Sheila Casey

NY Times Complicit in FBI Anthrax Coverup

Published in the March, 2009 Rock Creek Free Press

by Sheila Casey

Back in 2001, just months after the anthrax attacks that killed five people, several articles came out in mainstream newspapers that pointed clearly to the CIA and Army as the most likely sources of the weaponized anthrax. Articles in The Baltimore Sun, Miami Herald, Washington Post and New York Times laid out the facts that incriminated Battelle Memorial Labs in West Jefferson, Ohio, and the Army’s lab at the Dugway Proving Grounds in Utah as the only logical sources for the anthrax. These facts, as reported in 2001, include:

1. For over a decade, Army scientists at Dugway have been making weapons-grade anthrax that is “virtually identical” to the anthrax used in the attacks.

2. The anthrax used in the 2001 attacks was extremely concentrated, with a trillion spores per gram. The Dugway anthrax had a similar concentration.

3. The FBI was increasingly focused on US government bioweapons research programs as the source of the deadly anthrax.

4. Both the lab in Utah and the lab in Ohio received anthrax samples from the United States Army Medical Research Institute for Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) at Fort Detrick, although USAMRIID deals only with wet anthrax and ships it wet.

5. The investigation was focused on the Dugway anthrax, and Dugway was described as the only facility that was known to be weaponizing anthrax.

6. One FBI official said that the CIA’s anthrax was “the best lead we have at this point.”

7. Army officials said that Fort Detrick did not have the equipment for weaponizing anthrax.

The FBI has never explained what became of this initial focus on the labs in Utah and Ohio. Instead, after the death of Fort Detrick anthrax researcher Bruce Ivins in July, 2008, the FBI attempted to make the case that Ivins was the murderer and all other suspects had been cleared of suspicion.

Since Ivins’ death, the media have, with very few exceptions, passively swallowed the line dispensed by the FBI, and have acted as little more than stenographers in parroting the hollow arguments presented by the FBI that Ivins is guilty.

Bush bribed reporters to ask specific questions

The Wall Street Journal editorialized today about the revelation that Obama was looking for specific reporters to call on in the White House press corps:

About half-way through President Obama's press conference Monday night, he had an unscripted question of his own. "All, Chuck Todd," the President said, referring to NBC's White House correspondent. "Where's Chuck?" He had the same strange question about Fox News's Major Garrett: "Where's Major?". . . .

The President was running down a list of reporters preselected to ask questions. The White House had decided in advance who would be allowed to question the President and who was left out. . . .

We doubt that President Bush, who was notorious for being parsimonious with follow-ups, would have gotten away with prescreening his interlocutors.

Former President Bush not only pre-screened his questioners, at least one of them was offered a ride on Air Force One if he asked the question the White House wanted asked. 

Although this story was related to me in 2006, I have held back on revealing it, as my friend Dermot Bennett was still a working journalist at the time.  Now, sadly, Dermot is too sick to work and not expected to recover.  His career will not be harmed by this revelation.

Dermot was a correspondent with Agence France Press.  He related this story to me (rough paraphrase):

I was sitting in the back of the White House briefing room when Tony Snow approached and asked me "How would you like to ride on Air Force One?"  I said "love to," and Tony said "Okay, when the President calls on you, please ask this question." 

And he told me what they wanted asked.

I put my hand up and Bush called on me by first name "Dermot."  I asked exactly the question they gave me and later was told who to contact to arrange for a trip on Air Force One.

Dermot then asked me (Sheila):  "So, you want to go on a ride with me on Air Force One?" 

I hate Bush and didn't want to be near him, so declined. 

Yet more evidence--as if we need it--that our press is utterly corrupt. The goings on in the White House briefing room amount to little more than mutual masturbation.

Obama now appears to be equally afraid of unscripted questions.  New boss, same as the old boss.

"Moving forward" and letting mass murderers go free

Back in the days before I woke up and extricated myself from the matrix, I thought I was well informed because I read The New York Times every day, especially the opinion section. 

I don't read it anymore, although I do glance at their headlines to see what the official spin is on the issues of the day. 

This piece from New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff is a stellar example of using a newspaper to spread propaganda.  It has the smell of being worked over by a disinfo committee trying to cram as many lies into one essay as possible. 

I won't dissect every obfuscation, but here are a few:

Kristoff is too smart to be blind to this fact:  Obama wanting to "move forward" and ignore the many crimes of the Bush admin should be a huge red flag to all those trusting, benighted souls who believed we'd turned the page into a new era of enlightened government. 

What criminal doesn't want to move forward and avoid punishment for his sins?  "Never mind about the innocent people I slowly tortured to death, that's in the past." 

What citizen, not to mention government official, should bother to obey the law when those who have taken a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution thumb their noses at it?

Kristof's reference to "Muslim terror groups," tells me he is either completely ignorant or taking orders from someone with a specific agenda. 

I'm not convinced there are any Muslim terror groups.  Whether in Gaza, Afghanistan or Iraq, what I see are desperate people trying to defend their land from vicious invaders with far greater firepower.  The biggest terror groups on the planet are based in Israel and Washington DC. 

As Paul Craig Roberts, former associate editor at the Wall St. Journal, put it in his recent essay The War on Terror is a Hoax: 

What Americans and Israelis call terror is the response of oppressed people who are stateless because their countries are ruled by puppets loyal to the oppressors. These people, dispossessed of their own countries, have no State Departments, Defense Departments, seats in the United Nations, or voices in the mainstream media. They can submit to foreign hegemony or resist by the limited means available to them.

Also, poor people in Africa and Latin America don't need more research into their diseases, so that more pharmaceuticals can be peddled to the third world.  They need help obtaining clean drinking water, wholesome food, a fair price for their labor, and avoiding the toxic chemicals that corporations like to dump in places where they can get away with it. 

Here are a few paragraphs from an essay which surely originated from the so called "intelligence" agencies.  No real journalist with a shred of self-respect would write such dreck.

Philip Zelikow?  Please!

Putting Torture Behind Us

Source: nytimes.com

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: January 28, 2009

President Obama is resisting calls for an investigation into torture and other abuses during the Bush years, so the chance to learn from our mistakes is slipping away.

Mr. Obama understandably wants to focus on economic recovery rather than a dissection of the past. Why fritter political capital on an inquest that would antagonize Republicans and imperil our economy and his agenda?

But as George Santayana, the eminent Harvard philosopher wrote: “Those who forget history are destined to repeat it.” Rather than lose forever the chance to grow from our missteps, here’s a two-step proposal for confronting the past without distracting from the work on the economic crisis.

The first step is to appoint a high-level commission — perhaps a McCain-Scowcroft Commission? — to investigate torture, secret detention and wiretapping during the Bush years, as well as to look ahead and offer recommendations for balancing national security and individual rights in the future.

This wouldn’t be a bipartisan commission, with Democrats and Republicans offsetting each other in seething distrust. Rather, it would be nonpartisan, dominated by military and security experts.

It could be co-chaired by Brent Scowcroft and John McCain, with its conclusions written by Philip Zelikow, a former aide to Condoleezza Rice who wrote the best-selling report of the 9/11 commission.

Are you gagging yet?  If you can bear it, here's the rest.

Former Wall St. Journal editor savages the mainstream media

I have a soft spot in my heart for Paul Craig Roberts, as it was reading one of his columns in summer 2007 that got me started investigating 9/11. He is also a frequent contributor to the Rock Creek Free Press, where I am a staff writer. 

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan and served as associate editor of The Wall Street Journal.

In his January 7 column, Roberts  recommended that we look to non-American sources, such as Haaretz in Israel, or the Asia Times, for unbiased reporting.  He deplored the state of American mainstream media:

Today reporters write the stories that their masters want to hear, or they are out. The function of editors is to make certain that no uncomfortable information reaches the public.

The public is slowly catching on, and the print media is slowly dying. The New York Times, Chicago Tribune, and Los Angeles Times are all on the ropes to one extent or the other.

Americans are still subjected to Fox "News" and CNN propaganda piped into airport waiting rooms, doctors’ offices, and exercise centers. It is very much the situation that George Orwell describes in 1984.

But Roberts gave enthusiastic praise to the still little-known, but rapidly growing, Rock Creek Free Press:

The Rock Creek Free Press is terrific. After reading one issue, you will waste no more time on the "mainstream media." The Rock Creek Free Press is likely to rescue even the dullest mind from its brainwashed state.

The Creek is mailed out each month to subscribers in 50 states and six foreign countries.  A free issue of can be requested here. 

My work for the Creek on the issues of torture, liberal gatekeepers, the planned financial meltdown, the framing of Bruce Ivins for the anthrax attacks, and the crumbling of the AIDS dogma is here. 

Top scientists ask medical journal "Science" to retract original AIDS papers

Thirty-seven doctors, senior researchers and attorneys have asked the journal Science to retract four articles published in 1984 that supposedly established that HIV was the cause of AIDS.  The articles, by a group led by Dr. Robert Gallo, have drawn criticism for some time.  An investigation in the early 90s by the US Department of Health and Human Services concluded that the lead paper was “fraught with false and erroneous statements.” A Congressional Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations produced a staff report on the papers which contains scathing criticisms of their integrity.

Now, new analysis of the documentation behind the papers has revealed even more reason to doubt Gallo’s findings.  The letter refers to “recent revelation of an astonishing number of previously unreported deletions and unjustified alterations made by Gallo…”

Dr. Mikulas Popovic wrote the manuscripts while Gallo was in Europe, but Gallo made handwritten changes to the manuscripts upon his return.  Popovic wrote: "Despite intensive research efforts, the causative agent of AIDS has not yet been identified.”  This sentence was deleted and replaced by a statement that the findings suggest that HIV is the cause of AIDS.

Gallo submitted micrographs to Science that were identified as containing the HIV virus. But just four days before he submitted them, Dr. Matthew A. Gonda, then Head of the Electron Microscopy Laboratory at the National Cancer Institute, wrote a letter to Gallo and Popovic stating that he “does not believe” that the micrographs contain images of HIV.  The micrographs were published in Science on May 4, 1984 and identified as containing HIV. 

These developments add to the mounting body of evidence that the original conclusion that HIV causes AIDS is deeply flawed. 

Thus far there has been no response from Science regarding the request for retraction.

Paid "blog attack" armies flood blogs with comments

As a 9/11 truth activist, I read a fair amount of what is written about 9/11--whether in the mainstream media, the alternative media, or on sites that I have learned to trust.  Frequently the comments are polarized:  those of us who know the awful truth, and another group, much angrier, seemingly younger and much less well educated:  those who are enraged that anyone would even suggest that the government lied to us about 9/11.

Who are these people who are apparently oblivious to the hundreds of well documented lies from the Bush administration?

Here's a clue:  a company that advertises blog armies to "flood the zone with comments from professionals who are ready to put your talking points on the blogosphere 24/7."

Next time you're engaged in a nasty debate with someone who seems to have unlimited amounts of time to rebut your every point in the most scathing way possible, you might just be arguing with a member of one of these paid blog armies. 

Here's the ad:

"When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic."

"A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. It wasn't the world being round that agitated people, but that the world wasn't flat. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic."

--Dresden James

note:  I love this quote, but can't find any information about who Dresden James was. Anyone know?

Compound fractured fairy tale

Once upon a time a child was born in a place called the land of the free and the home of the brave.  She was told that she was very, very lucky to be born in this land, the best country on earth.  In school every morning, her entire class stood, placed their hands over their hearts, and solemnly recited a Pledge of Allegiance to her nation’s flag.  After that the class sang a stirring song about the greatness of this land and its purple mountain’s majesty.  The same songs were heard on Independence Day, and, as the music swelled to a crescendo, tears filled the child’s eyes with gratitude for being a citizen of such a wonderful land. 

In other countries, rulers did terrible things to their people, but few of their people would hear about it, as the newspapers printed only lies in support of the evil rulers.  That would never happen in her country, Amerika, where the right of free speech had been enshrined for centuries as the first and the most important amendment in the founding documents of the republic.  She learned that although her country had fought in many wars, it was always as either a victim of an unprovoked attack, or as a brave ally to those who were innocent victims. 

The years passed and she lived her life with little regard to the work of her government.  She voted every four years, wearing proudly her “I voted” sticker for the rest of the day.

To be sure, there were disturbing occurrences every now and then.  A president was gunned down in broad daylight on a city street, then later his brother, an influential senator, was killed.  A charismatic leader of the descendants of the slaves was shot and killed at the height of his popularity.  But each time, thanks to quick police work, the lone nuts who committed these deeds were located within hours and punished, making the streets safe once again.

Why I won't vote for Obama

I'm voting tomorrow for Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party. 

No, of course I don't expect McKinney to win.  The CIA controlled media has made sure of that.  They will not allow someone as brave as McKinney, who recognizes 9/11 for the false flag operation it is, to ascend to the highest office in the land -- even though she has values, goals and ideals that are shared by a majority of Americans.

Most voters are still hypnotized by the mantra issuing from the corporate media that we must continue to support the party in power:  the single party that controls this country, bought and paid for by wealthy corporate interests such as Wall Street.

"But I'm voting for Obama," you protest.

Don't be fooled, Obama is the current anointed one for that single party that has been in power for decades now. Some wear red uniforms, some wear blue, one plays the good cop, one plays the bad, and they manage to create such a furor and fuss by tussling and fighting all over the media, that the people are transfixed by the spectacle and fail to notice that both parties want to continue to wage war illegally, continue to spy on us illegally, support the illegal financial dictatorship with Hank Paulson at the helm, and have conspired, with bogus commissions, to cover up the truth about the assassination of JFK and the attacks of 9/11, to name just two cover-ups. 

Our corrupt and complicit media tell us endlessly that we must continue to support this one party, the Dempublicans, or the Reprocrats, because if we don't, our "vote will be wasted."

I've come a long way.  Just two years ago, when the Democrats won a majority in both the US House and the US Senate, I was overjoyed.  I believed we were on the road to real change:  that we'd stop funding the illegal war in Iraq (humorously titled Operation Iraqi Liberation, or O.I.L.), and begin to see accountability in government, including impeachment. 

I began this blog on the eve of the mid-term elections, November 6, 2006, when I urged people to read some columns from The New York Times.  Boy, was I buzzed on the Kool Aid!

CIA Instructions to Media Assets, document #1035-960

This document caused quite a stir when it was discovered in 1977. Dated 4/1/67, and marked "DESTROY WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED", it is a stunning testimony to how concerned the CIA was over investigations into the Kennedy assassination. Emphasis has been added to facilitate scanning.

CIA Document #1035-960

(marked "PSYCH" for Psychological Warfare Operations, in the division "CS", the Clandestine Services, sometimes known as the "dirty tricks" department.)

RE: Concerning Criticism of the Warren Report

1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report, (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse results.