From: uk-911-tr...@googlegroups.com [mailto:uk-911-tr...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Webster Tarpley
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 7:54 AM
To: tarp...@radix.net
Subject: STATE DEPARTMENT ADMITS: DETROIT CHRISTMAS BOMBER WAS DELIBERATELY
ALLOWED TO KEEP US ENTRY VISA, BOARD HIS FLIGHT

 




 <http://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaToday#p/u/9/NU4RjI9ZhKA>
http://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaToday#p/u/9/NU4RjI9ZhKA

 

STATE DEPARTMENT ADMITS: DETROIT CHRISTMAS BOMBER WAS DELIBERATELY ALLOWED
TO KEEP US ENTRY VISA, BOARD HIS FLIGHT

  

Webster G. Tarpley 

Tarpley.net 

February 10, 2010 

  

The Detroit Christmas bomber was deliberately and intentionally allowed to
keep his US entry visa as the result of a national security override issued
by an as yet unknown US intelligence or law-enforcement agency with the goal
of blocking the State Department's planned revocation of that visa.  This is
the result of hearings held on January 27 before the House Homeland Security
Committee, and in particular of the testimony of Patrick F. Kennedy,
Undersecretary of State for Management. The rickety US government official
version of the December 25 Detroit underwear bomber incident, which has been
jerry-built over the past month and a half, has now totally collapsed, and
key elements of the terrorism-spawning rogue network inside US agencies and
departments are unusually vulnerable to a determined campaign of exposure.  

  

These developments decisively confirm the analysis offered by the present
writer in a Dec. 28, 2009 television interview on Russia Today.
<http://us.mc303.mail.yahoo.com/mc/welcome?.gx=1&.tm=1265860870&.rand=4arbhk
oq87mlh#_ftn1> [1]  On that occasion, my estimate was that Mutallab was a
protected patsy being used by rogue elements of the US intelligence
community for the deliberate and intentional creation of a high profile
incident with the goal of obtaining a large-scale political effect. On
January 4, Richard Wolffe reported on the MSNBC Countdown program that the
Obama White House was investigating whether the Detroit Christmas incident
had been "intentionally" created by an intelligence network with an
"alternative agenda."
<http://us.mc303.mail.yahoo.com/mc/welcome?.gx=1&.tm=1265860870&.rand=4arbhk
oq87mlh#_ftn2> [2]  It was in this report that Wolffe posed the alternative
of "cock-up or conspiracy."
<http://us.mc303.mail.yahoo.com/mc/welcome?.gx=1&.tm=1265860870&.rand=4arbhk
oq87mlh#_ftn3> [3] Unfortunately, Obama opted for the screw-up version on
January 5. 

  

Based on what was already known a few days after this incident, it was clear
that normal screening and surveillance procedures had been scrapped and
aborted in order to allow the youthful patsy Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab of
Nigeria to board his flight from Amsterdam in the Netherlands to Detroit .
Mutallab's father, a rich, well known, and reputable Nigerian banker had
gone to the US Embassy in his country and formally warned a State Department
official as well as a CIA representative that his son was in Yemen and in
all probability consorting with terrorists.  Under normal circumstances,
this report alone would have been more than enough to get Mutallab's US visa
revoked in the same way he had already been denied entry to Great Britain .
He also would normally have been placed on the no-fly list, thus setting up
two insuperable obstacles to getting on his Detroit bound flight and winging
off to produce an incident which caused several weeks of public hysteria in
this country, completely with demands for body scanners in airports.  In
addition, the US intelligence community had reports that a Nigerian was
training with the purported "Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula " in Yemen .
Obama had called a December 22 meeting with top CIA, FBI, and DHS officials
because of reports of a terrorist attack looming during the Christmas
holiday. 

  

The January 27 hearings of the House Homeland Security Committee were also
addressed by Michael Leiter, the AWOL Director of the National
Counterterrorism Center , along with Jane Holl Lute, the Deputy Secretary of
Homeland Security, who was sent in place of HHS Secretary Janet Napolitano,
who boycotted the hearings.  But the important testimony came from Kennedy,
whose responsibilities include Consular Services, and therefore visas.  In
his opening statement, Kennedy offered a tortured circumlocution to describe
what had happened. Attempting to head off the question of why the State
Department had not revoke Mutallab's visa, Kennedy stated: 

  

"We will use revocation authority prior to interagency consultation in
circumstances where we believe there is an immediate threat. Revocation is
an important tool in our border security arsenal. At the same time,
expeditious coordination with our national security partners is not to be
underestimated. There have been numerous cases where our unilateral and
uncoordinated revocation would have disrupted important investigations that
were underway by one of our national security partners. They had the
individual under investigation and our revocation action would have
disclosed the U.S. Government's interest in the individual and ended our
colleagues' ability to quietly pursue the case and identify terrorists'
plans and co-conspirators."
<http://us.mc303.mail.yahoo.com/mc/welcome?.gx=1&.tm=1265860870&.rand=4arbhk
oq87mlh#_ftn4> [4] 

  

UNDERSECRETARY KENNEDY: AN AGENCY OBJECTED TO REVOKING VISA 

  

Not surprisingly, House Homeland Security Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS)
wanted to know what that really meant. Here is his exchange with
Undersecretary Kennedy: 

  

"REP. THOMPSON: Okay. So -- all right. So he has a visa. So what does that
do? In the process, does it revoke the visa? Does it -- 

MR. KENNEDY: We -- as I mentioned in my statement, Mr. Chairman, if we
unilaterally revoked a visa -- and there was a case recently up -- we have a
request from a law enforcement agency to not revoke the visa. 

We came across information; we said this is a dangerous person. We were
ready to revoke the visa. We then went to the community and said, should we
revoke this visa? 

And one of the members -- and we'd be glad to give you that out of -- in
private -- said, please do not revoke this visa. We have eyes on this
person. We are following this person who has the visa for the purpose of
trying roll up an entire network, not just stop one person. 

So we will revoke the visa of any individual who is a threat to the United
States , but we do take one preliminary step. We ask our law enforcement and
intelligence community partners, do you have eyes on this person, and so you
want us to let this person proceed under your surveillance so that you may
potentially break a larger plot? 

REP. THOMPSON: Well, I think that the point that I'm trying to get at is, is
this just another box you're checking, or is that some security value to add
in that box, to the list? 

MR. KENNEDY: The intelligence and law enforcement community tell us that
they believe in certain cases that there's a higher value of them following
this person so they can find his or her co-conspirators and roll up an
entire plot against the United States , rather than simply knock out one
soldier in that effort."
<http://us.mc303.mail.yahoo.com/mc/welcome?.gx=1&.tm=1265860870&.rand=4arbhk
oq87mlh#_ftn5> [5] 

  

What Kennedy is saying is that the established bureaucratic routine calls
for the State Department to inquire of the other intelligence and law
enforcement agencies that compose the US intelligence community whether they
have any objection to the lifting of a visa.  In this case, reports Kennedy,
there was such an objection from at least one agency, based on their
contention that Mutallab was under intensive scrutiny as part of an
operation which might lead to the discovery and arrest of far bigger fish.
We should also notice that Kennedy is extremely reluctant to speak before
the committee in public session about exactly which intelligence or
law-enforcement agency this was, and that the members of the committee do
not demand an immediate straight answer.  Perhaps Kennedy told them later,
behind the closed doors of a secret executive session. But after weeks of
hysteria, the public has a right to know. 

  

CLASSIC USE OF NATIONAL SECURITY OVERRIDE TO PROTECT A PATSY 

  

What we see here is a classic example of the use of a national security
override on the part of subversive moles who are performing their most basic
responsibility of protecting a patsy by preventing him from being arrested
or otherwise interfered with until that patsy can perform his assigned task
and produce the desired incident, with the goal of inducing an intensive
political response in the form of a wave of public hysteria.  With this
method, the name of the patsy is in effect flagged in all the relevant
databases with the notation that this person is the target of an ongoing
investigation which cannot be interfered with because of overriding national
security concerns. This means that the patsy in question is immune to arrest
by traffic cops, airport and border officials, or any other law enforcement
official.  The patsy is untouchable -- until of course the terrorist
provocation has been carried out. 

  

Various alleged 9/11 figures operated for extended periods of time inside
the US , evidently under the cover of such national security overrides.  How
did the accused 19 9/11 hijackers enter and leave this country, obtain
visas, rent apartments, acquire checking accounts and credit cards, obtain
driver's licenses, register vehicles, rent cars, attend flight schools, and
repeatedly fly on US domestic airlines?  How did they escape arrest for
traffic violations, which some of them committed?  The answer is in all
likelihood that they had been made untouchable to ordinary law enforcement
because their names had been flagged with national security overrides which
made them immune to arrest for routine infractions or because their names
appeared on watch lists and similar databases. 

  

Congressman Michael McCaul (R-TX) returned to this sensitive issue in his
questioning of Undersecretary Kennedy,  leading to the following exchange: 

  

"REP. MCCAUL: Well, I think there needs to be a lot better coordination
going on here between these two entities. And Mr. Kennedy, why given the
information that you had, why wasn't the VISA revoked? 

MR. KENNEDY: Sir, as I mentioned earlier, when we get any information, when
anyone appears at an American embassy and they say that they have doubts
about someone, we immediately generate what is called a visa VIPER message.
We sent that to the entire law enforcement and intelligence -- 

REP. MCCAUL: My problem -- I understand the process. But you had this
information, and you didn't revoke the VISA. 

MR. KENNEDY: Because -- 

REP. MCCAUL: I mean the cable I just read makes it pretty clear that this
man is associated with extremists in Yemen , and you didn't revoke his VISA.


MR. KENNEDY: What it was, sir, is his father said he was associated with
this. And so we then asked the intelligence and law enforcement communities
if they have any other information. I don't want to take much of your time,
and I'd glad to visit with you afterwards."
<http://us.mc303.mail.yahoo.com/mc/welcome?.gx=1&.tm=1265860870&.rand=4arbhk
oq87mlh#_ftn6> [6] 

  

We note again the tremendous reticence of Undersecretary Kennedy in getting
into the details of how the national security override was issued in the
case of Mutallab's visa.  Kennedy suggests he will explain it all to the
Congressman in private, but not in the full glare of public opinion were his
words will end up on the Federal News transcript. 

  

DEMAND TO KNOW WHO LET MUTALLAB KEEP HIS VISA 

  

Instead, it is imperative for the preservation of democratic institutions
that the full details be known of how the State Department was prevented
from revoking Mutallab's visa.  We want to know which agency demanded that
Mutallab not be interfered with.  We want to know the names and posts held
by the officials who issued the override of the State Department's proposal.
We want these officials fired.  We want these officials thoroughly
investigated.  We want them to appear before public congressional hearings.
We want them to be the targets of civil suits by airlines and other
interested parties. We want to find out the nature of any privately
controlled intelligence networks to which they may belong.  Such an
investigation may well lead outside of the United States , and most
particularly to the United Kingdom .  Mutallab comes from Nigeria , a former
British colony.  He spent several years in London , the site of MI-6's
Londonistan school for Islamic fundamentalist extremist patsies and
fanatics, where he was apparently radicalized.  Mutallab was then you sheep
dipped into Yemen , another former British colony, where he was placed in
contact with Awlaki the CIA lackey, a notorious double agent and agent
provocateur. Given the fact that Mutallab was operating outside of this US ,
the CIA is an obvious suspect, but not the only one. 

  

There is every reason to conclude that the rogue network of moles operating
inside US intelligence -- otherwise known as the invisible government or
shadow government -- knew that Mutallab was coming, knew that he would be
carrying a device resembling a bomb, and wanted him to enter the skies over
Detroit.  (Whether Mutallab's handlers thought they were giving him a bomb
that would actually go off is a separate question.) They did all this
because they sincerely wanted a major terrorist provocation of the US
population, designed to unleash waves of Islamophobic hysteria that would be
useful for the support of ongoing operations in Afghanistan , Pakistan ,
Yemen , Somalia , and quite possibly against Iran . 

  

NOT BODY SCANNERS, BUT MOLE DETECTORS AT CIA AND FBI 

  

Earlier commentaries on this incident had alleged a failure to connect the
dots.  As it now transpires, the dots were evidently connected by the State
Department, but their action was blocked by an override issued by another
agency.  Another popular cover story for the failure of screening and
surveillance on Christmas between Amsterdam and Detroit was that Mutallab's
name had been misspelled when entered into the relevant antiterrorist
database.  Kennedy conceded in his testimony that one such data entry was
misspelled, but another one was entered accurately.  All of this needs to be
viewed with great skepticism. 

  

Apart from these details, it should be clear to all that the official US
account of the Detroit Christmas incident has now been completely refuted.
We do not need body scanners at airports.  We need mole detectors installed
at the CIA, FBI, DIA, NSA, State Department, NCTC, and the National Security
Council.  The urgent necessity is now to find out precisely who issued a
critical override that allowed Mutallab to keep his visa and board his
flight to Detroit .  Pull on that thread and revelations might well follow
that lead back to the networks behind 9/11, Iran Contra, and much else.
Political forces friendly to Obama have tended to see this case as staged in
order to embarrass the tenant of the White House. These forces should now
demand immediate congressional hearings into the allegations contained in
Undersecretary Kennedy's testimony. 

  

  




  _____  

 
<http://us.mc303.mail.yahoo.com/mc/welcome?.gx=1&.tm=1265860870&.rand=4arbhk
oq87mlh#_ftnref1> [1]
http://tarpley.net/2009/12/28/tarpley-on-rt-nigerian-patsy-helps-us-meddling
-in-yemen-civil-war/

 
<http://us.mc303.mail.yahoo.com/mc/welcome?.gx=1&.tm=1265860870&.rand=4arbhk
oq87mlh#_ftnref2> [2]
http://tarpley.net/2010/01/05/obama-white-house-probing-rogue-network-of-mol
es-behind-christmas-detroit-patsy-fiasco-reports-richard-wolffe-on-msnbc/

 
<http://us.mc303.mail.yahoo.com/mc/welcome?.gx=1&.tm=1265860870&.rand=4arbhk
oq87mlh#_ftnref3> [3]
http://tarpley.net/2010/01/06/obama-flubs-his-first-bay-of-pigs-moment-as-te
rror-moles-escape-purge/

 
<http://us.mc303.mail.yahoo.com/mc/welcome?.gx=1&.tm=1265860870&.rand=4arbhk
oq87mlh#_ftnref4> [4] http://www.state.gov/m/rls/remarks/2010/135865.htm

 
<http://us.mc303.mail.yahoo.com/mc/welcome?.gx=1&.tm=1265860870&.rand=4arbhk
oq87mlh#_ftnref5> [5] See Federal News Service transcript of the Q&A before
the committee at:
<http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument
&orgId=574&topicId=25151&docId=l:1117012781&start=15>
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&;
orgId=574&topicId=25151&docId=l:1117012781&start=15, emphasis added.

 
<http://us.mc303.mail.yahoo.com/mc/welcome?.gx=1&.tm=1265860870&.rand=4arbhk
oq87mlh#_ftnref6> [6] See Federal News Service transcript of the Q&A before
the committee at:
<http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument
&orgId=574&topicId=25151&docId=l:1117012781&start=15>
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&;
orgId=574&topicId=25151&docId=l:1117012781&start=15, emphasis added.

  

 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "UK 9/11 & 7/7 Truth Network" group.
Associated with the 9/11 Forum http://www.911forum.org.uk/
 
Good news sources
http://www.911forum.org.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=13410
 



 

 

 

*** exposing the hidden truth for further educational research only ***
CAVEAT LECTOR *** In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. NOTE: Some links may require cut and paste into your Internet
Browser. Please check for daily real news posts and support the truth!
(sorry but don't have time to email all posts) at
<http://tinyurl.com/33c9yr> http://tinyurl.com/33c9yr    or
<http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/topics?gvc=2>
http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences/topics?gvc=2  ; You can
also subscribe to the multiple daily emails by sending  an email to
<mailto:total_truth_sciences-subscr...@googlegroups.com>
total_truth_sciences-subscr...@googlegroups.com ; free book download:
<http://www.lulu.com/content/165077> http://www.lulu.com/content/165077  ***
Revealing the hidden Truth For Educational & Further Research Purposes only.
***  NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security
Agency (NSA) may have read emails without warning, warrant, or notice. They
may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no
recourse, nor protection.......... IF anyone other than the addressee of
this e-mail is reading it, you are in violation of the 1st & 4th Amendments
to the Constitution of the United States. Patriot Act 5 & H.R. 1955
Disclaimer Notice: This post & all my past & future posts represent parody &
satire & are all intended for entertainment and amusement only. To be
removed from the weekly list, please reply with the subject line "REMOVE"

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"total_truth_sciences" group.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
total_truth_sciences-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/total_truth_sciences

Reply via email to