may also have to do with peoples' safety, if your target is a criminal corporation. I think the difference in how secrecy is used has to do with its PURPOSE. Is it secrecy to accomplish some good purpose (or, at least, some neutral purpose, say, a business planning a new product line)? Or secrecy to commit a crime?

Most conspiracy theories have to do with big crimes and their coverups. The JFK assassination. Watergate. Iran/Contra. Covert wars, drug dealing and arms dealing. 9/11. Saudi/Bush money. The Iraq war. Stolen Election I. Stolen Election II. They really should be called "criminal conspiracies," to distinguish them from secret meetings among people to get something good (or something neutral) acccomplished. If you plan a surprise birthday party, you are engaging in a conspiracy! And I certainly wouldn't call back-channel diplomacy to end apartheid a conspiracy (in the sense of "criminal conspiracy"). The purpose was very positive.

Best analogy: The Underground Railroad, where northern progressives CONSPIRED among themselves and with black southerners to deprive white southern slave-owners of their "property." They definitely employed secrecy!

Another: The French Resistance during WW II. Secrecy was essential. Were they "conspirators"? No question about it. Conspiring to overthrow Nazis, and to kill as many of them as possible--which they had a right, and even a duty, to do.

[SoCalDem]

5. Any time 2 or more people discuss things in private

that affect the lives of others (who are NOT privy to the discussions) , a conspiracy exists.. It could be mundane "business stuff" or it could mean catastrophic consequences..but it's still a conspiracy.

[BlueEyedSon]

6. A bunch of independent people/organizations/etc, all acting in

self interest happens, and doesnt need to be a "conspiracy".

many of then operate in quite a public manner (like all the RW phony think tanks)

That their effects are synergistic and yet lack central, direct control is all true....

[rman]

24. ...in concert, coincidentally.

If the self-interest is detrimental to society, then they'd -have- to be discrete about their principals, motives, goals, and any discussions about those.

Then you have secret planning of things that affect the lives of many (in small or in big ways).

That's conspiracy.

The fact that it is done for self-interest does not mean it is not conspiracy.


We don't know what is said behind closed doors in those Think-tanks, organizations, institutions, board rooms, Bilderberg group, etc. All we know is that we're not allowed to know. We can read their publications, but widely proclaimed policy is not necessarily the same as official policy. To assume that it is the same, is to assume those people are honest - it is to blindly trust people in positions of power.

[HamdenRice]

44. Yes, just think about how things go in your own institution

If you work for a company, university, government or institution; if you are a member of a church, temple or mosque; if you are part of an organization -- in each case there will be incidents in which what seems to be going on is not what is going on.

Imagine those foibles with the resources of a major governmental institution or corporate hierarchy -- ie multiply by 100 -- and you can get a sense of what happens behind closed doors.

[Burried News]

42. There is a book that would interest you -

Thy Will Be Done by Colby. It explores the links between Protestantism, Chase Manhattan (Rockefellers) and the CIA and the efforts to open up South America for American Business Interests. It is dry and clinical but if you let your mind contemplate the implications it is an eye opener (as was the story you relate). I think you have to purchase it used.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/103-4708633-6155061

[HamdenRice]

45. Isn't Colby the CIA director who died undermysterious circumstances?

It's kind of funny that RWers say Clinton murdered Colby and the left believes RWers killed Colby because he disclosed secrets, cleaned house after the Church committee and was fired and replaced by GHW Bush.

The book appears interesting and I will take your advice and buy it.

[Burried News]

47. Different Colby. Don't know if it is the same family.

The Colby you refer to is a very interesting/strange story that I hope will someday (some sunny day) be revealed.

Thy will be done links to Evangelical Christian missionaries who in turn link to missionaries in China (think of the movie The Sandpebbles with Steve McQueen) which in turn link to the Sung Dynasty (raised and educated in the South (USA) back to China - father or uncle of Sunyatsen -whose 4 daughters all became very influential - one was Mrs. Chiang Kai Shek. These lead to Kuomintang, the Green Gang and Li Ka Shing. If you google him there are many alternative spellings. Li Kashing Li-Ka shing etc.
He recently bought the scandal ridden Global Crossing for very little - at one time Richard Perle was retained by him.

Let me link to the last one who is in the news alot in the past 10 years.
http://www.time.com/time/2001/influentials/ybli.html
http://www.dancewithshadows.com/business/pharma/stem-cell-research.asp

[Burried News]

48. Also recommend a book Lords of the Rim. All roads lead to Rome

It reads like the BCCI scandal but the players are Asian. Drugs, money laundering, political payolla.
http://chinese-school.netfirms.com/Madame_Chiang_KS.html
"Madame Chiang Kai-shek, a pivotal player in one of the 20th century's great epics - the struggle for control of post-imperial China waged between the Nationalists and the Communists during the Japanese invasion and the violent aftermath of World War II - died on Thursday in New York City, the Foreign Ministry of Taiwan reported early Friday. She was 105 years old.

Madame Chiang, a dazzling and imperious politician, wielded immense influence in Nationalist China, but she and her husband were eventually forced by the Communist victory into exile in Taiwan, where she presided as the grand dame of Nationalist politics for many years. After Chiang Kai-shek died in 1975, Madame Chiang retreated to New York City, where she lived out her last quarter-century.

Madame Chiang was the most famous member of one of modern China's most remarkable families, the Soongs, who dominated Chinese politics and finance in the first half of the century. Yet in China it was her American background and lifestyle that distinguished Soong Mei-ling, her maiden name (which is sometimes spelled May-ling).
.
.
.
Madame Chiang helped craft American policy toward China during the war years, running the Nationalist Government's propaganda operation and emerging as its most important diplomat. Yet she was also deeply involved in the endless maneuverings of her husband, Chiang Kai-shek, who was uneasily at the helm of several shifting alliances with Chinese warlords vying for control of what was then a badly fractured nation.

A devout Christian, Madame Chiang spoke fluent English tinted with the Southern accent she acquired as a school girl in Georgia, and presented a civilized and humane image of a courageous China battling a Japanese invasion and Communist subversion. Yet historians have documented the murderous path that Chiang Kai-shek led in his efforts to win, then keep, and ultimately lose power. It also became clear in later years that the Chiang family had pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars of American aid intended for the war. "

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

55. No they're not related

I just picked up Gerald Colby's "privished" book 'The Dupont Dynasty' for £20. He & his wife Charlotte Dennett's next book sounds equally fascinating: 'The Kingdom and the Power: Saudi Oil, the Holocaust and American Espionage at the Dawn of the Middle East Crisis' (to be published next year).

[EVDebs]

43. Operation Northwoods was a secret and still would be if not for FOIA

requested under the JFK murder...when the paperwork was put into the FOIA by mistake. See:

"Ironically, the documents came to light, says Bamford, in part because of the 1992 Oliver Stone film JFK, which examined the possibility of a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

As public interest in the assassination swelled after JFK's release, Congress passed a law designed to increase the public's access to government records related to the assassination. The author says a friend on the board tipped him off to the documents. Afraid of a congressional investigation, Lemnitzer had ordered all Joint Chiefs documents related to the Bay of Pigs destroyed, says Bamford. But somehow, these remained.

"The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after," says Bamford."

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/JCS1962abc.html

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

46. Wow! great post HR!

It as great meeting you at the new york meetup, by the way :hi: