James Bamfords New Article

by **williams2006** » Thu Nov 17, 2005 10:26 pm

Don't miss this piece that just came out in Rolling Stone by James Bamford: <a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/8798997">www.rollingstone.com/poli...id/8798997</a> I have heard good things about Bamford. Anyone heard otherwise?

by **banned** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:15 am

...and "Body of Secrets" and supposedly exposed Operation Northwoods. As to who he's actually working for? TRUST NO ONE and you won't go wrong.

by **sunny** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:23 am

Bamford's "Body of Secrets" was dense and kind of boring, but I read with interest the stuff about Operation Northwoods, the first time I had ever heard of it. here's an interview with Bamford. <a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/zeese05232005.html">www.counterpunch.org/zeese05232005.html</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=sunny@rigorousintuition>sunny</A> at: 11/17/05 10:23 pm

by **sunny** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:44 am

BTW Williams, welcome a-board!!<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)">

by **rocco322** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:47 am

Scott Horton from the Weekend Interview Show seems to be a lot of faith in Bamford. I beleve there's an interview with him on Horton's website archives. I personally haven't read his books, but Scott Horton, who has top shelf government-insiders regularly on his show.(Phillip Giraldi, Scott Ritter, Michael Scheur, etc. ) He does in depth interviews and refers to Bamford's book quite a bit. <a href="http://www.weekendinterviewshow.com/">www.weekendinterviewshow.com/</a>

by **Jen** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:47 am

I really liked "Body of Secrets." Yes, it only went 'so far.' But that's still farther than most have gone, and there are facts about NSA and its involvement with American government that you'd be hard pressed to find anywhere else.

by **Gouda** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 4:01 am

<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/zeese05232005.html">www.counterpunch.org/zeese05232005.html</a> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Zeese: There are a lot of people discussing whether the U.S. government was aware of the 9/11 attack before it happened, some even argue that some in the U.S. government were involved or informed of the attack. What are your thoughts on this? Bamford: I disagree. The problem was the opposite: the U.S. didn't have a clue before the attack. I also found no evidence that the U.S. government was involved in the attack.<hr></blockquote> So he's not much of a 911 researcher. Big deal, 911. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Bamford: Over the years, the principal problem with the intelligence community is that 85% of it is primarily under the control of the Secretary of Defense, not the Director of Central Intelligence.<hr></blockquote> They should share better. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>In addition to writing, he spent most of the decade of the 1990s as the Washington Investigative Producer for the ABC News program World News Tonight with Peter Jennings.<hr></blockquote> I am not overly insinuating anything here, but would pose some questions: should the selections I highlight serve as a litmus test as to whether we ought to trust this source? How many failed tests (911 was intelligence failure; Intel needs reform; worked for ABC for 10 years as high level producer) does it take before we should better ignore a source? Baby out with the bathwater? If trust is diminished by failing our 911 test, for example, how can we discern the good information he gives us (and there seems to be a good amount) from the disinfo he might be giving us? Can we read around his agenda (I take it is interested in maintaining or strengthening a well-functioning security/control state - reformed, of course) and still be able to take away the information we need? Does failing a 911 litmus test, or having worked for corporate media (or intelligence) for so long automatically poison everything he says? Will reading him (for useful information) turn us into a pillar of salt?

by **williams2006** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 1:21 pm

All well and good. But how about someone read the Rolling Stone story and comment. Seems to be some incredible revelations about the Panama invasion, Gulf War I & II. Bamford's revelations seem, to me, to fit in with some of Jeff Wells' observations. www.rollingstone.com/poli...id/8798997

by **hanshan** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 2:33 pm

... Bamford - Body of Secrets <a href="http://www.namebase.org/books28.html" target="top">www.namebase.org/books28.html</a> Bamford has written an astute article (The Man Who Sold the War ) concisely delineating the scope of the MSM as an exercise in psy-ops & mindwar. As folks are busy will highlight aspects:  His job, he says, is to counter false perceptions that the news media perpetuate because they consider it "more important to be first than to be right." In modern warfare, he believes, the outcome depends largely on the public's perception of the war -- whether it is winnable, whether it is worth the cost. "We are being haunted and stalked by the difference between perception and reality," he says. "Because the lines are divergent, this difference between perception and reality is one of the greatest strategic communications challenges of war." emphasis added ( pg 7). Key point. Perception is reality. Peception is contextualized through experience. This con't be overemphasized in a culture (american) that values vicarious stimulation/experience over actuality. It's antiseptic. Disneyland. Three weeks after the September 11th attacks, according to documents obtained from defense sources, the Pentagon awarded a large contract to the Rendon Group. Around the same time, Pentagon officials also set up a highly secret organization called the Office of Strategic Influence. Part of the OSI's mission was to conduct covert disinformation and deception operations -- planting false news items in the media and hiding their origins. "It's sometimes valuable from a military standpoint to be able to engage in deception with respect to future anticipated plans," Vice President Dick Cheney said in explaining the operation. Even the military's top brass found the clandestine unit unnerving. "When I get their briefings, it's scary," a senior official said at the time. According to the Pentagon documents, the Rendon Group played a major role in the IOTF. The company was charged with creating an "Information War Room" to monitor worldwide news reports at lightning speed and respond almost instantly with counterpropaganda. A key weapon, according to the documents, was Rendon's "proprietary state-of-the-art news-wire collection system called 'Livewire,' which takes real-time news-wire reports, as they are filed, before they are on the Internet, before CNN can read them on the air and twenty-four hours before they appear in the morning newspapers, and sorts them by keyword. The system provides the most current real-time access to news and information available to private or public organizations." (pg. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> For those newshounds & obsessives this should send a chilling message . The secret targeting of foreign journalists may have had a sinister purpose. Among the missions proposed for the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence was one to "coerce" foreign journalists and plant false information overseas. Secret briefing papers also said the office should find ways to "punish" those who convey the "wrong message." One senior officer told CNN that the plan would "formalize government deception, dishonesty and misinformation." (pgs. 8-9) Did anyone say it wasn't hardball? Rendon was also charged with engaging in "military deception" online -- an activity once assigned to the OSI. The company was contracted to monitor Internet chat rooms in both English and Arabic -- and "participate in these chat rooms when/if tasked." Rendon would also create a Web site "with regular news summaries and feature articles. Targeted at the global public, in English and at least four (4) additional languages, this activity also will include an extensive e-mail push operation." These techniques are commonly used to plant a variety of propaganda, including false information. (pg 9) Heh. Ministry of Information. Autodidacts all Never before in history had such an extensive secret network been established to shape the entire world's perception of a war. "It was not just bad intelligence -- it was an orchestrated effort," says Sam Gardner, a retired Air Force colonel who has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College. "It began before the war, was a major effort during the war and continues as post-conflict distortions." (pg.9) 'Tis a maze, a blizzard. The teacup world. As the war in Iraq has spiraled out of control, the Bush administration's covert propaganda campaign has intensified. According to a secret Pentagon report personally approved by Rumsfeld in October 2003 and obtained by Rolling Stone, the Strategic Command is authorized to engage in "military deception" -- defined as "presenting false information, images or statements." The seventy-four-page document, titled "Information Operations Roadmap," also calls for psychological operations to be launched over radio, television, cell phones and "emerging technologies" such as the Internet. In addition to being classified secret, the road map is also stamped noforn, meaning it cannot be shared even with our allies. emphasis added (pgs10-11) Conclusions: "We lost control of the context," Rendon warned. "That has to be fixed for the next war." (pg.11) Perpetual war is not simply a cute aphorism. It appears to be the m.o. of a psychopathological cabal currently running the country. ....

by **Gouda** » Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:17 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I have heard good things about Bamford. Anyone heard otherwise?<hr></blockquote> You asked, and so I looked at what the man says in the interview. More direct than hearsay. Helps us determine, or helps us begin to determine, in a small way, his orientation. If you think his comment about 911 is insignificant to your evaluation of him as a reliable source on other life/death matters of national/global significance, then continue on. Depends where your willing to draw the line on a source for trustworthy info. I just question how such a well-informed professional, an insider, who has been around, knows a few things, and has an extensive investigative background, would outright dismiss legit lines of inquiry into government complicity in 911? This in itself would not stop me from reading the guy, but as a red flag, would make me read him a lot more carefully.

by **jimbo** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 1:27 am

Body of Secrets was a pretty good read, kind of drawn out and dry in places but has good info. Was the first time I read about details of chemtrails in a 'non woo-woo' publication.

by **banned** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 5:09 am

...about chemtrails?

by **jimbo** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 11:49 am

He basically confirmed that they do spray radio reflective mixtures in the sky to provide communications beyond line of sight to support military and intel operations. Doing so allows greater range of radio communications than can be had with line of sight only. Since then I have ran into other accounts that more or less corroborate his information.

by **stirringstill** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 1:02 pm

I highly recommend Puzzle Palace, Body of Secrets, and Pretext for War. By being one of the only people allowed enough access to write extensively about the NSA, I assume that rare access had/has a price. I do not hold this reality against Banford. Compared to the other alphabet soup agencies, the NSA does not have a public face, yet it must compete with other agencies for funding and even talent. Giving Banford access may have allowed the Agency to give voice to its own perspective of historical events such as the USS Liberty attack. Banford's Pretext for War and Hersh's Chain of Command remain great primers on the neocon subversion of the US intelligence agencies. Banford picks the terrain of his battles carefully. Everyone has an agenda.

by **proldic** » Sat Nov 19, 2005 1:14 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Banford's Pretext for War and Hersh's Chain of Command remain great primers on the neocon subversion of the US intelligence agencies.<hr></blockquote> HELLO!!!! what the fuck is up with this? "Neocon subversion of the US intelligence agencies" is a sad pathetic myth repeated by people who can't face reality. This is what the US intelligence agencies want you to think. Don't play the fool. LIMITED HANGOUT, circa 2005

James Bamfords New Article

James Bamfords New Article

Bamford wrote "The Puzzle Palace"...

Re: Bamford wrote "The Puzzle Palace"...

Re: Bamford wrote "The Puzzle Palace"...

Re: Bamford wrote "The Puzzle Palace"...

for the official record

Re: Bamford wrote "The Puzzle Palace"...

Re: Bamford wrote "The Puzzle Palace"...

re:whoever controls perception wins

Re: re:whoever controls perception wins

re: Body of Secrets

What did Bamford say...

re: chemtrails

Re: Banford

Re: who's line is it anyway?

Who is online