It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Saudi Embassy forwarded a very large number of copies of it to the White House. The White House forwarded it to the CIA with a memo from Bush directly to the analysts praising the article and saying that, "this is what good intelligence looks like; it makes our friends look good too".
Was Bush really that clueless that he did not know the difference between a sheer fabric of lies and intelligence? I decided to find that out. I tracked down the tapes for the day he had signed that memo. The security camera footage showed when he signed it -- about April 2001. . I then went to the audio tapes.
During the hour before the signing he had been in a meeting on Middle Eastern topics. One of those topics included oil and how much there was by country.
Another topic was going to war in the Middle East during his presidency. It was agreed that "both were goals to work towards". Bush had then said, "We need to protect our friends in Saudi Arabia from 'a bad rap'". A staffer then went and found the box of articles that the Saudis had sent over in about February 2001.
There was one area in which the Saudi articles deeply troubled me, other than the cover-up of the human rights issues. That was they backed a "might makes right" stance which undermined international law and even treaty making to resolve problems in the Middle East. They acceded to the view that war was inevitable and to the victors should go the spoils.
When I showed the "Saudi" articles to Tenet, he let me have CIA analysts write reports on what effect those articles had had on CIA intelligence. 5 CIA analysts were independently given that assignment and asked not to talk with each other before finishing their reports. I did not think that the 5 were fairly chosen, however, as they were among the known Yes-men in the Dept of Intelligence. And I was later able to prove that Tenet had personally instructed them "not to find anything". Since he could be charged with treason potentially if they did find any shaping of the intelligence, there was a great deal of pressure on them not to. All except one, said that the Saudi articles had made no significant change in US intelligence.
One analyst complained to me that his dog had been violently killed and inferred that I was indirectly to blame. Another one angrily told me that his wife had been terminated at her job because the CIA had called her boss.
And one told me that he had hardly been able to sleep during the week he wrote the report for fear of what would happen to him. His physician told him he had developed an ulcer and recommended that he quit his job.
Thus, we may never know the full truth about the effect of the Saudi articles on the cooking of US intelligence as it was clear that the analysts had been threatened.
Since those Saudi articles had been written outside the CIA and were not classified, I then sent them to 4 academicians to review their 'likely effect' on US intelligence.
They were not paid for their opinions. They did not have the White House/CIA-VIP paid articles. And they did not have access to the CIA's analysts articles.
They said that the Saudi articles were likely to have heavily skewed US intelligence because of the credentials of the purported authors of the articles.
See Case 12 which reports that that was indeed the case.
They said that they expected that skewing to excuse Saudi wrong doing while blaming problems in the Middle East on other countries. One went so far as to say that the US not invading Saudi Arabia after 911 was likely due to these articles shaping the intelligence.
Another one said, "if these articles were indeed read inside US intelligence, then the war in the Middle East was partly the result of the Saudis". None of them thought that the effect of the articles was 'minor'.
It was an important intelligence question, "What did the Saudis try to accomplish in commissioning articles to feed into the minds of CIA analysts?" It was even more important to try to discover what had been the effect on US intelligence and foreign policy. Many people had wondered after 911 why the US invaded Afghanistan when the pilots were all alleged by the FBI to be Saudis. People had asked me, "Why did the US not invade Saudi Arabia instead?"
Thus, when I investigated the Saudi role in cooking US intelligence in 2004, I collected as many articles as I could which the Saudis had commissioned and sent to the CIA in bulk. It took me some work to figure out which articles had been commissioned by the White House and CIA, versus which had been commissioned by the Saudis.
There were about 125 articles in the "Saudi" group. I guessed from the information I had that that was about 70% of those that they had commission between Jan. 2001 and when I did the study in 2004, maybe 175 total. They averaged 3 pages long, so about 500 pages had been commissioned. If they were paying the same as the White House/CIA-VIPs they were paying about $100,000 a page for a total cost of $50 million. When I located the bank account that the funds came out of, the true cost appeared to be about $38 million. They were using essentially the same list and authors, so they appeared to have that cost savings do to being better at bargaining the price down.
(May 24, 2008) CIA Director George Tenet sent me over to the Pentagon in August 2001 to pick up the 9-11 planning documents, and move Pentagon corruption documents and real secrets out of the way of the anticipated 9-11 firefighters.
Originally posted by VIKINGANT
I have been trying to do some digging on the Author of this article or her credibility.
Does anybody know of Sue Anne Arrigo MD? All I could find out is that she is ex CIA and is a big time whistle blower.
Its a wonder she is still alive....
[edit on 4/6/2008 by VIKINGANT]
On May 31, 2007, at 8:32 PM, Sue Arrigo wrote:
Dear Dr. Cantwell,
Thank you for your courage and integrity in speaking the truth.
As an ex- CIA physician with high level access, I wrote a report for DCI Webster in about 1991 arguing for closure of all the US Bio-Warfare Labs. I did that after reviewing the Ft. Detrick and the CIA's Langley Bio-Warfare Labs's research, looking at their own documents. That review was authorized because Bush, Sr. had sold dangerous Bio-Warfare agents to Hussein, which I ended up having to recover from Iraq. Webster, as a former judge, willing to evaluate the evidence, allowed me to research the field and write a report for him of close to 100 pages and 1000 pages of supporting documents.
Although the focus of my report was why the Bio-Warfare Labs should be closed, the issue of the HIV virus developed by the Ft. Detrick lab formed about 18 pages of my report. At the time I wrote that report, the vaccine for HIV that had been developed in 6 months of work, had already been used by the Cabal since 1983.
It was a crime against humanity that the virus was unleashed on the world, and it continues to be a crime that the vaccine has been kept secret and for private use only. Meanwhile, the outer research to get to a vaccine is an exercise in how not to arrive at a solution before millions more die. The initial "hopes" for HIV per its designers was to be able to walk into Africa and take the resources from a ghost continent. They had hyped it as killing everyone there within a year, in their pre-release reports.
The research at the Labs addressed the fastest way to make vaccines to Bio-warfare agents, both in labs, at a front, and impromptu on a battlefield. That was a pressing concern and one that was researched using millions and millions of dollars.
Briefly, the consensus at the time was that
1) Any agent from a sick soldier left in a Waring Blender for 8 hours would be broken down well enough to not be infective in small doses ( ie. less than a 100 germs). The Labs had made an IgM set of antibodies to sediment out the human HLA antigens by centrifuging it. That allowed the supernatant to be used as a vaccine with little serum sickness problems. A physician in a war zone equipped with a Waring Blender, a blood specimen centrifuge, and a vial of the IgM could make a fast "fresh" vaccine and start inoculating soldiers. The labs tested that using a variety of agents and common cold agents. It was only if one wanted to store the vaccine in vials that one got into the problem of denaturing the proteins of the agent due to heat, chemicals,etc. That was where most of the problems of loss of effectiveness crop up.
2) The Labs found that causing a 1cm by 1cm abrasion until one got lymph and applying a drop of the "fresh vaccine" and a band aid, worked almost as well as an injection. The abrasion could be caused by three fast firm strokes of very fine sand paper over a template with a square of skin bulging through it. This method had much less serum sickness problem. The major problem was occasion keloid and scar formation and superficial infections.
3) The Labs also showed that it was possible to make a crude live vaccine as an emergency directly on the battlefield. The principle was that infection occurs when the body's defenses are overwhelmed but that the body can usually fend off 10 to 50 organisms even of Bio-warfare agents. It was a simple dilution to get the agent into the right ballpark, starting with a secretion of a sick person. Then a drop of that dilute live agent would be placed on an abrasion. That was also tested during war games with colds etc. The diluted material can't be stored for longer than an hour due to the risk of multiplying the agent. It was assumed that in the field it would not be known whether the agent was a virus or a bacteria. A bacteria that divided every 20 minutes could be 8 fold in quantity after an hour and risk causing the infection one was attempting to prevent. Of course, such a live agent could be extremely dangerous and except in an extreme emergency would not be used.
4) The issue of how to quickly sterilize a make-shift vaccine was also addressed in the research. The best method was to dry the agent, if time permitted. Second best was to preserve the agent in Vodka (40%), not gin, etc., and then to dilute it down to less than 2% alcohol before applying it to the abrasion.
That means that a simple vaccine for HIV can be made by virtually anyone in the world in a short period of time, though it would likely need to be repeated periodically to get and keep the titers up. But repeating it is a good idea anyway as that helps address the mutation problem. So, suppose one took 1 cc of secretions from each of 10 HIV patients in an area (without fungal infections preferably) and mixed them together to have a range of HIV agents. Then one could add 250 cc of Vodka and let it sit a week. Then one could remove a cc of that and add 20 cc of clean water to get a less than 2% alcohol solution. A drop of that could be applied to an abrasion. That, I believe, would give you about 60% protection. Repeating that at intervals of about 2 weeks to a month for 6 months and using new HIV secretions every 6 to 12 months, I think would give one fairly good protection in a person with a normal immune system to start with. Of course, that is a crude method and should be tested for efficacy etc. But it is simple enough to test on sex workers, if they were willing to volunteer. They are at such high risk that the likely benefits almost certainly outweigh the risks. The chief risk would still be sensitization with human HLA proteins. The beauty of using abrasions is that one can wash the vaccine off as soon as any untoward reaction is noticed.
If you know of people doing HIV research who are not controlled by the US govt, could you please pass this information on to them?
It would be good to get it out to those who could investigate this information with the intention of saving lives with it. Bio- warfare research is immoral and illegal. Unfortunately the US govt is accelerating that research and production of secret private vaccines.
Sincerely, Sue Arrigo, MD