War by Memorandum

Recently, Kenny's Sideshow posted an article on various warnings of an impending unilateral military strike against Iran by Israel. Featured was an article entitled "MEMORANDUM FOR: The President written by Ray McGovern and Phillip Giraldi, both former CIA officers, and a video interview of Michel Chossudovsky being questioned on the concerns raised by the McGovern/Giraldi article. I believe this article is disinformation and Chossudovsky in his interview provides the key to start the unlocking process. (This interview is also featured at Twelfth Bough) That key is the fact that the military command structures of Israel, NATO and the US are all integrated.

This should not come as a surprise if one thinks about the possiblity (likelyhood) of war with Iran escalating into WW3. It is what you would expect because the US and NATO would want to be able to operate on a co-ordinated world-wide basis. So a number of things flow on from this fact.
It is actually impossible for Israel to start a war without-

1. Any hope of doing it without forewarning the US
2. Any hope of continuing it by themselves
3. Any hope of having co-ordinated defence of Israel ready for implementation because they have acted outside prearranged plans
4. Any hope of being included in on going and future planning as they are now a wildcard actor

McGovern and Giraldi would be fully conversant with all this. Yet, they behave as if-

1. It is of no importance (untrue)
2. Obama and the Joint Chiefs of Staff would not be aware of this (untrue)
3. The public readership is largely unaware of this (probably true)

So who is the intended audience here? Obviously the public and that is so often the case with these “open letters”. It's a rhetorical device and, though it is reasonably open itself, it never-the-less works to deceive at more subtle levels. It tends to frame the readers understanding of the apparent target of the letter's perceptions and power regarding the issue; in this case, Obama and his position and power as 'Supreme Commander' and that this undeclared war on Iran is a part of a whole.

I believe the purpose of the letter is to place the following ideas in the minds of the public-

1. That Israel can, and likely will, act alone to start the war with Iran (which it can't)
2. That the US will be obligated, indeed, 'left with no choice' but to enter the war and 'finish it' (which it isn't)
3. That Israel will be completely to blame (which it won't be)
4. That Obama is the ultimate controlling figure here. (which he isn't)
5. That there is no higher co-ordinating power than the political leaders of these two respective countries and that there isn't another agenda (which, inductively, there obviously is on both points)
6. That there is no agenda for world dominion and that it has not been in play for some years now (which is also obviously the case on both points)
7. That this can all be stopped by writing to your local congressman or congresswoman. (which won't do shit)
8. That Israel is the most dangerous of the the three belligerents. (which it isn't) The other two, of course, being NATO and the US.
9. Paint US leaders, past and present, as being repeatedly duped by Israeli leaders and not having their own agenda or more to the point, not having their own marching orders as have the various Israeli leaders over the decades (which, again inductively, they clearly have)
10. Nuclear power is the issue and not oil or oil sales in $US

I have not included the article from McGovern and Giraldi as i was originally intending. I was going to inject my comments into it pointing out the multiple inaccuracies but decided it would fast become tedious and these inaccuracies would likely be obvious now (if not before!) if I have made good my points above.

The question has been raised before and I think it is worth considering again, “Is there any such thing as an ex-CIA agent?”
And given their various oaths of secrecy and loyalty, how is it that the members of VIPS (listed below) can run with the 'opposition' on the net in apparent direct opposition to the interests of government on 'National Security matters' for so long?

Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

Phil Giraldi, directorate of operations, CIA (20 years)
Larry Johnson, directorate of intelligence, CIA; Department of State, Department of Defense consultant (24 years)
W. Patrick Lang, colonel, USA, Special Forces (ret.); Senior Executive Service: defense intelligence officer for Middle East/South Asia; director of HUMINT Collection, Defense Intelligence Agency (30 years)
Ray McGovern, U.S. Army intelligence officer; directorate of intelligence, CIA (30 years)
Coleen Rowley, special agent and Minneapolis division counsel, FBI (24 years)
Ann Wright, colonel, U.S. Army Reserve (ret.), (29 years); Foreign Service officer, Department of State (16 years)

At the end of that great Irish film, "The Commitments", the main character looks in the mirror (as I am figuratively doing, now) and asks himself, "But, what does it all mean, Jimmy?"

He then answers himself, "I'm fooked if I know"!

I have listed lots of things I think the authors are trying to do with the article but the big question is "Why go to the trouble and why now?" Unless, of course, they really mean to . . . . No. . . They wouldn't would they?
Folks, your thoughts would be welcome.

Here is the link to the article, "MEMORANDUM FOR: The President" again.


Thanks, James

I have a few observations and will post them when I am able, but at the moment I only have time to say "thanks".

More soonest.

Looking forward to your

Looking forward to your comments, WP. The longer I looked at the article, the more artful it became and seemed to have more and more layers. Vintage stuff from a couple of veterans!

I'm sorry it takes so long

I'm sorry it takes so long for me to get stuff written these days ... but I did want to say a few things about the warmongering against Iran and the authors of the article you quoted (and VIPS in general):

On Iran, a lot of people are thinking: Why haven't they done it yet? If they are so keen to attack Iran, why haven't they done so already?

It is undoubtedly true that some people with serious power -- in both America and Israel -- have been longing to demolish Iran for more than 30 years. They have used a wide variety of means, including clandestine terrorism and public sabre-rattling, to "pressure" Iran into being less "intransigent" about its "nuclear weapons program". And that may indeed be the main point -- the pressure.

I can explain this better with a chess analogy than in any other way. In chess, sometimes we come across positions in which the threat of an attack is more valuable to you (as the attacker) than the attack would be if you actually implemented it. In other words, by building up a constellation of threats, you may be able to tie up your opponent's resources without overly committing your own, and that's why sometimes the threat of an attack is enough to win a game.

I know that war is not a game, and yet chess is modeled after warfare, and some of the basic strategies that have been used in warfare for a long time are very well rewarded when used in chess ... so the parallels are certainly there, and sometimes they are compelling. In this case I think the parallel gives us a little bit of insight.

I am definitely not suggesting that the people threatening to attack Iran do not intend to do it some day. I am merely suggesting that -- for the moment at least -- ratcheting up the pressure may be an end in itself.


Quite apart from the crippling pressure, every threat of war is actually an act of war. And if Iran ever responds violently to any of these acts, the balance of tension will change dramatically.


Thanks again and I will have more when I can swing it. Take good care till then.

Thanks for the longer

Thanks for the longer response and thoughts, WP. I like your chess analogy. The constant threat shapes the victim's responses and behaviour, regardless. The trap for the opponent is to think purely in defensive terms instead of offensive terms as well and so tie themselves up.

Unfortunately, that is what I'm seeing to a large degree in the responses of the governments of Iran, Pakistan, China and Russia. I am also seeing the same purely defensive responses from the public in the US, Canada, Britain and Australia. So they are all being pretty much controlled by the propaganda masters behind the US and Israel.

This is where I think the purpose of the article by McGovern fits in. Using fear, it limits and shapes the thinking in the public's mind as to what the problem is and where the solution lies. (pardon the pun!)

Thanks for your comments, Dave. I'll be back with some responses a bit later.
(Have you thought of opening an account here so you can post directly rather than waiting for moderation? smiling )

On the Offensive

A Peasant of Twelfth Bough reports on two aspects of what going on the offensive is about - one, discerning the truth and telling it clearly i.e. that military occupation leads to terrorist activity and, two, avoiding restrictions by simply not accepting them and going your own way; in this case, your own currency.

What's goin' on ???

James thanks for the article.

One question/thought I have - is this just some mental conditioning so we hear it so often we really will not give a damn if they really do it ( bomb Iran ). You just have to wonder what are TPTB really after ( ? )

Growing up in the American South, I would hear real protests against the Vietnam War - even in church.

Now it seems American is in a zombie trance - more concerned with who's replacing Simon Cowell on American Idol - than the endless bloddletting in Iraq/Afghanistan.

Love to hear some comments.


is this just some mental

is this just some mental conditioning so we hear it so often we really will not give
a damn if they really do it ( bomb Iran ).

Yes, in my view, if they do bomb Iran. It is almost a relief to have the violence start. Also if they bomb Iran, we will know who to blame (the israelis) and who was a fellow victim in it all (Obama and the US military). And we have the "I told you so's" (McGovern et al) to lead the public's response to the bombing.
But this constant intimidation works whether to bomb Iran is Plan A or whether it is Plan B (i.e. first trying to isolate it from the wider world community and to have the society so paranoid and unthinking that it acts out the violence on itself one way or another. It now has a huge drug problem, for instance)

What's going on? Well to go on from my previous comment in response to WP's thoughts and, in particular, to his valuable chess analogy, I might illustrate my thoughts with an analogy of my own. It's like domestic violence whereby the abuser not only limits and shapes the partner's behaviour through violence and threats of violence but also the thinking that surrounds the abuser's behaviour and then, further, to adopting the abuser's world view i.e. that of being all powerful and justified; that the victim brought on the violence by not anticipating the right response. This is classic bullying. It is also classic mind control. It is achieved through using fear and repetition. So the victim thinks in purely defensive terms which more often than not reinforce the false paradigms of the bully.

You just have to wonder what are TPTB really after ( ? )

The destruction of the human race and in a particular way, in my view. They want to destroy the human spirit first and then have people destroy themselves to show that they deserved to be extinguished. In Iraq (as in Serbia etc), the US military destroyed the country's infrastructure and historical and cultural landmarks and did everything they could to make the society non functioning to destroy peoples self image and dignity. At the same time they armed the various ethnic and religious groups and no doubt engaged in same false flag ops to get the fighting started between them thus further destroying their value to themselves. It is a repeating pattern. (It is also a repeat of the 'scapegoats' scenario, if yo remember that). The true enemies to TPTB in these situations, indeed in all situations, are the peacemakers closely followed by independent thinkers and internally co-operative cultures.

In my experience, it is the mark of truly evil people to always go for putting their victims into double binds whereby the limited number of options seem to be all bad. They delight in the excruciating agony that this imparts to the victim and then gleefully watch as the victim chooses destruction of one sort or another. This affirms the superior mind, the superior being, rather than just the superior strength of the bully to himself and (he thinks) to others. It's a whole different deal to just shooting someone.

So it is something that takes time but that is part of the enjoyment for these people. The double bind also relies on deception. It is always based on a lie somewhere and this lie (or lies) needs to take hold in the mind of the victim and that takes time, too. It requires the victim to passively retreat from their own independence and personal strength and their own supports one small step at a time. What applies to an individual applies to a nation and to the whole human race as well. The Iranians are getting ground down. As is the rest of the world through this constant diet of fear and stress and the assault of mind numbing teevee, pornography and drugs as the solution. (The main instigator of drug use throughout the world is the Pentagon/CIA, btw. It is being used as a weapon of war and social destruction against everybody)

Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia have behaved differently, though, and may be much more likely to be on the receiving end of actual violence before Iran, IMO. And this whole thing (including jews hanging over fences) may be to distract governments and people from looking at the Caribbean and South America. I don't know that is the case but it is the sort of thing TPTB go in for.

After I read your post all I

After I read your post all I could think was "how in hell did everyone get so used to an attack on Iran?". Don't feel bad North Americans: the "old Europe" is suffering from the same globalized dementia. To name but one example, France may actually be the most overtly racist and extremist regime to emerge in recent years, with pro-american and pro-israeli medias, corrupt politicians and a freedom of speech tending towards Chinese standards.

Thanks for the article. When you have Israel, the most despised state in the world, as your ally, a state that doesn't care about its image in the least, you have an ace up your sleeve. It really is the most likely scenario, because I do believe war is the bottom line. A new 9/11 isn't necessary to make this reality acceptable.

about the VIPS

I had never seen that list of VIPS before, but I have to say the "Steering Group" is aptly named.

Collectively they have done a great deal of "steering" to the "anti-war" and "pro-truth" "movements", and if you pay close attention to the directions in which they been steering, and to the platforms that have magically appeared for them to use, it's hard to see it as an accident that the "anti-war" and "pro-truth" "movements" have been steered mostly into ditches and rock walls.

Ann Wright is perhaps the most interesting case of the bunch (at least to me) and she has probably done more to neutralize the possibility of an anti-war movement than any of the others. In contrast to Johnson, McGovern and Giraldi, who write nonsense and get it posted all over the net, Wright works quietly behind the scenes as the handler of "anti-war activist" Cindy Sheehan.

It's tough to imagine a more pathetic or less inspiring figure than Sheehan as presented through Wright. Sheehan's heart appears to be in the right place, or at least it was at one time. But she has much bad advice through the years, and has engaged in actions that have proved very destructive -- always with Ann Wright smiling at her side.

As far as I have been able to find out (and I have had the benefit of some very inside sources), Ann Wright was at the heart of the duplicity that torpedoed the attempt by Webster Tarpley and others to unify the anti-war and 9/11-truth movements, in a series of sick events that has come to be known as the Kennebunkport Warning Fiasco.

For obvious reasons, it is important for the powers that be to keep 9/11 Truthers away from the more conventional pacifist types. And I may not have a good read on the situation all across the country, but from where I sit, the Kennebunkport Warning Fiasco was (or might have been) the last chance to create a somewhat meaningful domestic opposition. (On the other hand, it may have already been too late, especially given the degree to which the "anti-war" "movement" was (and still is) led by 9/11 Liars. )

Meanwhile Larry Johnson churns out his "intelligence analyses" and McGovern sings "Donkeys Are Good, Elephants Are Bad" in every possible key, and Giraldi is one of those rare birds (like Andrew Bacevich) whose articles seem (are!) equally comfortable on the right-wing lunatic sites and the sites of the faux opposition. It's bi-partisan gatekeeping at its best, if you'll pardon my English.

Only intelligent analysis can untangle their BS, and I think James has provided an exceptionally clear analysis. As he says, it's all artfully crafted, layer upon layer, and you have to peel it away, like an onion.

Inside every layer of fiction is another layer of fiction. And what's at the center? A lie, of course!

McJ's picture

I remember the Kennebunkport

I remember the Kennebunkport Fiasco and the lady who used to post at WP (Lori??) who got screwed by Wright et al after hosting a signing event on her property.

It is really hard to see a way out for America and the rest of us schmos.

"Only intelligent analysis can untangle their BS, and I think James has provided an exceptionally clear analysis. As he says, it's all artfully crafted, layer upon layer, and you have to peel it away, like an onion.

Inside every layer of fiction is another layer of fiction. And what's at the center? A lie, of course!"

Lies and deceit every where you turn. How is the average citizen ever going to catch up to what is going on? I have trouble and I have the benefit of coming here and reading "exceptionally clear analysis".
Makes me want to duck and cover. ;(

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer traveling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

Lies and deceit

Lies and deceit every where you turn. How is the average citizen ever going to catch up to what is going on?

You may have meant this question to be rhetorical, McJ, but you have got me thinking (as you so often do!) and I'm in a reflective mood so I hope you and others will bear with me. smiling

Yes, this whole society we live in is one giant piece of theatre. Nothing is as it appears. It is all scripted for us and we hardly know the half of it. But I think there is a way through it and the 'average citizen' doesn't need to be particularly well informed as the the details of whatever it is that is being promoted or whatever deal it is that is going down; let alone the full extent of this 'theatre' we find ourselves living in. I find this answer humbling personally because it applies to all aspects of social life and I am a repeat offender in not employing it. So I'm really writing this principally for myself!

It is this – firstly, to be very wary of those that are talking up fear for your protection or for those you love even if this fearmonger is yourself. Why? Because with a fearful attitude, you will not make the best decision for yourself and others that you may be responsible for. Fear shuts down the critical faculties (which is one of the major reasons it is promoted). More importantly, fear tempts us to 'save' ourselves or our loved ones and our interests by condemning and then harming or exploiting someone else instead and, ironically, often harming ourselves and those we would protect in the process.

If we had an attitude of non-harm towards ourselves and others as a principle in life, then we would not fall prey to the warmongers and other exploiters in the first place. As a very close analogy, if the simplest of people in the world has absolutely no greed and no desire to take advantage of anyone else, it is very hard for them to fall prey to even the most clever of con men. We know the 'mark' is undone by himself.

Secondly, be wary of those that promote violence towards anyone; even the worst of psychopaths. Sure, the psychopaths and the violent need to be isolated from the community, be it a county or a country, to protect it but that is all that is necessary. To inflict violence or 'punishment' (revenge) past this is to become as they. So if we do not have violence within us, we cannot be tricked into visiting it upon others whether it is with bombs or simply harsh words in our everyday life.

If we used judgement in terms of discernment rather than in terms of condemnation and were en guarde against feeling superior i.e. “ there but for the grace of God go I” sort of thing, we would be able to deal more effectively with the psychopaths and the violent among us. We would be able to isolate them through spreading truth of their behaviour without the hate and bile which all too readily turns us into accomplices of the very people we are contending with.

Once we have this attitude of hate within us, it is then a simple matter for the psychopaths through 'bait and switch' to direct it at the innocent instead of themselves, the true criminals.

In other words, if we as individuals can promote compassion in ourselves through having courage rather than harbouring violence within ourselves through succumbing to fear and discerning peoples' behaviour rather than condemning their character, we can protect ourselves from these infinitely deceitful schemes and start to undo this murderous spell we are all under.

but I have to say the

but I have to say the "Steering Group" is aptly named. haha, that's sharp, WP!

Very interesting about Ann Wright. Thanks very much for taking the trouble to lay that out for us. I suppose the question should not be in those situations, "Will a spook or gatekeeper show up?" but always, "Who are they?"

And as for Cindy Sheehan, one should always beware of the professionals in any area who pop up to 'help'. This applies to lawyers particularly and ex police and, of course, ex spooks. Friends of mine have been caught big time with this.

And thanks muchly for the boost, WP smiling

McJ's picture

Thanks all, for your

Thanks all, for your excellent analysis. Damn, you guys are good! smiling

I like the chess analogy as well. I have never played the game but I get the gist of what you are saying. Keep them occupied, off balance and on the defensive, in fear of what your next move will be.

On it's face, I found the Mc Govern/ Giraldi memoradum a little on the silly sounding side. Particularly, the parts where they are carefully explaining Israel's and Netanyahoos modus operandi. Obama is the leader of the most powerful country in the world yet he doesn't know, or no one's told him, how these guys operate. I don't think so.

"...if they bomb Iran, we will know who to blame (the israelis) and who was a fellow victim in it all (Obama and the US military). And we have the "I told you so's" (McGovern et al) to lead the public's response to the bombing."

Yes, I think this is bang on James. I had the same thoughts when reading the memorandum - that they were setting up a cover story so if Israel attacks Iran, Obama and the US will be seen as the innocent victims of the sly Israeli's. (However, they will have no choice but to help their friends once the bombing starts.)

What you all seem to be saying (and I agree) is that creating fear is as much the end game as an attack on Iran. These evil f***ers feed off of fear. I think of them as energy vampires sucking the life blood out the human race and I don't think that is much of a stretch as an analogy.

"Now it seems American is in a zombie trance.."
I agree Dave and I believe this is very close to the truth of the situation. I would also include Canada in that, as we seem as a nation to have fallen under the same spell.

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer traveling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

Ahmadinejad - Satanic Goatshead sign or Texas Longhorn?

What do People think of a photo of Ahmadinejad making the satanic Goatshead sign. Its also the Texas longhorns symbol but why would Ahmadinejad make it and with both hands.

There are quite photos of celebs and politicians making this sign or a similar one at the link below . Is there anyting significance here?
Scroll about 1/4 down the page to see the pic. The image is a link to another web page so can't link directly
to it.

Could Ahmadinejad be playing along with the NWO?

McJ's picture

Hi Anonymous, Your link

Hi Anonymous,

Your link doesn't work. Can you post it again.

"The most unpleasant truth in the long run is a far safer traveling companion than the most agreeable falsehood." Emerson

Ahmadinejad : Satanic Goatshead - Texas Longhorn


Thanks all - James, McJ, WP

Many excellent comments and thoughts.

I was thinking of a couple months ago when a certain individual wanted you to ban Kenny's Sideshow
from your blogroll. Having never visited KS, it is now one of my first stops.
Sometimes their malice is their own undoing - glad you folks didn't bend to his desires.

Only the best to you !


Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.