http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-American-Empire-Is-Ban-by-Chris-Hedges-090616-211.html

The article is about that meeting Ahmedinajad is attending and it's implications for the end of American hegemony. A good read for those interested.

if it's the first of the two, just keep reminding yourself who these people work for. It's all in the Tarpley book, or, rather, if you read all of Tarpley's books you can do a pretty good job piecing this information together. these people aren't limited by the labels that are publicly attached to them. "liberal" "conservative" "democracy" "main street" "terrorism"…all are merely words, and as we humans use words them deceptive activities use words to confuse.

Tarpley focuses on the National Endowment for Democracy as one of the command centers for intelligence ops in Soviet Bloc countries. Do you think "democracy" isn't an odious notion in these activities? it is regime change, pure and simple.

thanks for bringing the Tarpley angle up, either way. I personally think that his brain is like a freight train of good ideas and good information. he has helped me a great deal.

Wilwon32: Welcome. Very important and relevant comment, thank you. Here is a link to a Russian Documentary 'Plan Kavkaz':
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:pwhlKsd9GQcJ:www.ciaonet.org/pbei/cw/0001176/0001176.pdf+%22Anton+Vernitsky%22&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&ie=UTF-8

It mainly focuses on Turkish operatives in Chechnya, but those operatives are also connected to the people you mention here & the CIA. I know it is Channel 1 Russian TV, state-owned thus it's own propaganda, but I can vouch for the accuracy without 'being able' to go into details…Thanks to the SSP. Hope to have you with us regularly.

Eric, Ishmael, and Metemneurosis: you'll find it interesting. The core information touches my case…

A key target of Webster Tarpley's focus is Mr Zbigniew Brzezinski, a a politically very well connected, foreign policy expert. Brzezninski's strategies were among those acknowledged as fundamental for American foreign policy decisions during a large portion of the 40+ year contest with Russia after World War II.

On page 101 of Tarpley's book, begins a chapter titled 'Obama campaign linked to Chechen terrorism', subtitled 'Grant of taxpayer-funded U.S. asylum for Chechen terror envoy gave Obama foreign policy guru Zbigniew Brzezinski "one of the happiest days of my life"'. In this section of the book, a description of the activities of Mr Ilyas Khamzatovich Akhmadov. Mr Akhmadov has recently been living in the Woodly Park section of Washington D C with the blessing of the G W Bush administration. In 2004, Mr Akhmadov apparently won court approval which granted permanent asylum; it is not clear who paid $250,000 of legal fees to facilitate his asylum hearings. Under urging of Z Brzezinski, Mr Akhmadov was granted a U S taxpayer funded Reagan-Fascell grant (duration unknown) by the State Department; the grant provides 'a generous stipend for living expenses, an office at the National Endowment for Democracy complete with private secretary, plus extra money for travel and public relations purposes'.

As background, a Mr Shamil Basayev (reputed Chechyan rebel leader and CIA agent) was killed by Russian troops following the 2004 Chechyn rebel attack on a school in Beslan, North Ossetia which resulted in deaths of more than 300 children. Mr Basayev had been the 'direct superior officer, mentor, and friend of Mr Ilyas K Akhmadov, the current protege of Z. Brzezniski'. In the 1990s, Mr Akhmadov had been involved in the government of Chechnya at times when rebel groups committed severe damage/atrocities which were apparently not properly investigated/pursued by Mr Akhmadov, a prominent operative in the government of Chechnya. Mr Akhmadov has been the object of investigations by the Russian government in regard to the Chechyn rebel activities; in UN deliberations, he has apparently been declared by Russia to be a terrorist. These factors had not gone un-noticed in 2003, when 'House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin) and the chairman of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, John Hostettler (R-Indiana) jointly demanded that then Attorney General John Ashcroft review the ruling that granted Akhmadov political asylum.' They apparently declared "If the United States had evidence that Mr Akhmadov was involved in terrorist activities, it is unclear why he was not barred from asylum as a terrorist and as a danger to the security of our nation." Following Mr Akhmadov's success in the US court contest, Mr Brzeznisky expressed great satisfaction with the outcome." This scandal was eventually exposed in the pages of 'Johnson's Russia List', the scholarly clearing house for information about Russia. W G Tarpley then explains the efforts of Professor Robert Bruce Ware of Southern Illinois University to challenge the Washington Post writings of Mr Mathew Brzezinski (son of Z B) to defend Mr Akhmadov. I, for one, did not understand all of the issues when I originally read about Mr Akhmadov's involvement in the Chechen rebel activities. Webster Tarpley's explanation, while a bit disjointed, helps put that bit of Bush Administration confusion in perspective, though I still can't figure out how supposedly arch conservative John Ashcroft was able to reconcile harboring a terrorist so that the State Department could then spend unknown quantities of US tax dollars to support Mr Akhmadov's opulent life style here in America!

Apart from that, once the whistle was blown, the press whistle did remain silent. Presumably Time leadership did not get a downstream stonewall, but cause and effect reasoning, or threats?

M. – Also, make waves vs. go with the flow is a moral code question. A matter of attitude as well as anything. Presumably Sibel, given a plausible reason to continue facing a status quo, might have.

EP and others – Many of you people know more than I do. Please keep up that kind of suggestion, for SE and readers.

With regard to other DEAs lending support to Gonzalez's story, have you tried contacting Cele Castillo, the former DEA agent (and author of "Powderburns")? Or, perhaps, you could find out some information by contacting Peter Dale Scott? These would probably be good sources to explore.

Another name that I think of when reading this story is Terry Reed, the author of "Compromised." The reason I say this is because Time Magazine did a hit-piece on Reed in '92, in the run-up to the election in November (Reed's information dealt with then-Gov. Bill Clinton and Mena, Arkansas, drug-running, Nicaragua, CIA). I haven't personally vetted many of the details of Reed's story, but huge parts of it have certainly been confirmed in later years (like Gary Webb's Dark Alliance)…as he was supposed to be a contract employee of the CIA, you might want to look him up for your project.

If I think of anything else I'll be sure to let you know.

As for whether there is some higher cause for the apparent corruption here, what would be the point of having members of the DEA taking payments from death squads? If it was part of a sting why couldn't they just quietly tell Mr. Gonzalez before or after the original complaints were made? How would telling him, here in his US office, compromise a sting in Bogota?

Mr. Gonzalez has worked at the DEA for 27 years. He probably knows the inner workings of the department pretty well. I'm sure he tried to think through all the different explanations that could be offered on the government's behalf. So I think we can believe his version of events on the assumption that if there are other possible explanations he's ruled them out already.

We could always think of some logically possible elaborate internal double-bluff sting operation as an explanation here but I think we can rule that out on the basis of giving too much strategic planning credit to the higher-ups.

If anyone can think of some other explanations I'm missing here, however, I'm open to being corrected. (not being sarcastic)

KEEP YOUR FRIENDS CLOSE AND YOUR ENEMIES CLOSER.

CIA primarily has to gain, analyze and pass on intelligence for higher stages.

Think of a stacked series of sieves of decreasing mesh size. Things get winnowed out at one sizing level or another to avoid info overloading decision stages. At any level one person only sees a part of what the agency "knows and thinks." Also the adage holds, "If I control your information I don't mind your making decisions." Things are in that tension in any extended organization.

DEA, like FBI, is a crime prevention and enforcement effort. But for DEA in engaging other soverign powers there are subtle things at top levels that might be unapparent or confusing to those at lower compartments.

Needed top-level compromise between a US agency and others may at lower levels appear as tolerating corruption unnecessarily, suggesting corruption reaches one's own top levels. Then, what is proper treatment for people in the field when they are the messenger bringing bad news; or going outside of channels to blow bad news whistles? Are they a threat to upset a corrupt applecart or rocking a precariously balanced boat between soverign states?

With episodic, indirect and circumstantial evidence in the field, what valid conclusions can be drawn about one's home office honesty and policy apparatus?

It is the age-old judging the judges problem.

In the film Braveheart, a lasting scenes for me is King Edward throwing his son's advisor out the window. It seems anyone in a position at all near a "king" must show care around upper story windows; whistleblowers included.

Whistleblowing is a preemptive act under an individual's own moral code AS PREEMINENT over knowing and sensing of any "other set of rules." The problem I see the blog aimed at is finding a universal moral code and then finding the role and maximized power of whistleblowing in that context. Absent a universal code, whistleblowers making their own rules may prove counterproductive.

Tension arises because the moral code the system actually employs is different from the black-and-white one taught serving folks – it is the subtle-shades-of-grey code operative among agenda setters, those specifying the general public's training.

We at the lower ranks looking on, what is realistic for us in the sense of accomplishing what is best for everybody – and what is counterproductive?

There are premises underlying this blog's effort and perhaps there will evolve a method to the madness. Recall Brandeis -

"Sunshine is the best disinfectant."

However, hauling the apparatus all into the sunshine is not easy and perhaps not best. It might prove impossible, as part of the ongoing human condition, ghosts in the machine and all.

By 2050, where will we be? By year 2300, where?

Humankind survives, becoming ever more skilled in science and its positive and negative applications. Whatever cultural throwbacks there have been, perfecting of ever more effective weapons has moved linearly or more rapidly.

SO — Whistleblowing has a place; it vexes those pulling the strings; and the devil's always in details.

End of screed. Even if unwittingly counterproductive to large truths, we agree whistleblowers almost always are well-intentioned public servants in the best and honest sense of the term, and free of improper motive or agendas.

Going back to the old saying, is institutional tolerance for deviant wrong behavior of DEA field officials a sign of corruption, or of wisely keeping enemies close enough to know what is better known than guessed at by decision makers?

The notion in any hierarchy, CIA, FBI, or DEA, seems to be pass on what you know, but don't judge those higher in the hierarchy in their judgment.

Sibel and her commentators are not at judgment making levels. We only are looking and guessing. We could be wrong or hasty.

For others – would it be wrong to suspect that CIA operations are sometimes facilitated by DEA corruption. Is there any chance that's the case here.

That was one of the major points of this report: 3 other veteran DEA agents, despite the risk yo their careers (some still work for DEA), and despite life-threats, did exactly that. The MSM made sure the info was quashed. Same with documents: plenty; official documents. Again, all buried.

I think the allegations here are very serious. I suppose one way to get around the possible media censorship would be to have other DEA officers lend public support to Mr. Gonzales. As long as he is alone, the skeptics among us cannot place the Kent report within a proper context. Accusations are one thing – IG findings another.

Columbia is America's toughest drug-case, and discussing paramilitaries without mention of FARC, is disingenous. It is a perfect example of a the environment America's agencies contend with.

Drugs in Columbia are controlled by powerful factions within the country's elite – as well as having considerable impact on farmers. FARC enjoys popular support in many areas- for precisely this reason. It is close to impossible to intervene responsibly in this context.

DEA corruption is another mater. Oftentimes, sting operations involve actual authorized corruption – but in Bogota – I think it would be foolhardy to try to eliminate any socialite due to a drug connection – unless we were talking of someone very specific, big, ambitious, and dangerous to the status-quo.

To Mr. Gonzales: Thank you from the deepest place. I don't know how to explain my gratitude for what you have done. I'm recording the story you've shared in a database, along with the other stories Ms. Edmonds is bringing to us. I will share them with my friends and family, and encourage them to share them too.

The story you've presented has so much meaning to all those who have been effected by the war. The war on drugs, on families, on the Constitution.

Although you are presenting the rest of us with information that is ignored and derailed by the MSM, please know that you are heard and appreciated by the ever growing masses that are listening.

You are NOT alone. Just the opposite.

So it's certainly difficult to know what exactly to believe most of the time. I try not to dismiss things just because they sound like conspiracy theories, however, and I spend a fair amount of time trying to look at different media outlets, comparing and contrasting stories and reading up on the background material and tracking down obscure sources. But I still don't really have enough time to keep up with all I'd like to. So I don't feel informed enough to form competent opinions on a lot of the sort of narratives that might for instance be given in say Mr. Tarpley's book or on certain websites. Once you start trying to investigate stories of government cover-ups, especially on the internet, you come upon things that range from patently absurd to almost certainly true. Unfortunately most stuff is in that vague shadowy middle area.

I have no doubt about the stories being presented here. I also have no doubt that organizations like CFR, Trilateral, and many others have tremendous influence behind the scenes. But I'm often loath to talk about them on sites like this because they're such standard scapegoats for 'conspiracy theorists'. (And let's be clear there really are gullible and uninformed conspiracy nuts out there) But I'm uncertain whether it's really quite right to call CFR or Trilateral a 'secret government'. Even if everything you said about them were true if you used this kind of dramatic language you'd be asking for the label 'conspiracy theorist'.

It would be great to have a lot more discussion of groups like these and the way they actually go about influencing policy. It would also be great to have recommendations of things to read in that regard for time-strapped people like myself. That's one of the main reasons I come here – to get a little better feel for how to separate conspiracy chaff from factual wheat.

It would be especially interesting to hear from some of the whistleblowers (even if only anonymously) on their experiences with the inner workings of government and what it is that creates the conditions for the kind of corruption we see here. Is it a problem of the way the system is set up? If so let's hear some specific examples. Is it certain individuals? Perhaps certain ones who've been a bad influence behind the scenes for long periods.

What do you guys think of people like Brzezinski and Kissinger? How much influence do they really have?

Anon on Obama Changomania: Thank you, and you are right.

My DEA friends and those involved in reporting this major scandal are reading your comments with great interest. Please add your voice and let them know they are not alone.

From the looks of things, things in the USA will only get worse, however, for the simple reason that the general public has no idea what is going on.

YouTube should be used here, along with this blog.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RD8OOyoavZM&feature=related

Kathleen M

Having just read (only a portion) of the book 'Obama the postmodern coup' written in 2008 during the campaign season, but prior to the election, W. G. Tarpley puts forth his analysis that Obama, like Jimmy Carter, was 'picked' by Z. Brzezinski the 'Empire's Adviser' who continues to be not only fixated on the destruction of Russia but is looked up to by the corporate/banking elites who run both the Democratic Party and Council of Foreign Relations/Trilateral Commission, etc. Tarpley explains how the latter group also controls the Democratic Party and probably (possibly) a branch of the CIA or 'dark government'. Thus, there are various elements who not only selected Obama, but watch to see that he does the 'right' thing. While many who supported the election of Obama (if only to avoid Mad-man McCain) are disappointed in his performance, it is likely that he will be a very effective front-man (Tarply uses the term – "Manchurian candidate') for those who actually run the government. (Many have already pointed out the inconsistencies between Obama's speech claims vs reality).

Good luck in this effort to display the ineptness of the MSM and the corrupt nature of the FBI, CIA, DEA, and, perhaps, DHS, FEMA, NSA, SS, etc. You should also remember that the agencies only represent that segment of society who have the money and who actually run the show.

I just wonder what amount of activity has to be financed this way.

If Iran-Contra , which resulted in a few convictions, wasnt capable of making a dent then i dont know what will be. the corruption is too entrenched. it would literally take large numbers of workers in these agencies just quitting and trying to expose it all at once.

http://www.narconews.com/Issue57/article3554.html

Metemneurosis: Sandy will read this today. He is a member of our organization (MSNBC); a man of integrity.

IMHOTEP: And you were right. Time Magazine has blacked out every single story related to NS Whistleblowers since mid 2002. No coverage of SSP either.

MMONK: They have a very cozy relationship & arrangements with their government sources…

I've also read about US intelligence interests infiltrating the DEA, the MSM and organized crime in the 1960's & 1970's.
We should not be naive enough to think that this has not continued nor that those 'assets' are not now in positions of leadership/control within their organizations. Silencing this bit of truth was al in a days work.

Thanks for exposing this bit of 'truth', and hanging the Times and their Tims with a red letter.