In 1966 the CIA launched the Phoenix Project

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.newwest.net/index.php/main/article/9930/

Beheading, Hooding, and Waterboarding: CIA Torture in Vietnam, Latin America, and Iraq

By Nick Gier, Unfiltered 7-15-06

In 1966 the CIA launched the Phoenix Project, a program designed to destroy the South Vietnamese Communists, better known as the Viet Cong. Specially designed torture chambers were constructed in all 44 provinces and rape of women suspects, electric shock, water torture, and hanging from ceilings were standard methods during interrogations.

Of the tens of thousands of South Vietnamese detained, at least 20,000 were summarily executed. Copying a Viet Cong practice, the severed heads of those executed were frequently displayed in the villages. Even more common was collecting the ears of dead Communist troops. snip

In 1975 CIA director of George Bush, Sr. had already set up the Latin American equivalent of the Phoenix Project. Called "Plan Condor" the CIA enlisted the services of Cuban exiles and the deadly Chilean DINA to orchestrate the torture and assassination of leftist leaders. Under this program Latin American military rulers tortured and "disappeared" thousands of their opponents.

Negroponte oversaw a huge military buildup in Honduras and was a principal player in arming the Contras and directing their terrorist activities against the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. Although he constantly denied it, he surely must have known about Batallion 3-16, one of many units responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Hondurans.

Battalion 3-16 was trained by the CIA, staffed by Argentine interrogators, and led by Gen. Discua Elvir, who was a graduate of the infamous School of the Americas (SOA), an army school that still trains Latin American security forces at Fort Benning, Georgia.

According to a UN Truth Commission report, two thirds of Salvadoran officers charged with human rights abuses were trained at SOA, and 40 percent of Guatamalan cabinet members were SOA graduates. Over 35 years an estimated 570,000 people died in El Salvador, Guatamala, and Honduras as a result of nationalist insurgencies and U.S.-supported responses to them.

In South America many countries are now embracing the leftist parties that the U. S. attempted to extirpate. For example, Chile is now ruled by the party of Salvador Allende whom the CIA helped overthrow in 1973.

[ben_jenne]

1. Hey, Hey LBJ! How many kids did you kill today?

[leveymg]

2. I hear people saying we never tortured before. They 've forgotten Vietnam & Plan Condor

And others, like DiFi, claiming the CIA didn't really torture - it was all the contractors.

At Abu Ghraib and Baghram Air Base, the CIA called them "the knuckle-draggers", powerfully built grey-haired men in their 60's, contracted from CACI and Titan Corp., body shops that supply everything to the Pentagon and Intelligence Community that the government itself can't or won't keep on its own payroll. Including professional torturers, with professional experience gained in Southeast Asian wars that America lost three decades ago, in large part because we lost the hearts and minds of those populations "we had to destroy in order to save."

The CIA and other agencies gave the orders and asked the questions, but these guys poured the water and turned the screws for $515 a day, tax free, plus per diem expenses.

[OneGrassRoot]

3. This may be a naive and stupid question....

but isn't there a difference with BushCo as far as them setting it up as official policy?

We've always known this stuff goes on, as repugnant as it is.

But there seems to be something especially insidious about BushCo making this acceptable...changing the laws to do so, unlike other administrations keeping their distance from these activities.

That may not be the case. That's my impression though, so I'm curious....

[leveymg]

4. There weren't these sorts of torture documents in the Pentagon Papers,

that I recall. Plenty of really bad stuff about liquidating Viet Cong cadre and body counts, and such, but the specifications of specific torture techniques didn't make it into the archives. In fact, lots of prisoners got waterboarded and thrown out of Hueys.

There's a level of CYA with the Bush-Cheney crew, though, that's unprecedented. Very pathological and self-destructive.

[OneGrassRoot]

5. Thank you...

much appreciated.

Yes, pathological and destructive.

[karynnj]

8. A recent book on abuses in Vietnam was written from the military's own investigations

The comment is made that they investigated whenever the press started to pick up on something done wrong - not because they wanted to get to the bottom of it, but so they could tell the reporter that it was already under investigation.

about the crimes that were committed in Vietnam and investigated by the US military. From the review it seems to be a very well researched book that, like many earlier sources, shows Kerry spoke the truth in 1971. It might be good for countering the RW and even moderate Democrats who still deny the truth.

"Villagers, acting as human minesweepers, walked ahead of troops in dangerous areas to keep Americans from being blown up. Prisoners were subjected to a variation on waterboarding and jolted with electricity. Teenage boys fishing on a lake, as well as children tending flocks of ducks, were killed. “There are hundreds of such reports in the war-crime archive, each one dutifully recorded, sometimes with no more than a passing sentence or two, as if the killing were as routine as the activity it interrupted,” Deborah Nelson writes in “The War Behind Me.”

The archive, housed at the University of Michigan, holds documents from Col. Henry Tufts, former chief of the Army’s investigative unit, that reveal widespread killing and abuse by American troops in Vietnam. Most of these actions are not known to the public, even though the military investigated them. The crimes are similar to those committed at My Lai in 1968. Yet, as Nelson contends, most Ameri­cans still think the violence was the work of “a few rogue units,” when in fact “every major division that served in Vietnam was represented.” Precisely how many soldiers were involved, and to what extent, is not known, but she shows that the abuse was far more common than is generally believed. Her book helps explain how this misunderstanding came about.
<snip>

“Get the Army off the front page,” President Richard Nixon reportedly said. Investigations were a good way to do that. A cover-up attracts attention; a crime that is being looked into does not. The military investigations, Nelson argues, were designed not to hold rapists and murderers accountable, but to deflect publicity. When reporters heard about a war crime, they’d call the Army to see if it would provide information. If they suspected a cover-up, they’d pursue the story. If a military spokesman said an investigation was under way, the story was usually dropped.

<snip>
“If we rationalize it as isolated acts, as we did in Vietnam and as we’re doing with Abu Ghraib,” a retired brigadier general tells her, “we’ll never correct the problem. Counterinsurgency operations involving foreign military forces will inevitably result in such acts, and we will pay the costs in terms of moral legitimacy.” Whether it’s Vietnam or Iraq, the truth is disturbing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/books/review/McKelvey-t.html

[leveymg]

11. CIA's Phoenix Project tortured and murdered tens of thousands of Vietnamese detainees

Beheading, Hooding, and Waterboarding: CIA Torture in Vietnam ...Beheading, Hooding, and Waterboarding: CIA Torture in Vietnam, Latin America, and Iraq. Unfiltered By Nick Gier, Unfiltered 7-15-06 ...
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/main/article/9930/

In 1966 the CIA launched the Phoenix Project, a program designed to destroy the South Vietnamese Communists, better known as the Viet Cong. Specially designed torture chambers were constructed in all 44 provinces and rape of women suspects, electric shock, water torture, and hanging from ceilings were standard methods during interrogations.

Of the tens of thousands of South Vietnamese detained, at least 20,000 were summarily executed. Copying a Viet Cong practice, the severed heads of those executed were frequently displayed in the villages. Even more common was collecting the ears of dead Communist troops.

In the era of paper-only records and burn bags, it was easier to make documents disappear.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

12. I totally agree...

"Setting it (torture) up as official policy" is stupid when it comes to our international image. How many CIA directors did Georgy-girl Jr. go through before he found the perfect puppet, anyhow? It seems like it was four. The CIA is better without the influence of idiots. All those two nit-wits seek to serve is themselves and their ultra-rich buddies. Sadly, they were and are willing to misuse the CIA to achieve that goal.

[karynnj]

6. A recent book on abuses in Vietnam was written from the military's own investigations

The comment is made that they investigated whenever the press started to pick up on something done wrong - not because they wanted to get to the bottom of it, but so they could tell the reporter that it was already under investigation.

about the crimes that were committed in Vietnam and investigated by the US military. From the review it seems to be a very well researched book that, like many earlier sources, shows Kerry spoke the truth in 1971. It might be good for countering the RW and even moderate Democrats who still deny the truth.

"Villagers, acting as human minesweepers, walked ahead of troops in dangerous areas to keep Americans from being blown up. Prisoners were subjected to a variation on waterboarding and jolted with electricity. Teenage boys fishing on a lake, as well as children tending flocks of ducks, were killed. “There are hundreds of such reports in the war-crime archive, each one dutifully recorded, sometimes with no more than a passing sentence or two, as if the killing were as routine as the activity it interrupted,” Deborah Nelson writes in “The War Behind Me.”

The archive, housed at the University of Michigan, holds documents from Col. Henry Tufts, former chief of the Army’s investigative unit, that reveal widespread killing and abuse by American troops in Vietnam. Most of these actions are not known to the public, even though the military investigated them. The crimes are similar to those committed at My Lai in 1968. Yet, as Nelson contends, most Ameri­cans still think the violence was the work of “a few rogue units,” when in fact “every major division that served in Vietnam was represented.” Precisely how many soldiers were involved, and to what extent, is not known, but she shows that the abuse was far more common than is generally believed. Her book helps explain how this misunderstanding came about.
<snip>

“Get the Army off the front page,” President Richard Nixon reportedly said. Investigations were a good way to do that. A cover-up attracts attention; a crime that is being looked into does not. The military investigations, Nelson argues, were designed not to hold rapists and murderers accountable, but to deflect publicity. When reporters heard about a war crime, they’d call the Army to see if it would provide information. If they suspected a cover-up, they’d pursue the story. If a military spokesman said an investigation was under way, the story was usually dropped.

<snip>
“If we rationalize it as isolated acts, as we did in Vietnam and as we’re doing with Abu Ghraib,” a retired brigadier general tells her, “we’ll never correct the problem. Counterinsurgency operations involving foreign military forces will inevitably result in such acts, and we will pay the costs in terms of moral legitimacy.” Whether it’s Vietnam or Iraq, the truth is disturbing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/books/review/McKelvey-t.html

[Democracyinkind]

7. I wondered what happened to the software Colby and Decamp used in Phoenix.

Always wondered if our "Manhattan project like" gadget in Iraq was an updated version of the commie name spewing devils machine that they used back in Vietnam.
Who knows maybe the Monarch Rumors will turn out to be true.

[undergroundpanther]

10. They who want others

to murder and torture whom they command to suffer so they can be rich and dominate the world are psychopath evil parasite cowards.Yet still the non-psychopath people fail to recognize the history of politics is a long conspirasy. Et Tu Brutus?...
Truth is knowledge, but it is also a weapon.


http://ratifynow.org/2009/01/06/forced-psychiatric-treatment-is-torture-says-united-nations/

http://www.cchr.org/psychiatry_an_industry_of_death_museum/psychiatric_torture_and_mind_control.html

http://groups.google.com.gp/group/alt.crime/browse_thread/thread/b74c58640883c46a8/

http://www.geocities.com/area51/shadowlands/6583/project120.html

[formercia]

9. I worked with some of those very Argentines.

They were quite the arrogant bunch. They ended up going off and doing their own thing, like invading the Falklands.

[gulfcoastliberal]

14. In Operation Condor? nt

[formercia]

15. No.

It had nothing to do with that, that I was aware of.

When you're in the trenches, you see very little. Only what they want you to see or you need to see to do your job.

[jmowreader]

13. Another view of Project Phoenix, from someone who was there

My favorite book is Slow Burn by Orrin DeForest. Mr. DeForest was a CIA interrogator in Vietnam who created a "data bank," a sort of database but on index cards, and used it to completely change the direction of the war in South Vietnam's Military District III. DeForest writes on pages 55-56 of his book, and unfortunately I must be a bad boy here by putting five paragraphs here:

I went into every single district-level Phoenix office in all the Region Three provinces, and the first thing I'd ask was to see a wiring diagram. "Please show me," I'd say, "a wiring diagram identifying the structure and membership of the Vietcong district party committee." And without a single exception the answer was, "Oh, we don't have anything like that."

At the same time, I knew that Phoenix was reporting large numbers of VC captured and killed (several years later in a congressional hearing Colby (William Colby was CIA Chief of Station, Saigon, in 1969, when DeForest first arrived in Vietnam) announced that Phoenix was responsible for killing twenty thousand members of the VC infrastructure.) But the more I learned about Phoenix, the clearer it was that the statistics were phony. Although I could never tell with any certainty what percentage of the reported VC dead were actually the result of Phoenix operations, one thing was beyond doubt: most of the capturing and killing was done not by Phoenix but by the Regional and Popular forces under the direction of the South Vietnamese province chiefs.

These Regional Forces normally did quite a good job and were involved in wide-scale fighting. They were made up of people who were protecting their own homes and villages, people who hated the VC or disliked the Communist philosophy, and who had a lot of local support. They regularly inflicted heavy losses on the VC. Half the time Phoenix would claim credit for the casualties, saying that they had done the targeting. But that was ridiculous. They were rarely successful. The local (Provincial Reconnaissance Unit) team might set an ambush, or get involved in a firefight, or would come across the casualties of another engagement, and all of it went into the Phoenix hopper: the guilty, the innocent, the enemy killed in action, the casual bodies along the roadside. They'd carry them in and count them up. And that was Phoenix, at least in Military Region Three at the beginning of 1969. I found it hard to believe it might be any different in Regions One, Two or Four.

As I began to understand this--and it wasn't difficult to understand; all the Phoenix advisers were telling me the same thing--I also began to understand why Colby was making the reports he was. For someone who wanted to go into the field and track down the process of reporting, figuring out what was going on was relatively easy. But Colby did not attempt to do this and consequently he did not know what was fact and what was fiction. When he visited a province he would buy the province briefing. In Saigon he would get the statistics across his desk, period. And what did he--or anyone else at CORDS--know about how they were developed? The district Phoenix committees would write up their phony statistics on captured and killed and report these to the province level, which gussied them up further and reported to the regional level, which reported to Saigon. Just what Major Jack Black had described to me on my first day in Bien Hoa. And CORDS in Saigon compiled and reported out these statistics as Phoenix casualties.

Somewhat later the Phoenix program became the center of a roaring controversy in the United States because it was supposedly assassinating everyone in sight. But it was not. Every one of the advisers told me exactly the same thing: "You don't have the structure of the cadre in your district?" No. "Or in the villages?" No. "Then how do you target on them?" "We don't target on them. The (Regional Forces) brings in the bodies." It did not take long before I had concluded that the vaunted Phoenix was nothing but a bust and a fake. Yes, the people were being killed--at least a lot of them were--but it wasn't Phoenix that was killing them.
.
Remember the name Major Jack Black? This is what he told DeForest about VC body counts: "All the PRU are reporting false information about wounded, killed and captured. They count the bodies at the village, they count them again at the district, then they count them at the province. It's a goddam geometric progression of bodies. I've told the colonel a thousand times, but all I ever get from him is "Don't rock the boat." He always says we'll be leaving soon anyway so what the hell is the difference?"

In short, don't believe a hell of a lot of anything you hear about the Vietnam War.

[leveymg]

16. The terms FUBAR and SNAFU weren't invented in Baghdad

But, the basic fact remains that the US engaged in a systematic policy of torture and murder of detainees in Vietnam on a scale that was vastly larger in numbers (no matter how overreported) than in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The difference in this case is that expectations of CYA may be greater for CIA and DIA people on the ground, and the Bush-Cheney lawyers were stupid enough to word process detailed authorizations and hit the send button. Once that happened, the evidence went into distributed data bases to 16 IC agencies, with a copy to half a dozen "friendly" intelligence services. You have to believe that even the most opaque officials in the DOJ knew that this was going to come out and that they would be facing either Congressional committees or grand juries, or both. Certainly, the people at the Agencies did, which is why they demanded and got these CYA memos. It didn't really work that way in the 1960s.

[flyarm]

17. THIS IS A VERY INSTRUMENTAL THREAD TO EDUCATE THE YOUNG HERE,,

Thank you everyone for taking the time to educate..those of us of the Vietnam Era , and Iran Contra, and the Iran hotage time know very well that what we are seeing is a repeat of what we have all seen before. And we know if this is not stopped now and people held accountable, the atrocites and the people responsible will show up again in our lives and will be free to repeat this shit over and over again!

I know I was sick to my stomach when I saw that Obama sent Kissinger to Russia to represent his adminstration shortly after taking office..I felt truely sick to my stomach.

I FELT EVEN SICKER WHEN I READ THIS............

Remarks by National Security Adviser Jones at 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy

Published February 8, 2009
Speaker: James L. Jones


U.S. National Security Adviser Jones ( edit to add: new advisor hired by Obama!!!!) gave these remarks at the 45th Munich Conference on Security Policy at the Hotel Bayerischer Hof on February 8, 2009.

"Thank you for that wonderful tribute to Henry Kissinger yesterday. Congratulations. As the most recent National Security Advisor of the United States, I take my daily orders from Dr. Kissinger, filtered down through General Brent Scowcroft and Sandy Berger, who is also here. We have a chain of command in the National Security Council that exists today.


Source: http://www.cfr.org/publication/18515/remar... ...

[karynnj]

18. Obama did not send Kissinger, Kissinger was part of an independent

delegation. (This is not that unusual - remember in 2005 or 2006, John Edwards and Jack Kemp went to Moscow and later issued a report - Did George Bush 'send' John Edwards? Does this make Edwards a Bush adviser? I would guess that he would fight that designation tooth and nail. ) Now, I do expect that Obama and his foreign policy team should read a report and/or get a briefing because the insights might be useful. I thought it was appalling that Bush and Rice had no interest in a briefing from Kerry on his early 2005 trip to the Middle East and Europe. They were miles apart politically, but Kerry was a very experienced foreign policy person whose insights were pretty much what was later recommended by the Bush appointed Iraq Study Group. (Bush actually blew off the ISG too) I think it great that Obama would listen to him and Scowcroft, in addition to his own team and people like Kerry and Lugar and other SFRC people. Listening does not mean following.

You need to consider the audience for the Jones' comment, the Council of Foreign Relations - it was a sophisticated joke - Kissinger, Scowcroft, Berger are NOT in Obama's administration and actually do not have jobs that even let them see anything that is classified. The joke is that they are all in the "line" of having been National Security Advisors. (It is also likely that all three named are CFL members - as it is bipartisan) It also would diminish Jones' job if those three men were higher in the chain of information and advise than he is. I really can't believe that people are posting that as serious - which has happened for months.

Berger is now working for National Scurity Network, which Rand Beers started - note that both Beers and Holbrooke are mentioned as having left to work for Obama - not so Berger. There would be major controversy had he done so. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Network)

You've made it abundantly clear that you neither trust or like Obama, but you would have more credibility on the issues where you can argue against an appointment or a program, if you didn't make conspiracy tin foil hats arguments like this.

[flyarm]

20. Cold warrior Henry Kissinger woos Russia for Barack Obama

I ..flyarm did not make this up..I flyarm, did not write this for all to read, I flyarm, did not send Kissinger..I however posted what was written in the British papers and also Bloomberg!
Appologies accepted, but i don't expect that!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4530042/Cold-warrior-Henry-Kissinger-woos-Russia-for-Barack-Obama.html

Cold warrior Henry Kissinger woos Russia for Barack Obama


Henry Kissinger, the pioneer of Cold War detente during the Nixon era, has made a return to frontline politics after President Barack Obama reportedly sent him to Moscow to win backing from Vladimir Putin's government for a nuclear disarmament initiative.

By Adrian Blomfield, Moscow Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:14AM GMT 06 Feb 2009

The Daily Telegraph has learned that the 85-year-old former US secretary of state met President Dmitry Medvedev for secret negotiations in December. According to Western diplomats, during two days of talks the octogenarian courted Russian officials to win their support for Mr Obama's initiative, which could see Russia and the United States each slashing their nuclear warheads to 1,000 warheads.

The decision to send Mr Kissinger to Moscow, taken by Mr Obama when he was still president-elect, is part of a plan to overcome probable Republican objections in Congress.

snip:

Mr Obama apparently chose Mr Kissinger for his consummate diplomatic skills and his popularity in Moscow, an affection earned by his open acknowledgment of Russia's international resurgence.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

BLOOMBERG: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aj_...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x434226

Kissinger Leads ‘Wise Men’ to Russia as Obama Seeks Better Ties By Lucian Kim

March 18 (Bloomberg) -- Henry Kissinger and James Baker, two former U.S. secretaries of state, will fly to Moscow for talks with Russian officials after President Barack Obama pledged to “reset” relations with Russia.

Kissinger, who met with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in December, is scheduled to return later this week, according to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow. Baker, traveling separately, will hold talks with American investors and address a conference on developing Caspian Sea energy resources.

“These guys are building the bridge from the real diplomacy of the Bush Sr. administration to Obama,” said Nina Khrushcheva, an international affairs professor at the New School in New York. “Diplomatically inclined Republicans can make a better opening line because they come from successful relations in the past.”

Obama, a Democrat, is seeking to strengthen ties to Russia and win Kremlin support for his policies on Afghanistan, Iran and nuclear arms reduction. Vice President Joe Biden said in February it was time to “reset” relations after they reached a post-Cold War low under former President George W. Bush.

Kissinger is among a group of U.S. “wise men,” including former Secretary of State George Shultz, ex-Defense Secretary William Perry and former Senator Sam Nunn, who will see Medvedev on March 20, the Kommersant newspaper reported today. They will also meet with Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov, former Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov and ex-Chief of General Staff Yury Baluyevsky, Kommersant said.

MORE...

BLOOMBERG: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aj_...



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

as far as what you consider a "joke" by Jones..i neither find it a joke or funny coming from Obama's National Security Advisor.

[karynnj]

21. The Daily Telegraph is a right wing UK paper

that gets almost all American stories wrong.

Read the Bloomberg story closely. Though they bounce back and forth between what Obama is doing and what Kissinger is doing, NOT A SINGLE SENTENCE CONNECTS THEM.

Kissinger and all went to Russia after Obama spoke of resetting the relationship. This does NOT mean that these two things are related.

The next 2 paragraphs are on the Kissinger/Baker groups plans - nothing is said about Obama.

The next paragraph says what Obama's goals are.

Then is goes back to describing Kissinger's plans.

(your link doesn't work - here's one that does: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aMiQ11h183F4

[flyarm]

22. The Daily Telegraph was fine here when we all used it as references about Bush though..right?

and it was used here for years and years as a reference ..about Bush and his doings..the hypocracy here is just amazing..do a little search here at Du and see how damn many times the Telegraph was one of the main sources here about Bush..please..i dare you to look that up!!

In fact the Daily Telegraph was used here an enormous amount on the Dr Kelly story for instance, and the Story about Powell Lying to get us into a war, and many many other stories..so are you saying they are lying, because if that is your point, you need to understand , that unlike here in the uSA where it is legal for the press to lie..in England it is not legal, in fact it is extremely illegal for the newpapers to lie in the UK, and they are held responsible if they do so.

[karynnj]

23. I never linked to the Daily Telegraph - to make sure, I used advance search

on LBN, GD, and GD-P back to this time in 2006. The only hits were this one and two others, where my post cautioned on using that source - once for a story that painted HRC in a bad light and the other a pro-Lieberman/anti all the people against him article - no links. (I post extensively on the Kerry group, but I didn't look there because we intentionally would pick things up from anywhere to counter them. In that case, they would be in context.)

The fact is I doubt there were many anti-Bush articles that were linked to here from the Telegram - it was rather pro Bush, for a British paper. The Daily Mail (a tabloid), the Independent and the Guardian - all left leaning - were used more often as was the Murdoch owned Times of London. The British source I saw most often on Kelly and Powell was the Guardian. Where I saw the Telegraph was in the primaries - when some partisans on each side used whatever they could - in many cases to their discredit.

What I am saying here is that American papers did not say that Obama sent Kissinger. My quess is that the Telegraph conflated what Obama was saying and this trip by a large number of Americans to Russia. i think they are not accurate.

In the US as well as the UK, it is illegal to slander. While it is true that the rules of proving slander are easier in the UK than the US, it is not true that everything is 100% well sourced and trustworthy - as The News of the World amply demonstrates. It is very possible to be wrong without it being provable that there was a lie. In addition, it does not prevent bias. Bias can be done by cherry picking which facts to include. (We've all seen every politician do this in the primaries on their opponents' records because many politician are running on platforms that are really pretty similar.) It could be by choice of adjective or other word choices. (Consider Hillary's laugh - which has positively been described as earthy, spontaneous, and genuine - it has negatively been called a cackle, embarrassing, and loud. Are any of these a lie? Not really, it is subjective, but they result in opposite reactions from a reader.)

Here the key is the accuracy of the two charges - not the quality of the paper, so I should not have even made that point. The charges are:

1) Obama sent Kissinger. I have yet to see any Obama administration mention (or thank you) on this, nor have I heard any of the Kissinger team make any comment about doing this for Obama or claiming to represent Obama.

2) That Kissinger through Scowcroff, then Berger directs Jones. You never answered how they can do this out of government without the security clearances and need to know to look at the incoming threats.

[flyarm]

24. Guardian good enough for you?? Just wondering..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/06/nuclear-disarmament-russia-us

Obama seeks nuclear disarmament deal with Russia
Ian Traynor in Munich and Luke Harding in Moscow
guardian.co.uk, Friday 6 February 2009 16.36 GMT
Article history


Barack Obama is reported to have quietly sent Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of state and security policy guru, to Moscow last month to test the waters.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

You might also do some research on Geithner..who worked for Kissinger and the CFR


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

here let me help you some more..

Henry Kissinger sent to Russia by Obama, Russians unimpressed?
February 8, 2009, 3:37AM

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/alexgreat/2009/02/henry-kissinger-sent-to-russia.php

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.buzzflash.net/story.php?id=1001906


xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/americas/us-sends-kissinger-to-broker-nuclear-deal-1630155.html
US sends Kissinger to broker nuclear deal
By Adrian Blomfield in Moscow


Friday February 06 2009

Henry Kissinger, the pioneer of Cold War detente during the Nixon era, has made a return to front-line politics after US President Barack Obama reportedly sent him to Moscow to win support from Vladimir Putin's government for a nuclear disarmament initiative.

Mr Obama apparently chose Mr Kissinger for his consummate diplomatic skills and his popularity in Moscow, an affection earned by his open acknowledgment of Russia's international resurgence.


Despite his pariah status with many in the Democratic Party, the president forged relations with Mr Kissinger during his election campaign. The compliment was returned when the 85-year-old veteran of the Nixon and Ford administrations said last month that the president was in a position to create a "new world order" by shifting US foreign policy away from the hostile stance of the Bush administration.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

there was another secret meeting of Kissinger with Russia..take a look here..and pnder..wtf is going on?????????
this from another administration..........

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18036.htm

When a political heavyweight, like Henry Kissinger, jets-off on a secret mission to Moscow; it usually shows up in the news.
Not this time.

This time the media completely ignored---or should we say censored—Kissinger’s trip to Russia and his meetings with Russian President Vladimir Putin. In fact, apart from a few short blurps in the Moscow Times and one measly article in the UK Guardian, no major news organization even covered the story. There hasn’t been as much as a peep out of anyone in the American media.


....hope this helps you figure out what is going on.,.because i can not for the life of me understand Obama sending Kissinger..the butcher of Cambodia ....anywhere but the Hague!

[Echo In Light]

19. Just the other day some were arguing that torture by the US was 'new'

And if I recall, the same ones were likewise taken aback by the notion that that lying is a politician's job :)