I can tell you there are a bunch of idots in our government.  The BBC reports that the US will start to pay the Taliban to switch sides.  Well, you know you are losing the war when you have to pay your enemy not to kill you!  This of course is not the first time the US has resorted to paying off its enemies.

October 28, 2009 “BBC” — The US military in Afghanistan is to be allowed to pay Taliban fighters who renounce violence against the government in Kabul.   The move is included in a defense bill which President Obama is set to sign.  Such payments have already been widely used by US commanders in Iraq, but it is the first time the system is being formally adopted in Afghanistan.  Early on Wednesday, Afghan troops were engaged in a shootout with suspected militants at a house in Kabul.

A day earlier eight US soldiers were killed in bomb attacks in southern Afghanistan.  The deaths make October the deadliest month for American forces in the eight-year war in Afghanistan.  President Obama is yet to decide whether to send thousands more troops to Afghanistan.  Mr Obama has said he will not risk their lives “unless it is absolutely necessary”.
The latest attacks come amid heightened tension in Afghanistan in the run-up to the second round of a presidential election marred by widespread fraud in favour of incumbent President Hamid Karzai.

The Commander’s Emergency Response Programme, or Cerp, was set up to give the US military the means to clear roads, dig wells and provide other urgent humanitarian assistance to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, the BBC’s Richard Lister in Washington says.  But in Iraq, the money can also be given to insurgents provided they switch sides. Backers of the Cerp scheme say it enabled some 90,000 formerly hostile Iraqis to form local militias and protect their towns from militants, our correspondent says.  He adds that now the same authority is being given to US commanders in Afghanistan.  A clause in the annual defense appropriations bill says they can use the money to support the “re-integration into Afghan society” of those who have renounced violence against the Afghan government.

Although $1.3bn (£691m) has been authorized for the fund as a whole, no specific sum has been allocated to the re-integration programmes, our correspondent says.  The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Senator Carl Levin, has said he envisages the money being used to pay former Taliban fighters to protect their communities.

The Central Intelligence Agency is refusing to release a series of key documents about its secret prison and torture program. The announcement came in response to a court-imposed deadline in a case brought by the American Civil Liberties Union. The CIA says releasing information on its so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” would jeopardize national security by exposing classified intelligence sources and methods. The refusal comes one week after the Justice Department released a previously classified CIA report on torture at overseas prisons and launched a probe into the conduct of CIA interrogators. The investigation has been criticized for focusing on low-level operatives and not the Bush administration officials who authorized the practices the operatives carried out.

The documents that the CIA wants kept under wraps could provide a wealth of information on the Bush administration’s role. The documents include President George W. Bush’s September 2001 authorization for jailing CIA prisoners abroad, cables between CIA officials in the secret prisons and their superiors in Washington, and memos by CIA lawyers on the operations’ legality. Alex Abdo of ACLU’s National Security Project said, “The Obama administration must…release all crucial documents that would shed further light on the origins and scope of the Bush administration’s torture program. The American public has a right to know the full truth about the torture that was committed in its name.”

It’s amazing how much you will learn about 9/11 only if you read.  This is a very important article that I’m reposting from DailyKos.

Summary
The bombshell here is obviously that certain people in the US were using Bin Laden up to September 11, 2001.

It is important to understand why: the US outsourced terror operations to al Qaeda and the Taliban for many years, promoting the Islamization of Central Asia in an attempt to personally profit off military sales as well as oil and gas concessions.

The silence by the US government on these matters is deafening. So, too, is the blowback.

How much insider trading occurred in the days leading up to 9/11? How compromised is the evidence against alleged hijackers because of serious authentication problems with a key Dulles Airport videotape? To what extent does the testimony of more than five hundred firefighters differ from official reports of what happened at the World Trade Center buildings that day? How inseparably connected are Western covert operations to al-Qaeda? How is Islamophobia used to sustain US imperialism?

Paul Zarembka is a professor of economics at the State University of New York at Buffalo. Since 1977, he has been the general editor for Research in Political Economy. He has authored Toward a Theory of Economic Development, edited Frontiers in Econometrics, and co-edited Essays in Modern Capital Theory.

There is about 30-45 seconds of ads before the interview actually starts.  The interview is done with Paul Zarembka.

Wow, well actually I should be surprise that Bush stop majorly pursing Bin Laden 6 months after the 9/11 attacks.  Watch the video below.

A good article I found.

By Mark H. Gaffney

July 07, 2009 “ICH” — The evidence was crucial because it undermined the official explanation that Hani Hanjour crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon at high speed after executing an extremely difficult top gun maneuver. But to understand how all of this played out, let us review the case in bite-size pieces…

In August 2004 when the 9/11 Commission completed its official investigation of the September 11, 2001 attack, the commission transfered custody of its voluminous records to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).[1] There, the records remained under lock and key for four and a half years, until last January when NARA released a fraction of the total for public viewing. Each day, more of the released files are scanned and posted on the Internet, making them readily accessible. Although most of the newly-released documents are of little interest, the files I will discuss in this article contain important new information.

As we know, the 9/11 Commission did not begin its work until 2003–––more than a year after the fact. By this time a number of journalists had already done independent research and published articles about various facets of 9/11. Some of this work was of excellent quality. The Washington Post, for example, interviewed aviation experts who stated that the plane allegedly piloted by Hani Hanjour [AA Flight 77] had been flown “with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm.”[2] Yet, strangely, when other journalists investigated Hani Hanjour they found a trail of clues indicating he was a novice pilot, wholly incapable of executing a top gun maneuver and a successful suicide attack in a Boeing 757. By early 2003 this independent research was a matter of public record, which created a serious problem for the 9/11 Commission…

Ayatollah Khamenei is believed to back President Ahmadinejad

Iran’s Supreme Leader is the country’s most powerful figure.

He appoints the head of the judiciary, six of the 12 members of the powerful Guardian Council, the commanders of all the armed forces, Friday prayer leaders and the head of radio and TV. He also confirms the president’s election.

Khamenei was a key figure in the Islamic revolution in Iran and a close confidant of Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic republic. He was later president of Iran from 1981 to 1989 before becoming Supreme Leader for life.

President Ahmadinejad was previously the mayor of Tehran

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has been Iran’s president since 2005, was actively involved in the Islamic revolution and was a founding member of the student union that took over the US embassy in Tehran in 1979. But he denies being one of the hostage-takers.

He became the first non-cleric to be elected president since 1981 when he won a run-off vote against former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani in elections in June 2005.

He is a hard-liner both at home – where he does not favour the development or reform of political institutions – and abroad, where he has maintained an anti-Western attitude and combative stance on Tehran’s nuclear programme.

Much of his support comes from poorer and more religious sections of Iran’s rapidly growing population, particularly outside Tehran.

Unusually for Iran, Mousavi’s wife campaigned alongside him

The 68-year-old former prime minister stayed out of politics for some years but returned to stand as a moderate.

Mir Hossein Mousavi was born in East Azerbaijan Province and moved to Tehran to study architecture at university.

He is married to Zahra Rahnavard, a former chancellor of Alzahra University and political advisor to Iran’s former President Mohammad Khatami.

One of his closest associates and backers in this election was Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former President of Iran who now heads two of the regime’s most powerful bodies: the Expediency Council (which adjudicates disputes over legislation) and the Assembly of Experts (which appoints, and can theoretically replace, the Supreme Leader).

Mohammad Khatami is a long-time friend and adviser of Mir Hossein Mousavi

The Iranian reform movement is a political movement led by a group of political parties and organizations in Iran who supported Mohammad Khatami’s plans to introduce more freedom and democracy.

In 1997, Khatami was elected president on a platform of greater freedom of expression, as well as measures to tackle unemployment and boost privatisation. However, much of his initial liberalisations were stymied by resistance from the country’s conservative institutions.

He initially stood for election in 2009 but later stood aside and lent his support to Mir Hossein Mousavi.

Other key reformist figures include Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mohsen Mirdamadi, Hadi Khamenei, Mohsen Aminzadeh, and Mostafa Tajzadeh.

The Revolutionary Guard have influence in Iran’s political world

The armed forces comprise the Revolutionary Guard and the regular forces. The two bodies are under a joint general command.

Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) was set up shortly after the revolution to defend the country’s Islamic system, and to provide a counterweight to the regular armed forces.

It has since become a major military, political and economic force in Iran, with close ties to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a former member.

The force is estimated to have 125,000 active troops. It boasts its own ground forces, navy and air force, and oversees Iran’s strategic weapons.

The Guards also have a powerful presence in civilian institutions and are thought to control around a third of Iran’s economy through a series of subsidiaries and trusts.

The Basij serve as an auxiliary force

The Revolutionary Guard also controls the Basij Resistance Force, an Islamic volunteer militia of about 90,000 men and woman with an additional capacity to mobilise nearly 1m.

The Basij, or Mobilisation of the Oppressed, are often called out onto the streets at times of crisis to use force to dispel dissent. There are branches in every town.

Conservative clerics play an important part in political life in Iran

Clerics dominate Iranian society.

Only clerics can be elected to the Assembly of Experts, which appoints the Supreme Leader, monitors his performance and can in theory remove him if he is deemed incapable of fulfilling his duties. The Assembly is currently headed by Iran’s former President Ali-Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is described as pragmatic and conservative.

Former President Mohammad Khatami accused the clerics of obstructing his reforms and warned against the dangers of religious “despotism”.

Clerics also dominate the judiciary, which is based on Sharia (Islamic) law.

In recent years, conservative hardliners have used the judicial system to undermine reforms by imprisoning reformist personalities and journalists and closing down reformist papers.