Moscow Blames Georgia for Arresting Russian Man Attempting to Sell Weapons Grade Uranium to Rich Foreign Buyer

What a predictable responsibility shift that only a dictatorship could manage. First it was Polonium 210, and now it is enriched uranium.

AFP piece from July 2005: Al-Qaeda's Ayman Al Zawahiri FSB-Trained in Dagestan? It appears that Alexander Litvinenko had dropped this bombshell through a Polish newspaper in July 2005, claiming that Ayman Al-Zawahiri had been trained by Russia's secret services. The story was picked up then by AGENCE FRANCE PRESSE. Litvinenko's book "Blowing Up Russia" is now being re-published and reconsidered.

Considering the seriousness of the high yield shells lobbed at his former bosses in Russia, it is now as important for US, British and other agencies to fact check all of Litvinenko's disclosures as it is to find out who conspired to kill him. Corruption and Conspiracy (c-squared) are usually an inseparable celebrity pair once spotted in the press (which is one reason a c-squared president would want to gut the free press).

Implications: If Al-Zawahiri was trained and working for the Russians since 1998 it would mean it was while Putin was FSB Chief. If so, and al-Qaeda executed 9-11, either Al-Zawahiri didn't tell his bosses in Russia (intentionally or because he was compartmentalized out of 9-11 by bin-Laden), or, if he told, the Russians didn't warn the United States either because the communication was killed within FSB, or because the non-disclosure was intentional from the top.

If the Russians knew and did tell the U.S. about 9-11, then their warnings about 9-11 may have been ignored. If Al-Zawahiri was working for the Russians and did tell them about 9-11, and they did not tell Washington, it means that the FSB and RF were most likely planning to operate adaptively to 9-11 and its fallout to gain advantage from it over the U.S. (Judo) at little or no cost to the Russian Federation whatsoever.

Worst case scenario for the C-squared camp in Russia: if professional aspects of 9-11 were Vympel-taught and supported. Being no demolitions expert at all, I'd naturally ask: could al-Qaeda sponsors have gone so far as plant extra charges on Twin Tower floors considering that the 1993 attempt started out low? And, again, if the Litvinenko haymakers in "Blowing Up Russia" are true, then the C-theories of "false flag" operations on 9-11 leave the Bozo-no-no realm of wild accusation toward the Yalies, and quietly ask to be ruled out in another direction, that is, as to Russian special forces training and perhaps supporting al-Qaeda elements. All U.S. agencies should, if they haven't already, rule this out in the American interest. Bin-Laden worked alongside the CIA when repelling Soviets was the first priority. Is the shoe on the other foot?

If Al-Zawahiri had been working for the Russians since 1998, I wonder if he could have been a source who turned over the location of Al-Zarqawi to his bosses, who then traded that info with the US in exchange for the location of Shamil Basayev (rank speculation presuming that Basayev's location was known to West near to his 2005 ABC interview).

Why would Al-Zawahiri give al-Zarqawi away while betraying Muslim brothers in Chechnya? Because Al-Zarqawi may have irreparably damaged Al-Qaeda's reputation among Muslims by blowing so many of them up. And, if he was spying on al-Qaeda for Russia, he was already betraying his Wahhabist brothers. Some Chechens are Wahhabi Muslims, and apparently, even an Armenian Christian could join the multi-Muslim Chechen front in fighting the Russians, if this WP account was true. Also, by giving up Al-Zarqawi, the Russians could also create the impression that they would certainly have warned the U.S. if they knew of 9-11 since they gave it Zarqawi.

Now then, if Litvinenko's roman candles are of strange fire, and he'd been seasoning his verbal Molotov cocktails with big whopping lies, then the Al-Zawahiri analysis would be just another interesting thriller plot to be debunked by those with more knowledge when it was safe to do so. Like on the history channel when I'm whitening my dentures and the sea level has risen to the Hollywood sign.

Efforts to Recruit Nationalist Emigres

Also, rumors are that former-KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhensky will have a new book out via Liberty Publishing of New York, entitled The KGB In Russian Immigration. The book may discuss ongoing SVR/FSB efforts to recruit nationalistic Russian emigres outside of Russia (Watch www.liberty-publishing.com for announcements). Part of this effort: using the Moscow Patriarchate's contacts and authority to be effected in writing in May 2007 over the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, to identify nationalistic Russians abroad for recruitment.

It seems that Mr. Preobrazhensky makes a point of calling Russian intelligence services "KGB" so that the continuity of their control under cabinet level former KGB officers including, for example, President Vladimir Putin, Media Minister Vladimir Kozlov, and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, will not be forgotten simply because agency names changed to lose the stigma of the old acronyms. Bad branding you know.

DeNiro, Bearden, Holbrooke and "The Good Shepherd"

And here is an interesting item regarding Robert De Niro drinking and bathing with former KGB officers, researching his movie "The Good Shepherd." The meeting was reportedly made possible by his former 30 year clandestine operations CIA man and movie consultant Milton Bearden, according to Patrick Goldstein of the LA Times (see above link). And Bearden was reportedly introduced to De Niro by former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State and Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. (see above link).

Bearden, interestingly, was also someone who came out early in the Litvinenko investigation to say that President Vladimir Putin was not involved in Alexander Litvinenko's poisoning because he would have too much to lose. Said Bearden to Time: "Take a deep breath and take a look at Putin and say, 'Is he stupid or insane?'"

Why Bearden would not consider the CIA's own Plausible Deniability doctrine when analyzing the possibility of Putin's involvement in Litvinenko's death for Time, I cannot understand. Or, the question of capability and habit well handled by Boris Volodarsky at WSJ.com.

As the old KGB veteran told Mr. DeNiro: "To deal with betrayal you must begin with one thing,” he told De Niro: “The understanding that another man’s soul is darkness."

Maybe that's a wrap, and maybe not.

If these reports are true, what are the implications?

Ayman in 1998

As pasted into "The Final Phase" forum:

AFP piece from July 2005: Al-Qaeda's Ayman Al Zawahiri FSB-Trained in Dagestan? It appears that Alexander Litvinenko had dropped this bombshell through a Polish newspaper in July 2005, claiming that Ayman Al-Zawahiri had been trained by Russia's secret services. The story was picked up then by AGENCE FRANCE PRESSE. Litvinenko's book "Blowing Up Russia" is now being re-published and reconsidered.

Considering the seriousness of the high yield shells lobbed at his former bosses in Russia, it is now as important for US, British and other agencies to fact check all of Litvinenko's disclosures as it is to find out who conspired to kill him. Corruption and conspiracy are usually an inseparable celebrity pair once spotted in the press (which is one reason a C-squared president would want to gut the free press).

Implications: If Al-Zawahiri was trained and working for the Russians since 1998 it would mean it was while Putin was FSB Chief. If so, and al-Qaeda executed 9-11, either Al-Zawahiri didn't tell his bosses in Russia (intentionally or because he was compartmentalized out of 9-11 by bin-Laden), or, if he told, the Russians didn't warn the United States either because the communication was killed within FSB, or because the non-disclosure was intentional from the top.

If the Russians knew and did tell the U.S. about 9-11, then their warnings about 9-11 may have been ignored. If Al-Zawahiri was working for the Russians and did tell them about 9-11, and they did not tell Washington, it means that the FSB and RF were most likely planning to operate adaptively to 9-11 and its fallout to gain advantage from it over the U.S. (Judo) at little or no cost to the Russian Federation whatsoever.

Worst case scenario for the C-squared camp in Russia: if professional aspects of 9-11 were Vympel-taught. And, myself being no demolitions expert at all, I'd naturally ask some of them: could it go to the level of extra charges planted in Twin Tower lower floors considering that the 1993 attempt started out low? And, again, if the Litvinenko haymakers in "Blowing Up Russia" are true, then the C-theories of "false flag" operations 9-11 leave the Bozo-no-no realm and quietly ask to be ruled out by all U.S. agencies in the American interest.

If Al-Zawahiri had been working for the Russians, it also makes one wonder if he could have been a source who turned over the location of Al-Zarqawi to the Russians who then traded that info with the US for the location of Shamil Basayev (rank speculation presuming that Basayev's location was known to West near to his 2005 ABC interview). Why would Al-Zawahiri give al-Zarqawi away while betraying Muslim brothers in Chechnya? Because Al-Zarqawi may have irreparably damaged Al-Qaeda's reputation among Muslims by blowing so many of them up. And, if he was spying on al-Qaeda for Russia, he was already betraying his Wahhabist brothers. Some Chechens are Wahhabi Muslims, and apparently, even an Armenian Christian could join the multi-Muslim Chechen front in fighting the Russians, if this WP account was true. Also, by giving up Al-Zarqawi, the Russians could also create the impression that they would certainly have warned the U.S. if they knew of 9-11 since they gave it Zarqawi.

Now then, if Litvinenko's roman candles are of strange fire, and he'd been seasoning his verbal Molotov cocktails with big whopping lies, then the Al-Zawahiri analysis would be just another interesting thriller plot to be debunked by those with more knowledge when it was safe to do so. Like on the history channel when I'm whitening my dentures and the sea level has risen to the Hollywood sign.

Efforts to Recruit Nationalist Emigres

Also, rumors are that former-KGB officer Konstantin Preobrazhensky will have a new book out via Liberty Publishing of New York, entitled The KGB In Russian Immigration. The book may discuss ongoing SVR/FSB efforts to recruit nationalistic Russian emigres outside of Russia (Watch www.liberty-publishing.com for announcements). Part of this effort: using the Moscow Patriarchate's contacts and authority to be effected in writing in May 2007 over the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, to identify nationalistic Russians abroad for recruitment.

It seems that Mr. Preobrazhensky makes a point of calling Russian intelligence services "KGB" so that the continuity of their control under cabinet level former KGB officers including, for example, President Vladimir Putin, Media Minister Vladimir Kozlov, and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov, will not be forgotten simply because agency names changed to lose the stigma of the old acronyms. Bad branding you know.

DeNiro, Bearden, Holbrooke and "The Good Shepherd"

And here is an interesting item regarding Robert De Niro drinking and bathing with former KGB officers, researching his movie "The Good Shepherd." The meeting was reportedly made possible by his former 30 year clandestine operations CIA man and movie consultant Milton Bearden, according to Patrick Goldstein of the LA Times (see above link). And Bearden was reportedly introduced to De Niro by former U.S. Deputy Secretary of State and Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. (see above link).

Bearden, interestingly, was also someone who came out early in the Litvinenko investigation to say that President Vladimir Putin was not involved in Alexander Litvinenko's poisoning because he would have too much to lose. Said Bearden to Time: "Take a deep breath and take a look at Putin and say, 'Is he stupid or insane?'"

Why Bearden would not consider the CIA's own Plausible Deniability doctrine when analyzing the possibility of Putin's involvement in Litvinenko's death for Time, I cannot understand. Or, the question of capability and habit well handled by Boris Volodarsky at WSJ.com.

Well, as the old KGB veteran told Mr. DeNiro: "To deal with betrayal you must begin with one thing,” he told De Niro: “The understanding that another man’s soul is darkness."

Maybe that's a wrap, and maybe not.

This post will focus on only one aspect of the President's State of the Union address of 01/24/2007.

The President of the United States has again taken the actions of al-Qaeda (AQ) on 9-11 and analogized Sunni and Shi'ite combatants in Iraq with AQ.

President Bush has also expanded the scope of the War on Terror the same way the War on Drugs had been proceeding: as a war without end. I say this not because he literally called for a war without end. And I do not say that he even intends a war without end. He may very well believe that all terrorists can be rooted out and beaten decisively in the world and that when the last one falls or is in jail, it will be over.

It doesn't matter if President Bush believes the War on Terror can be won, because it is not any more likely to happen than a War on Crime is going to be won without first achieving the moral perfection of human beings. Social morals and their breach are the provocative fuels for crime in general.

President Bush seems to have implied that victory in Iraq will come when Iraq is a peaceful, prosperous democracy. And, discussing the War on Terror, he seems to imply that victory in that war will come when all nations are prosperous democracies. However, the United States is a prosperous democracy, and the chaos of New Orleans took place after Katrina. The Oklahoma City bombing happened. Anthrax mailings happened. Gang warfare and most index crimes are a form of terrorism to victims and those who live in fear because of them. To some, an overly intrusive government is a terror.

What this amounts to is finishing the work of the Cold War towards all nations that are not democracies, since terrorists could hide out in them, and based on the false premise that terrorizing by violence will cease because democracies are the only governments. The flipside argument in support of Bush's implied terrorless democracy would be that America must not be a democracy if terrorist acts happen in it.

However, if the Bush Administration policy is that the War on Terror won't be won until all nations are prosperous democracies, then all authoritarian and totalitarian regimes will take that as a threat and begin arming to engage in a new Cold War with the U.S. However, the US continues robust commercial relations with these authoritarian regimes, fueling their efforts against the War on Terror and democracy. Democracy scares them. They will use proxy wars and sponsor guerilla-terror militancy against the U.S. to spread it out. They know that the U.S. will not attack nations with nuclear weapons because of escalation to MAD, and so it is in their interest to make the world nuclear to ensure MAD.

Another goal for those non-democratic powers opposing the US: to provoke the U.S. to imperial conclusions that urge it to the same end that the USSR suffered through a a War on Terror that (A) does not end; and (B) requires indefinite suspension of democratic features with freedom being always over that next hill (of cow dung). Once upon a time the U.S. cast the USSR as a state which began with an ideology for the common working man, but which was really a ruse to keep the oppressed people of the USSR in service to an elite. How, if the US suspends democracy and democratic principles, will it escape similar allegations abroad?

Superpower states seem to get it turned around just as individuals do. They take their eye off of the ball, that is, off of being an example of the values they preached to become influential and powerful, and turn from superpower to grasp at imperial power. They could have defended themselves using their power and ingenuity, however, they wrongly believed they had to take over the world to defend themselves. The Reagan Administration had the Peace through Strength idea right on. Peace through imperialism doesn't work.

The Russian and Chinese regimes have already shown a willingness to defend their authoritarian and non-democratic ways of life, and have each come to aid and abet terror sponsors and organizations which have used terror tactics, namely, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. And because they are nuclear states with market power, the U.S. says "live and let live," and these powers suffer no backlash at home for doing dastardly things abroad. They are not constitutional democracies with checks and balances and accountabilities to the people.

By not articulating a realistic, measurable and limited War on Terror, the President of the United States has not only denied what it means to be the United States of America, he has implied that imperialism is necessary to democracy. He has argued that America must be imperial to make democracy come true in the world. He did not announce that being an empire is anti-thetical to what it means to be America. That is unacceptable. The U.S. can defeat evil empires rising by being a superpower democracy and not an empire itself. It cannot win without setting an example that others want to emulate.

Ronald Reagan called the USSR an evil empire. Is there any other kind, whether the empire is too inefficient to humanely govern, or, too militant and totalitarian because it must perpetuate its expanding bureaucracy to defend and justify itself?

How can President Bush say he is for smaller governments and democracy yet fail to exclude Empire as an American option?

President George W. Bush used the same language that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia used to describe what most of the other U.S. Presidents of yesteryear called "allies" and or "friends."

In the State of the Union Mr. Bush talked about how the U.S. is working with its "partners" to stop terrorism, but he did not exclude the non-democratic regimes of China and Russia. Perhaps he should call these partners temporary alliances on particular efforts.

What does it profit the U.S. to join itself in partnership with the authoritarian and totalitarian regimes (partners) while condemning terrorism and terrorist sponsor states which the authoritarian "partners" themselves support?

At a time when the U.K.'s Scotland Yard pursues certain businesspersons and politicians for inducing campaign donations for titular honors of nobility, it would help to know each and every business person involved by name, and whether any foreign money could be involved.