The mystery of the Shah's collapse solved

[yankeedoodle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsTxfH6tnww

Believe it or not, dear friends, this video of the Shah of Iran solves a mystery that Yankee Doodle has had nearly 40 years.  You will see in this video that the Shah sealed his fate with the words he spoke in this brief video.

Below is an account Yankee Doodle recently wrote describing this mystery, and this video, which occurred between the time of the Shah's visit to Washington and the riots that took place in Washington, shows that, once the Shah spoke out against Israhell, HE HAD TO GO.  The events described below - firstly, tremendous security in Washington, and, secondly, lawlessness in Washington - indicates that, when the Shah told the truth, all support for him disappeared. 

I actually saw the Shah - well, I guess it was him, but it might have been his double - and I've always been fascinated about what happened.

I lived in VA, and was attending GWU, and one Sunday morning I drove to the GWU library down PA Ave. in front of the White House - you could do it then - and I noticed some activity - barricades, police, etc. - at the Blair House, and, being a nice day, and me being curious, I stopped and asked a cop what was happening. I then proceeded to park my car and position myself across the Avenue from Blair House, in front of the Old Executive Office Building, so I could spectate.

I watched a fascinating security operation using a blue Rolls-Royce, a DC city bus that provided cover for the decoy Rolls-Royce to depart behind, a burnt orange Cadillac Eldorado that was as long as it was garish and that continually circled Blair House, and a station wagon, the station wagon driver emerging to display a twitching trigger finger to the crowd, and the Kojak-like Eldorado driver emerging to plant himself on the yellow line on PA Ave. so as to unblinkingly scan 180 degrees before he - surely the Shah's personal chief of security - allowed the Shah to exit Blair House and jog down the steps and make a quick wave before entering a car that that took him to Meet The Press or Face The Nation. 

While I was fascinated by this orchestrated departure, I did look around occasionally, and there were very few other spectators - and absolutely no protesters or demonstrators - but things got crowded towards the end when I was suddenly sandwiched between two guys who were intently interested in whether I might twitch.  I imagine that, to this day, my photo is in a file somewhere labeled "idiot who stood by fence and couldn't mind his own business". 

This was during the Ford administration, and I'm sure there were more security people that day than spectators, and there were absolutely no protesters, so, imagine my surprise when, a year or two later,  during the Carter Administration, when I was then living in Bethesda, just off Wisconsin Avenue, all hell broke loose, and there were mounted Park Police battling protesters at Lafayette Square, just adjacent to the Blair House that the Shah was oh-so-secure in just a year or two before.

I've always thought to myself "somebody pulled the rug out from under him [the Shah]".

[rmstock]

Why would CIA/ZMossad be more happy when the Ayatollah Khomeini says
the same things as the Shah but then in Farsi only and clothed in
folklore dress ?
I didn't have any clue about the Israel Lobby until 2006. The most
heard complaint in highschool was that history class was nothing but a
joke. I had no clue back then that essential historical facts were
simply omitted. The best writers of the 18th century on the subject
like Edward Gibbon were never mentioned.

[rmstock]

So who did kill Benazir Bhutto?
By Humayun Gauhar | Published: June 7, 2009
https://web.archive.org/web/20090608173337/http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/07-Jun-2009/So-who-did-kill-Benazir-Bhutto

"I ended last Sunday's article, Who killed Benazir? with the promise
   that, "Perhaps I'll continue with this next week because there's so
   much to tell, unless something happens - which is well within the realm
   of possibility - that demands more attention." Well something did
   happen, to wit President Obama's seminal speech in Cairo to what is
   euphemistically called 'the Muslim World'. It demands attention, but
   also requires consideration, not a knee-jerk article written in a
   couple of days just to show that I recognise the importance of the
   speech. It is precisely because I recognise its great importance and
   its great potential that I am leaving comment till full consideration.
   When the West has no cogent argument it accuses Pakistanis of wallowing
   in conspiracy theories. Sure people are vulnerable to conspiracy
   theories - I guess the most have to do with Kennedy's assassination -
   but who plants their seeds? Here's an example. Many believed that
   Benazir damaged the justification for the continued US presence in
   Afghanistan by saying to Sir David Frost on Al-Jazeera that Osama Bin
   Laden was dead, killed by Omar Saeed Sheikh, the former or current MI6
   agent, God alone knows which. This view gained great currency when the
   BBC website first edited out Benazir's crucial sentence - one excuse
   was that perhaps she had "misspoken" - then apologised and restored it.
   I said last week: "People have heard the interview many times. Benazir
   said the words deliberately and cautiously, after stopping and taking a
   breath before uttering Osama's name. Spurious excuses such as these
   insult people's intelligence and beget conspiracy theories for which
   people are then mocked by the perpetrators of spurious excuses."
   It has been alleged by President Musharraf that British born Omar Saeed
   Sheikh was first recruited by MI6 but then "turned". Perhaps he didn't
   and is a "double agent". I have never read any clarification of this
   from the British authorities, which also causes people to see possible
   conspiracies.
   The Seymour Hersh kafuffle started with his startling statement, to put
   it mildly, at the University of Minnesota on March 10 this year.
   "Congress has no oversight of it. It's an executive assassination wing,
   essentially. And it's been going on and on and on. And just today in
   the Times there is a story saying that its leader, a three-star admiral
   named McRaven, ordered a stop to certain activities because there were
   so many collateral deaths. It's been going in...under President Bush's
   authority, they've been going into countries, not talking to the
   ambassador or the CIA station chief, and finding people on a list and
   executing them and leaving."
   Wow! That's more damning than anything I've ever read or heard from the
   worst American enemy. Look at it.
   * Its a rogue "executive assassination wing" (or death squad, same
   thing) because "Congress has no oversight over it."
   * It is "under President Bush's authority" no less, far worse than
   being under Vice President Dick Cheney's authority.
   * It goes into countries secretly because it doesn't talk to the US
   ambassador or the CIA station chief. That's typical hit men stuff."


So who did kill Benazir Bhutto?(page 2)
By Humayun Gauhar | Published: June 7, 2009
https://web.archive.org/web/20090610214853/http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/Opinions/Columns/07-Jun-2009/So-who-did-kill-Benazir-Bhutto/1

  "* They have a list of people to execute, whom they find, kill and then
   leave - the opposite of Schindler's list, what?
   Being in the position that it is landed in, Pakistan must be the most
   visited destination of this executive assassination wing, but then
   neither Ambassador Patterson nor the CIA station chief would know
   anything about it, would they, which explains her umbrage that led her
   to write a rather acerbic self-righteous letter to The Nation. What Mr
   Hersh has said is damning indeed, as damning as saying that a US death
   squad killed Benazir Bhutto. So tell me: "Who killed Benazir Bhutto?"
   Do you still blame Pakistanis, a people who have been victims of many
   conspiracies, for believing in 'conspiracy theories', one of which is
   that the US killed Benazir? The seeds of many a 'conspiracy theory' are
   often sowed by the US and its western allies and their media's "Nescafe
   journalism".
   There's more, enough to write a book. Soon after Hersh's Minnesota
   speech, the CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Dick Cheney's former National
   Security Adviser John Hannah about Hersh's claim: "Is there a list of
   terrorists, suspected terrorists out there who can be assassinated?"
   And this is what Hannah said: "There is clearly a group of people that
   go through a very extremely well-vetted process, inter-agency
   process...that have committed acts of war against the United States,
   who are at war with the United States, or are suspected of planning
   operations of war against the United States, whom authority is given to
   the troops in the field and in certain war theatres to capture or kill
   those individuals. That is certainly true."
   Wolf Blitzer: "And so, this would be, and from your perspective - and
   you worked in the Bush administration for many years - it would be
   totally constitutional, totally legal, to go out and find these guys
   and to whack 'em?"
   John Hannah: "There's no question that in a theatre of war, when we are
   at war, and we know - there's no doubt, we are still at war against
   Al-Qaeda in Iraq, Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and on that Pakistani border,
   that our troops have the authority to go after and capture and kill the
   enemy, including the leadership of the enemy."
   Hersh told Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! "The problem with having
   military go kill people when they're not directly in combat, these are
   asking American troops to go out and find people and...they go into
   countries without telling any of the authorities, the American
   ambassador, the CIA chief, certainly nobody in the government that
   we're going into, and it's far more than just in combat areas. There's
   more - at least a dozen countries, and perhaps more....The president
   has authorised these kinds of actions...our boys have been told they
   can go and take the kind of executive action they need...there's no
   legal basis for it."
   Hersh on Guantanamo: "An internal report that I wrote about in a book I
   did years ago, an internal report made by the summer of 2002, estimated
   that at least half and possibly more of those people had nothing to do
   with actions against America. The intelligence we have is often very
   fragmentary, not very good. And the idea that the American president
   would think he has the constitutional power or the legal right to tell
   soldiers not engaged in immediate combat to go out and find people
   based on lists and execute them is just amazing to me...the thing about
   George Bush is, everything's sort of done in plain sight. In his State
   of the Union address, I think January the 28th, 2003, about a month and
   a half before we went into Iraq, Bush was describing the progress in
   the war, and he said...that we've captured more than 3,000 members of
   Al-Qaeda and suspected members, people suspected of operations against
   us. And then he added with that little smile he has, 'And let me tell
   you, some of those people will not be able to ever operate again. I can
   assure you that. They will not be in a position'. He's clearly talking
   about killing people, and to applause."
   About the JSOC, Hersh told Amy Goodman: "Well, it's a special unit. We
   have something called the Special Operations Command that operates out
   of Florida, and it involves a lot of wings. And one of the units that
   work under the umbrella of the Special Operations Command is known as
   Joint Special Op - JSOC. It's a special unit. What makes it so special,
   it's a group of elite people that include Navy Seals, some Navy Seals,
   Delta Force - what we call our black units, the commando units.
   'Commando' is a word they don't like, but that's what we, most of us,
   refer to them as. And they promote from within. It's a unit that has
   its own promotion structure. And one of the elements, I must tell you,
   about getting ahead in promotion is the number of kills you have. Of
   course. Because it's basically devised - it's been transmogrified, if
   you will, into this unit that goes after high-value targets. And where
   Cheney comes in and the idea of an assassination ring - I actually said
   'wing' - that reports to Cheney was simply that they clear lists
   through the vice president's office. He's not sitting around picking
   targets. They clear the lists. And he's certainly deeply involved, less
   and less as time went on, of course, but in the beginning very closely
   involved. And this is the elite unit. I think they do three-month
   tours. And last summer, I wrote a long article in The New Yorker, last
   July, about how the JSOC operation is simply not available, and there's
   no information provided by the executive to Congress."
   So who 'did' kill Benazir Bhutto? The question is still suspended in
   the air, where it will remain forevermore if they can help it.
   The writer is a political analyst
   E-mail: humayun.gauhar@gmail.com"

[yankeedoodle]

Why would CIA/ZMossad be more happy when the Ayatollah Khomeini says the same things as the Shah but then in Farsi only and clothed in folklore dress ?

  Well said, very well said. 

[rmstock]

[Idaho Kid]

Great video, Yankee! 

Why would CIA/ZMossad be more happy when the Ayatollah Khomeini says
the same things as the Shah but then in Farsi only and clothed in
folklore dress ?

If the Islamic "terrorist" says it it can't be true, no?