ZGram - 3/29/2002 - "Joe Vialls is connecting the dots"
irimland@zundelsite.org mailto:irimland@zundelsite.org
Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:16:25 -0800
Previous message: ZGram - 3/28/2002 - "Easter Offensive"
Next message: ZGram - 3/30/2002 - "Taki: 'What If?'"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--============_-1194657109==_ma============
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny
March 29, 2002
Good Morning from the Zundelsite:
Joe Vialls, one of the widely read investigators of what really
happened on 9/11, has published another intriguing question mark
about something we have been told was factual: Barbara Olson's
alleged phone call from Flight 77 to her husband, US Solicitor
General Ted Olson.
Here you have Viall's "Mother of All Lies about 9/11."
[START]
This is a story about a little white lie that bred dozens of other
little white lies, then hundreds of bigger white lies and so on, to
the point where the first little white lie must be credited as the
"Mother of All Lies" about events on 11 September 2001. For this was
the little white lie that first activated the American psyche,
generated mass loathing, and enabled media manipulation of the global
population.
Without this little white lie there would have been no Arab
Hijackers, no Osama Bin Laden directing operations from afar, and no
"War on Terror" in Afghanistan and occupied Palestine. Clearly the
lie was so clever and diabolical in nature, it must have been
generated by the "Power Elite" in one of its more earthly
manifestations. Perhaps it was the work of the Council on Foreign
Relations, or the Trilateral Commission?
No, it was not. Though at the time the little white lie was
flagged with a powerful political name, there was and remains no
evidence to support the connection. Just like the corrupt and
premature Lee Harvey Oswald story in 1963, there are verifiable fatal
errors which ultimately prove the little white lie was solely the
work of members of the media. Only they had access, and only they had
the methods and means.
The little white lie was about Barbara Olson, a
conservative commentator for CNN and wife of US Solicitor General Ted
Olson. Now deceased, Mrs Olson is alleged to have twice called her
husband from an American Airlines Flight 77 seat-telephone, before
the aircraft slammed into the Pentagon. This unsubstantiated claim,
reported by CNN remarkably quickly at 2.06 am EDT [0606 GMT] on
September 12, was the solitary foundation on which the spurious
"Hijacker" story was built.
Without the "eminent" Barbara Olson and her alleged
emotional telephone calls, there would never be any proof that humans
played a role in the hijack and destruction of the four aircraft that
day. Lookalike claims surfaced several days later on September 16
about passenger Todd Beamer and others, but it is critically
important to remember here that the Barbara Olson story was the only
one on September 11 and. 12. It was beyond question the artificial
"seed" that started the media snowball rolling down the hill.
And once the snowball started rolling down the hill, it
artfully picked up Osama Bin Laden and a host of other "terrorists"
on the way. By noon on September 12, every paid glassy-eyed media
commentator in America was either spilling his guts about those
"Terrible Muslim hijackers", or liberating hitherto classified
information about Osama Bin Laden. "Oh sure, it was Bin Laden," they
said blithely, oblivious to anything apart from their television
appearance fees.
The deliberate little white lie was essential. Ask
yourself: What would most Americans have been thinking about on
September 12, if CNN had not provided this timely fiction? Would
anyone anywhere have really believed the insane government story
about failed Cessna pilots with box cutters taking over heavy jets,
then hurling them expertly around the sky like polished Top Guns from
the film of the same name? Of course not! As previously stated there
would have been no Osama Bin Laden, and no "War on Terror" in
Afghanistan and occupied Palestine.
This report is designed to examine the sequence of the
Olson events and lay them bare for public examination. Dates and
times are of crucial importance here, so if this report seems tedious
try to bear with me. Before moving on to discuss the impossibility of
the alleged calls, we first need to examine how CNN managed to "find
out" about them, reported here in the September 12 CNN story at 2.06
am EDT:
"Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney,
alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she
was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN.
Shortly afterwards Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon" Š "Ted Olson
told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel,
including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed
hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard
cutters. She felt nobody was in charge and asked her husband to tell
the pilot what to do."
At no point in the above report does CNN quote Ted Olson
directly. If the report was authentic and 100% attributable, it
would have been phrased quite differently. Instead of "Ted Olson
told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnelŠ",
the passage would read approximately:- Mr Olson told CNN, "My wife
said all passengers and flight personnelŠ" Whoever wrote this story
was certainly not in direct contact with US Solicitor General Ted
Olson.
Think about it, people! If you knew or suspected your
spouse's aircraft had just fireballed inside the Pentagon building,
how would you spend the rest of the day? Initially you would
certainly be in deep shock and unwilling to believe the reports. Then
you would start to gather your wits together, a slow process in
itself. After that and depending on individual personality, you
might drive over to the Pentagon on the off chance your spouse
survived the horrific crash, or you might go home and wait for
emergency services to bring you the inevitable bad news. As a matter
of record, Ted Olson did not return to work until six days later.
About the last thing on your mind [especially if you
happened to be the US Solicitor General], would be to pick up a
telephone and call the CNN Atlanta news desk in order to give them a
"scoop". As a seasoned politician you would already know that all
matters involving national security must first be vetted by the
National Security Council. Under the extraordinary circumstances and
security overkill existing on September 11, this vetting process
would have taken a minimum of two days, and more likely three.
The timing of the CNN news release about Barbara Olson, is
therefore as impossible as the New Zealand press release back in 1963
about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. As reported
independently by Colonel Fletcher Prouty USAF (Retired), whoever set
Kennedy up, accidentally launched a full international newswire
biography on obscure "killer" Lee Harvey Oswald, without first taking
the trouble to check his world clock.
It was still "yesterday" in New Zealand on the other side
of the International Date Line when the biography was wired from New
York, enabling the Christchurch Star newspaper was able to print a
story about Oswald as the prime suspect in its morning edition,
several hours before he was first accused of the crime by Dallas
police.
If the CNN story about Ted Olson had been correct, and he
really had called them about Barbara on September 11, then he would
most surely have followed the telephone call up a few days later with
a tasteful "one-on-one" television interview, telling the hushed and
respectful interviewer about how badly he missed his wife, and about
the sheer horror of it all.
There is no record of any such interview in the CNN or
other archives. Indeed, if you key "Barbara Olson" into the CNN
search engine, it returns only two related articles. The first is the
creative invention on September 12 at 2.06 am EDT [0606 GMT], and the
second is on December 12, about President Bush, who led a White
House memorial that began at 8:46 a.m. EST, the moment the first
hijacked plane hit the World Trade Center three months before. CNN
includes this comment about Ted Olson:
"In a poignant remembrance at the Justice Department, U.S.
Solicitor General Theodore Olson referred to "the sufferings we have
all experienced." He made no direct reference to the death of his
wife, Barbara Olson, who was a passenger aboard the American Airlines
flight that crashed into the PentagonŠ"
Regarding the same event, Fox News reports that,
extraordinarily, Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson then said
Barbara Olson's call, made "in the midst of terrible danger and
turmoil swirling around her," was a "clarion call that awakened our
nation's leaders to the true nature of the events of Sept. 11."
So Ted Olson avoided making any direct personal reference
to the death of his wife. Clearly this was not good enough for
someone somewhere. By the sixth month anniversary of the attack, Ted
Olson was allegedly interviewed by London Telegraph reporter Toby
Harnden, with his exclusive story "She Asked Me How To Stop The
Plane" appearing in that London newspaper on March 5, thereafter
renamed and syndicated around dozens of western countries as "Revenge
Of The Spitfire", finally appearing in the West Australian newspaper
on Saturday March 23, 2002.
I have diligently tried to find a copy of this story in an
American newspaper but have so far failed. The reasons for this
rather perverse "external" publication of Ted Olson's story are not
yet clear, but it seems fair to observe that if he is ever challenged
by a Senate Select Committee about the veracity of his claims, the
story could not be used against him because it was published outside
American sovereign territory.
Regardless of the real reason or reasons for its
publication, the story seems to have matured a lot since the first
decoy news release by CNN early on September 12, 2001. Here we have
considerably more detail, some of which is frankly impossible. In the
alleged words of US Solicitor General Theodore Olson:
"She [Barbara] had trouble getting through, because she
wasn't using her cell phone - she was using the phone in the
passengers' seats," said Mr Olson. "I guess she didn't have her
purse, because she was calling collect, and she was trying to get
through to the Department of Justice, which is never very easy." Š
"She wanted to know 'What can I tell the pilot? What can I do? How
can I stop this?' "
"What Can I tell the pilot?" Yes indeed! The forged Barbara
Olson telephone call claims that the flight deck crew were with her
at the back of the aircraft, presumably politely ushered down there
by the box cutter-wielding Muslim maniacs, who for some bizarre
reason decided not to cut their throats on the flight deck. Have you
ever heard anything quite so ridiculous?
But it is at this juncture that we finally have the
terminal error. Though the American Airlines Boeing 757 is fitted
with individual telephones at each seat position, they are not of the
variety where you can simply pick up the handset and ask for an
operator. On many aircraft you can talk from one seat to another in
the aircraft free of charge, but if you wish to access the outside
world you must first swipe your credit card through the telephone. By
Ted Olson's own admission, Barbara did not have a credit card with
her.
It gets worse. On American Airlines there is a telephone
"setup" charge of US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then
a US$2.50 (sometimes US$5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter.
The setup charge is the crucial element. Without paying it in advance
by swiping your credit card you cannot access the external telephone
network. Under these circumstances the passengers' seat phone on a
Boeing 757 is a much use as a plastic toy.
Perhaps Ted Olson made a mistake and Barbara managed to
borrow a credit card from a fellow passenger? Not a chance. If
Barbara had done so, once swiped through the phone, the credit card
would have enabled her to call whoever she wanted to for as long as
she liked, negating any requirement to call collect.
Sadly perhaps, the Olson telephone call claim is proved
untrue. Any American official wishing to challenge this has only to
subpoena the telephone company and Justice Department records. There
will be no charge originating from American Airlines 77 to the US
Solicitor General.
Even without this hard proof, the chances of meaningfully
using a seat-telephone on Flight 77 were nil. We know from the
intermittent glimpses of the aircraft the air traffic controllers had
on the radar scopes, that Flight 77 was travelling at extreme speed
at very low level, pulling high "G' turns in the process.
Under these circumstances it would be difficult even
reaching a phone, much less using it. Finally, the phones on the
Boeing 757 rely on either ground cell phone towers or satellite
bounce in order to maintain a stable connection. At very low altitude
and extreme speed, the violent changes in aircraft attitude would
render the normal telephone links completely unusable.
Exactly the same applies with United Airlines Flight 93
that crashed before reaching any targets. The aircraft was all over
the place at extreme speed on radar, but as with Flight 77 we are
asked to believe that the "hijackers" allowed a passenger called Todd
Beamer to place a thirteen minute telephone call. Very considerate of
them. The Pittsburg Channel put it this way in a story first posted
at 1.38 pm EDT on September 16, 2001:
"Todd Beamer placed a call on one of the Boeing 757's
on-board telephones and spoke for 13 minutes with GTE operator Lisa
D. Jefferson, Beamer's wife said. He provided detailed information
about the hijacking and -- after the operator told him about the
morning's World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks - said he and
others on the plane were planning to act against the terrorists
aboard." Note here that Mrs Lisa Beamer did not receive a telephone
call from Todd personally, but was later "told" by an operator that
her husband had allegedly called. Just another unfortunate media con
job for the trash can.
As previously stated it is the Barbara Olson story that
really counts, a view reinforced by the recent antics of the London
print media. The photo at the top of this page is a copy of that
printed in the West Australian newspaper. You only have to study it
closely for a second to realize its full subliminal potential.
Here is a studious and obviously very honest man. The US
Solicitor General sits in front of a wall lined with leather-bound
volumes of Supreme Court Arguments, with a photo of his dead wife
displayed prominently in front of him. Does anyone out there
seriously believe that this man, a bastion of US law, would tell even
a minor lie on a matter as grave as national security?
Theodore Olson's own words indicate that he would be
prepared to do rather more than that On March 21, 2002 on its page
A35, the Washington Post newspaper printed an article titled "The
Limits of Lying" by Jim Hoagland, who writes that a statement by
Solicitor General Theodore Olson in the Supreme Court has the ring of
perverse honesty.
Addressing the Supreme Court of the United States of
America, US Solicitor General Theodore Olson said it is "easy to
imagine an infinite number of situations . . . where government
officials might quite legitimately have reasons to give false
information out."
[END]
=====
--============_-1194657109==_ma============
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
ZGram - 3/29/2002 - "Joe Vialls is connecting<BR><BR>the dots
ZGram - Where Truth is Destiny
March 29, 2002
Good Morning from the Zundelsite:
Joe Vialls, one of the widely read investigators of what really
happened on 9/11, has published another intriguing question mark
about something we have been told was factual: Barbara Olson's
alleged phone call from Flight 77 to her husband, US Solicitor General
Ted Olson.
Here you have Viall's "Mother of All Lies about 9/11."
size="-1">
[START]
This is a
story about a little white lie that bred dozens of other little white
lies, then hundreds of bigger white lies and so on, to the point where
the first little white lie must be credited as the "Mother of All
Lies" about events on 11 September 2001. For this was the
little white lie that first activated the American psyche, generated
mass loathing, and enabled media manipulation of the global
population.
Without this
little white lie there would have been no Arab Hijackers, no Osama Bin
Laden directing operations from afar, and no "War on Terror" in
Afghanistan and occupied Palestine. Clearly the lie was so clever and
diabolical in nature, it must have been generated by the "Power
Elite" in one of its more earthly manifestations. Perhaps it was the
work of the Council on Foreign Relations, or the Trilateral
Commission?
No, it was not.
Though at the time the little white lie was flagged with a powerful
political name, there was and remains no evidence to support the
connection. Just like the corrupt and premature Lee Harvey Oswald
story in 1963, there are verifiable fatal errors which ultimately
prove the little white lie was solely the work of members of the
media. Only they had access, and only they had the methods and
means.
The little
white lie was about Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator for CNN
and wife of US Solicitor General Ted Olson. Now deceased, Mrs
Olson is alleged to have twice called her husband from an American
Airlines Flight 77 seat-telephone, before the aircraft slammed into
the Pentagon. This unsubstantiated claim, reported by CNN remarkably
quickly at 2.06 am EDT [0606 GMT] on September 12, was the solitary
foundation on which the spurious "Hijacker" story was built.
Without the
"eminent" Barbara Olson and her alleged emotional telephone calls,
there would never be any proof that humans played a role in the hijack
and destruction of the four aircraft that day. Lookalike claims
surfaced several days later on September 16 about passenger Todd
Beamer and others, but it is critically important to remember here
that the Barbara Olson story was the only one on September 11 and. 12.
It was beyond question the artificial "seed" that started the
media snowball rolling down the hill.
And once the
snowball started rolling down the hill, it artfully picked up Osama
Bin Laden and a host of other "terrorists" on the way. By noon on
September 12, every paid glassy-eyed media commentator in America was
either spilling his guts about those "Terrible Muslim hijackers",
or liberating hitherto classified information about Osama Bin Laden.
"Oh sure, it was Bin Laden," they said blithely, oblivious to
anything apart from their television appearance fees.
The deliberate
little white lie was essential. Ask yourself: What would most
Americans have been thinking about on September 12, if CNN had not
provided this timely fiction? Would anyone anywhere have really
believed the insane government story about failed Cessna pilots with
box cutters taking over heavy jets, then hurling them expertly around
the sky like polished Top Guns from the film of the same name?
Of course not! As previously stated there would have been no Osama Bin
Laden, and no "War on Terror" in Afghanistan and occupied
Palestine.
This report is
designed to examine the sequence of the Olson events and lay them bare
for public examination. Dates and times are of crucial importance
here, so if this report seems tedious try to bear with me. Before
moving on to discuss the impossibility of the alleged calls, we first
need to examine how CNN managed to "find out" about them, reported
here in the September 12 CNN story at 2.06 am EDT:
"Barbara
Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband,
Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being
hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN. Shortly afterwards
Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon" Š "Ted Olson told CNN that
his wife said all passengers and flight personnel, including the
pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The
only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters. She felt
nobody was in charge and asked her husband to tell the pilot what to
do."
At no point in
the above report does CNN quote Ted Olson directly. If the
report was authentic and 100% attributable, it would have been phrased
quite differently. Instead of "Ted Olson told CNN that his
wife said all passengers and flight personnelŠ", the passage
would read approximately:- Mr Olson told CNN, "My wife said
all passengers and flight personnelŠ" Whoever wrote this
story was certainly not in direct contact with US Solicitor
General Ted Olson.
Think about it,
people! If you knew or suspected your spouse's aircraft had
just fireballed inside the Pentagon building, how would you spend the
rest of the day? Initially you would certainly be in deep shock and
unwilling to believe the reports. Then you would start to gather your
wits together, a slow process in itself. After that and depending on
individual personality, you might drive over to the Pentagon on the
off chance your spouse survived the horrific crash, or you might go
home and wait for emergency services to bring you the inevitable bad
news. As a matter of record, Ted Olson did not return to work until
six days later.
About the last
thing on your mind [especially if you happened to be the US Solicitor
General], would be to pick up a telephone and call the CNN Atlanta
news desk in order to give them a "scoop". As a seasoned
politician you would already know that all matters involving national
security must first be vetted by the National Security Council. Under
the extraordinary circumstances and security overkill existing on
September 11, this vetting process would have taken a minimum of two
days, and more likely three.
The timing of
the CNN news release about Barbara Olson, is therefore as impossible
as the New Zealand press release back in 1963 about the assassination
of President John F. Kennedy. As reported independently by Colonel
Fletcher Prouty USAF (Retired), whoever set Kennedy up, accidentally
launched a full international newswire biography on obscure
"killer" Lee Harvey Oswald, without first taking the trouble to
check his world clock.
It was still
"yesterday" in New Zealand on the other side of the International
Date Line when the biography was wired from New York, enabling
the Christchurch Star newspaper was able to print a story about
Oswald as the prime suspect in its morning edition, several hours
before he was first accused of the crime by Dallas police.
If the CNN
story about Ted Olson had been correct, and he really had called them
about Barbara on September 11, then he would most surely have followed
the telephone call up a few days later with a tasteful "one-on-one"
television interview, telling the hushed and respectful interviewer
about how badly he missed his wife, and about the sheer horror of it
all.
There is no
record of any such interview in the CNN or other archives. Indeed, if
you key "Barbara Olson" into the CNN search engine, it returns
only two related articles. The first is the creative invention on
September 12 at 2.06 am EDT [0606 GMT], and the second is on December
12, about President Bush, who led a White House memorial that
began at 8:46 a.m. EST, the moment the first hijacked plane hit the
World Trade Center three months before. CNN includes this comment
about Ted Olson:
"In a
poignant remembrance at the Justice Department, U.S. Solicitor General
Theodore Olson referred to "the sufferings we have all
experienced." He made no direct reference to the death of his
wife, Barbara Olson, who was a passenger aboard the American Airlines
flight that crashed into the PentagonŠ"
Regarding the
same event, Fox News reports that, extraordinarily, Deputy
Attorney General Larry Thompson then said Barbara Olson's call, made
"in the midst of terrible danger and turmoil swirling around
her," was a "clarion call that awakened our nation's leaders
to the true nature of the events of Sept. 11."
So Ted Olson
avoided making any direct personal reference to the death of his wife.
Clearly this was not good enough for someone somewhere. By the sixth
month anniversary of the attack, Ted Olson was allegedly interviewed
by London Telegraph reporter Toby Harnden, with his exclusive story
"She Asked Me How To Stop The Plane" appearing in that London
newspaper on March 5, thereafter renamed and syndicated around
dozens of western countries as "Revenge Of The Spitfire",
finally appearing in the West Australian newspaper on Saturday March
23, 2002.
I have
diligently tried to find a copy of this story in an American newspaper
but have so far failed. The reasons for this rather perverse
"external" publication of Ted Olson's story are not yet clear, but
it seems fair to observe that if he is ever challenged by a Senate
Select Committee about the veracity of his claims, the story could not
be used against him because it was published outside American
sovereign territory.
Regardless of
the real reason or reasons for its publication, the story seems to
have matured a lot since the first decoy news release by CNN early on
September 12, 2001. Here we have considerably more detail, some of
which is frankly impossible. In the alleged words of US Solicitor
General Theodore Olson:
"She
[Barbara] had trouble getting through, because she wasn't using her
cell phone - she was using the phone in the passengers' seats,"
said Mr Olson. "I guess she didn't have her purse, because she was
calling collect, and she was trying to get through to the Department
of Justice, which is never very easy." Š "She wanted to know
'What can I tell the pilot? What can I do? How can I stop this?'
"
"What Can
I tell the pilot?" Yes indeed! The forged Barbara Olson telephone
call claims that the flight deck crew were with her at the back of the
aircraft, presumably politely ushered down there by the box
cutter-wielding Muslim maniacs, who for some bizarre reason decided
not to cut their throats on the flight deck. Have you ever heard
anything quite so ridiculous?
But it is at
this juncture that we finally have the terminal error. Though the
American Airlines Boeing 757 is fitted with individual telephones at
each seat position, they are not of the variety where you can simply
pick up the handset and ask for an operator. On many aircraft you can
talk from one seat to another in the aircraft free of charge, but if
you wish to access the outside world you must first swipe your credit
card through the telephone. By Ted Olson's own admission, Barbara
did not have a credit card with her.
It gets worse.
On American Airlines there is a telephone "setup" charge of
US$2.50 which can only be paid by credit card, then a US$2.50
(sometimes US$5.00) charge per minute of speech thereafter. The setup
charge is the crucial element. Without paying it in advance by swiping
your credit card you cannot access the external telephone network.
Under these circumstances the passengers' seat phone on a Boeing 757
is a much use as a plastic toy.
Perhaps Ted
Olson made a mistake and Barbara managed to borrow a credit card from
a fellow passenger? Not a chance. If Barbara had done so, once swiped
through the phone, the credit card would have enabled her to call
whoever she wanted to for as long as she liked, negating any
requirement to call collect.
Sadly perhaps, the Olson
telephone call claim is proved untrue. Any American official wishing
to challenge this has only to subpoena the telephone company and
Justice Department records. There will be no charge originating from
American Airlines 77 to the US Solicitor General.
Even without
this hard proof, the chances of meaningfully using a seat-telephone on
Flight 77 were nil. We know from the intermittent glimpses of
the aircraft the air traffic controllers had on the radar scopes, that
Flight 77 was travelling at extreme speed at very low level, pulling
high "G' turns in the process.
Under these
circumstances it would be difficult even reaching a phone, much less
using it. Finally, the phones on the Boeing 757 rely on either ground
cell phone towers or satellite bounce in order to maintain a stable
connection. At very low altitude and extreme speed, the violent
changes in aircraft attitude would render the normal telephone links
completely unusable.
Exactly the
same applies with United Airlines Flight 93 that crashed before
reaching any targets. The aircraft was all over the place at extreme
speed on radar, but as with Flight 77 we are asked to believe that the
"hijackers" allowed a passenger called Todd Beamer to place a
thirteen minute telephone call. Very considerate of them. The
Pittsburg Channel put it this way in a story first posted at 1.38 pm
EDT on September 16, 2001:
"Todd Beamer
placed a call on one of the Boeing 757's on-board telephones and spoke
for 13 minutes with GTE operator Lisa D. Jefferson, Beamer's wife
said. He provided detailed information about the hijacking and --
after the operator told him about the morning's World Trade Center and
Pentagon attacks - said he and others on the plane were planning to
act against the terrorists aboard." Note here that Mrs Lisa
Beamer did not receive a telephone call from Todd personally, but was
later "told" by an operator that her husband had allegedly called.
Just another unfortunate media con job for the trash can.
As previously
stated it is the Barbara Olson story that really counts, a view
reinforced by the recent antics of the London print media. The photo
at the top of this page is a copy of that printed in the West
Australian newspaper. You only have to study it closely for a second
to realize its full subliminal potential.
Here is a
studious and obviously very honest man. The US Solicitor General sits
in front of a wall lined with leather-bound volumes of Supreme Court
Arguments, with a photo of his dead wife displayed prominently in
front of him. Does anyone out there seriously believe that this
man, a bastion of US law, would tell even a minor lie on a matter as
grave as national security?
Theodore
Olson's own words indicate that he would be prepared to do rather more
than that On March 21, 2002 on its page A35, the Washington Post
newspaper printed an article titled "The Limits of Lying" by Jim
Hoagland, who writes that a statement by Solicitor General Theodore
Olson in the Supreme Court has the ring of perverse honesty.
Addressing the
Supreme Court of the United States of America, US Solicitor
General Theodore Olson said it is "easy to imagine an infinite
number of situations . . . where government officials might quite
legitimately have reasons to give false information out."
Back to Index - Home
