There's some additional interesting information on Ganley in "Blood Money, Wasted Billions, Lost Lives and Corporate Greed in Iraq." And what really makes it truly interesting is the lenght that Ganley and his Libertas Men-Cubs will go to suppress any attempt to delve further into the issues raised in the book.

What needs highlighting and repetition, in order to undermine Libertas' sadly effective propagada, is Ganley's NEO-CON connnections.

NEO-CON the phrase that will get his 'no voters' on the run.

A look at the spokesperson on Q&A said it all.

What a bizarre coalition the 'no' camp consists of: the psychiatric left to the Far Right with their NEO-CON buddies.
If they - crazed left- knocked Pronsias to the ground, what would they make of Ganley if they knew all.

The Iraq information justs highlights why Libertas has to be opposed.

Kev Bar wrote:

There's some additional interesting information on Ganley in "Blood Money, Wasted Billions, Lost Lives and Corporate Greed in Iraq." And what really makes it truly interesting is the lenght that Ganley and his Libertas Men-Cubs will go to suppress any attempt to delve further into the issues raised in the book.

What needs highlighting and repetition, in order to undermine Libertas' sadly effective propagada, is Ganley's NEO-CON connnections.

NEO-CON the phrase that will get his 'no voters' on the run.

A look at the spokesperson on Q&A said it all.

What a bizarre coalition the 'no' camp consists of: the psychiatric left to the Far Right with their NEO-CON buddies.
If they - crazed left- knocked Pronsias to the ground, what would they make of Ganley if they knew all.

The Iraq information justs highlights why Libertas has to be opposed.

You sound like you might have been saving that up for a little while "KevBar". Would I take it you are in the YES camp? There are some other posters here who would share you views there. And still more not decided. As the left are crazed and Ganley is far right, does that make you militant middle of the road?

Did you post this on p.ie KevBar? Or am I misremembering?

Kate P wrote:

Did you post this on p.ie KevBar? Or am I misremembering?

No, on P.ie he was Kevbarr and quite rational.

cactus flower wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Did you post this on p.ie KevBar? Or am I misremembering?

No, on P.ie he was Kevbarr and quite rational.

He did post something reasonably similar, but exposure to DC can leave anyone feeling dizzy.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Kate P wrote:

Did you post this on p.ie KevBar? Or am I misremembering?

No, on P.ie he was Kevbarr and quite rational.

He did post something reasonably similar, but exposure to DC can leave anyone feeling dizzy.

To render a copywriter semi-literate overnight is quite an achievement.

I logged in over there earlier and had a message or announcement from DC - I'm assuming it was an annoncement - about a KevBar - but I didn't read it. Anyone else have that or should we retire to the chamber of secrets to discuss?

It had gone when I logged in again.

Auditor #9 wrote:

I logged in over there earlier and had a message or announcement from DC - I'm assuming it was an annoncement - about a KevBar - but I didn't read it. Anyone else have that or should we retire to the chamber of secrets to discuss?

It had gone when I logged in again.

this is the thread I think you are looking for Audy

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=172&t=34008

Thanks Edo - the thread just ends abruptly with the strong suggestion that Libertas are threatening the media when they start to poke around

I'm inclined to start believing in SPN's theory that Libertas are there to discredit the NO crowd, nothing else.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Thanks Edo - the thread just ends abruptly with the strong suggestion that Libertas are threatening the media when they start to poke around

I'm inclined to start believing in SPN's theory that Libertas are there to discredit the NO crowd, nothing else.

Yep - it an interesting conspiracy alright - from what I've been hearing from the FF Lisbon camp (friends in low places ) it might not be entirely without foundation.

We were having a great auld converation over the other place on Libertas and neutrality and the intellectual construct behind Libertas and the evident paradox in place between that and the campaign they are running and all DC could contribute was to point out a tiny but obvious factual error in Ganleys resume that we had cleared up earlier.

There is an unwillingness to engage in the Libertas core beliefs and their relevance to the Lisbon campaign they are running.

Is this becuase they realise that their core ideals will resonate with only a tiny portion of the population and thus have made winning by any means necessary (very american that) the be and end all of their campaign? Who knows?

Edo wrote:

We were having a great auld converation over the other place on Libertas and neutrality and the intellectual construct behind Libertas and the evident paradox in place between that and the campaign they are running and all DC could contribute was to point out a tiny but obvious factual error in Ganleys resume that we had cleared up earlier.

Saw that. It seems ye are putting more mental effort into Libertas than Libertas themselves. And he still didn't address the neutrality question Seabchan posed them.

Auditor #9 wrote:

Edo wrote:

We were having a great auld converation over the other place on Libertas and neutrality and the intellectual construct behind Libertas and the evident paradox in place between that and the campaign they are running and all DC could contribute was to point out a tiny but obvious factual error in Ganleys resume that we had cleared up earlier.

Saw that. It seems ye are putting more mental effort into Libertas than Libertas themselves. And he still didn't address the neutrality question Seabchan posed them.

The least cookie could have done was mention the word neutrality ..

I have noticed a trend alright - whenever the conversation gets a bit wordy and deep - DC has a habit of interjecting some degree of diversion into the mix and the headbangers immediately pounch on it and the whole thread goes to hell in a handbasket.

very very clever device.

Edo wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Edo wrote:

We were having a great auld converation over the other place on Libertas and neutrality and the intellectual construct behind Libertas and the evident paradox in place between that and the campaign they are running and all DC could contribute was to point out a tiny but obvious factual error in Ganleys resume that we had cleared up earlier.

Saw that. It seems ye are putting more mental effort into Libertas than Libertas themselves. And he still didn't address the neutrality question Seabchan posed them.

The least cookie could have done was mention the word neutrality ..

I have noticed a trend alright - whenever the conversation gets a bit wordy and deep - DC has a habit of interjecting some degree of diversion into the mix and the headbangers immediately pounch on it and the whole thread goes to hell in a handbasket.

very very clever device.

I have to wonder where he learned it?

Well there was some criticism of Libertas today at the Forum on Europe meeting in Dublin Castle where they were described as naive in their poster campaign that suggested Europe is fine just as it is.

But there was no one there from Libertas to defend them.

this thread should be called libertas, free trade, the eu and american

Libertas: US Military Contractors Against Lisbon!
McEvaddy joins Ganley's "Libertas" Astroturf Campaign.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/87311

chekov calls it what it is an astroturf campaign....a fake campaign...
great
article, says what eveyrbody being wanting to say but i thought we were
over concentrating on the military links but it seems omega did get a
new contract...(im sure DC could pick wholes in chekov's article) but
i think it has more in general to do with american policy, (which incindentaly involves the miltary), it little to do with the military, its just standard do things our way!!! stuff.

and the these things aren't conspiracy theories or libel there there in black and white

New EU treaty worries US intel services

http://www.janes.com/news/publicsafety/jid/jid080117_1_n.shtml

I've searched for McEvaddy but I can't remember seeing or reading this:


Omega has significant experience with the unsolicited bid. The
company won its
Navy contract after volunteering a proposal, and it also has offered
planes to
the U.K. in case the Ministry of Defence's main tanker plan doesn't
work out.
Industry insiders say the company has even approached U.S.
intelligence agencies
about tanking services for detainee transfers, to reduce dependence
on foreign
air fields.

gobsmacking

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Europe/hl983.cfm
The question which I wish to pose is: Is the E.U. America's friend or—dare I say it—foe?

what more do we need to know,so we do we say yes eu power to balance the US, well that what the politicains have been saying didn't merkel say that last week, but for me time for more king nor kaiser action from us irish.


The Lisbon Treaty makes no mention of NATO's right of first refusal for all military missions pertaining to European security.
according to Liam fFx ?

Ah, this is too head wrecking, let's just shop for shoes.

The Indymedia article is very extensive and well researched and an important one to read. My only two reservations are that the FBI cleared Ganley of corruption charges (I believe) over Iraq. T Christian Miller the LA Times writer expressed frustration about that. The other is I haven't personally read evidence that Rivada has supplied the US security services. Rivada's equipment is mainly off the shelf stuff put into a package. Thats not to say it couldn't do the job. The rest is widely published on the internet - and plenty more of similar.

The Indymedia article makes the point that a significant part of the US establishment views the EU project as a potential bloc to NATO having a clear run in europe. There is also the issue of liberalisation of trade barriers, the WTO and opening up the european economy to the US.

This is not an isolated issue. We have to see the Libertas Campaign in the context of the current "battle" between the US, Russia and the EU for influence, control and military installations in Central and Eastern Europe. Russia is looking for a defensive buffer and economic influence, the EU perhaps mainly economic alliance and control and the US military and political presence and influence over the same states/territories. Kosova with an enormous NATO base just declared UDI with US backing before the EU were even told. In this context an EU that acts independently from NATO is not wanted by the US.

The idea of Ganley being a pacifist is a sick joke. He likes to publish a photo of himself in military uniform and wants to supply the US military with products. McEvaddy is a supplier too.

We have only Ganley's word for it that he is a multi millionaire - he was offering chauffeur driven limosine car rental in London not long ago on a small scale - seems and odd business for an oligarch. I suppose all the limos would have Rivada electronics though?

Thinking about the Lisbon campaign, it seems to me that even though you can't argue with Indymedia's assessment of its weakness and oddity, the Yes campaign is doing worse.

The No campaign has hammered at a few points people can relate to. When they get media coverage they are not seriously picked up on the nonsense elements, and in any case the refutation sounds technical and semantic to most listeners.
The gravy train aspect of the EU is over and the economy in frightening shape.
Government seems to be in a bunker and is not putting forward any positive vision for why we should vote Yes.
The patronising and devious way the Referendum and Treaty is being handled has given a succession of soundbite gifts to the No campaign.
The real nature of Ganley/Libertas is perhaps the No Campaign's biggest weakness. I was certainly going to vote No until I came across Ganley and the material reprinted by Indymedia.

I really don't the average voter has any idea who Libertas are - farming friends of Husband thought that their Mandelson poster had been put up by IFA. There is a cohort of people interested in politics and political affairs who are curious about them, but the vast majority will vote in June and still have no idea who they are or what they are about - I think.

Libertas are not representative of the No side for many reasons: Firstly, the very vast majority of those who object to Lisbon, do so for purely ideological reasons in the sense that they represent movements or parties that have long had a particular ethos - think PANA or Patricia McKenna's People's Movement or Joe Higgins. These guys - those who do draw a salary, had the principles first and promote them.

It seems to me - and I'd be happy to be corrected on this - that Libertas has a hired staff to represent Declan Ganley's ideas. I don't know if David, John and Naoise would be wearing out their own shoe leather in opposition to Lisbon if they weren't drawing a salary. I say that not to question their bona fides, but simply to point out that the Libertas organisation and its proponents come from a very different place to most of the others.

Libertas also works in a very different way in terms of their publicity. Aspects of their campaign have been quite personalised - tearing up the Green manifesto and the billboards featuring Lucinda Creighton. So, it would seem to me that despite their slogan, whereas the others deal in (more or less) facts as they see them, Libertas deals in politcs.

Furthermore, as an adjunct to the point above re ethos, I have only heard of two people who are actually libertas supporters - both on p.ie. They've been absent from a lot of the Forum meetings lately (even the plenary one yesterday) and I presume they are flat out working and fair dues to them. However, there seems to be no loyal believers turning up to meetings and saying "I'm a supporter of Libertas and this is what we think." There seems to be no groundswell of support for them.

I appreciate, cf, that you are looking at the broader consequences of a No vote in the light of what you think Libertas and Declan Ganley stand for, but they in themselves are not at all representative of the No side in general.

there is no 'no campaign' !! cf

Cool - I get a 'hat tip'.

Far be it from me to cast doubt on an Indymedia story, but I have a slight problem with this one.

It's well researched, the factual material and statements are the result of hard work and lots of it. But...

The Yanks honestly don't want us all unified?

Seeing that every single nuance of their desires are catered to in Europe, including the international crime against humanity of extraordinary rendition etc. - why wouldn't they just tell us all not to form this alliance?

Their will would be adhered to.

For example:

When the US under Georgie junior, told the Teflon teabag to lend support, the teabag jumped to attention and ignored absolutely everyone else - us and the UN (UN permission was afterall, retroactive - though it was never doubted that it would be given). Fair enough, the teabag didn't have to ignore the EU as they were jumping to attention too, but in fairness, a mere wink from Georgie would have set the teabag on a mission to scupper the treaty. And that's the point isn't it? The EU already does its master's bidding. A more unified EU would cost the US less resources to control if anything. A more unified EU would present itself as a much more credible ally than it does presently. If the Lisbon treaty gets through, we'd probably have to buy a few real fighter jets, we'd be able to lend much more than facilitation and cheerleading services to the US.

I like the Indymedia article, it's informative, but its speculation is just that. And, in my opinion, it's way off the mark. In speculating, I'd go the other way altogether. I'd say that the Libertas effort is a black bag operation with an aim to destroy the no vote. One must remember that Jose Manuel Barroso is currently the president of the European Commission. Barroso was the former prime minister of Portugal from 2002 to 2004. It is currently alleged by many credible parties that Barroso willingly supported the US in its extraordinary rendition program: check out this: Here

Here's a couple of paragraphs from an article not in circulation more than a few hours that further supports my point:
IPS: Amnesty has complained that European governments
have failed to properly investigate the alleged European collusion with
the CIA's so-called extraordinary rendition programme. José Manuel
Barroso, the president of the European Commission, was the prime
minister in Portugal when CIA flights are believed to have passed
through his country. Does he have a case to answer?
IK:
We have been asking all the European Union governments that have been
implicated in this issue of renditions to come clean. And we know
recently (David) Miliband, the British foreign secretary, has admitted
now that the Americans have retracted assurances they had earlier given
about the use of Diego Garcia (a British dependency in the Indian
Ocean). And that shows assurances on the basis of which the European
governments claim that their territory was not being misused are not
reliable. That puts on the European governments a responsibility to
investigate and come clean.
But it also puts a responsibility on the
European Union institutions to take a tougher stand on what has
happened. On the one hand, the European Union projects itself as a
union based on values of human rights and democracy. But on the other
hand, one of the biggest human rights scandals in the European Union is
being denied. And that has huge repercussions for Europe's moral
authority to champion human rights around the world. (IPS = Inter Press Service news agency and IK = Irene Khan the General Secretary of Amnesty International) - Link

The US don't have a problem with European governments - they have good working bilateral arrangements with them. They don't like the EU, and in they don't like the EP - who are the only institution to have challenged rendition.

The Lisbon Treaty brings various aspects of European counter-terrorism activity under parliamentary scrutiny - not something the current US administration (or more generally the US military/intel departments) wants.

lostexpectation wrote:

there is no 'no campaign' !! cf

Beg your pardon, lostexpectation - 'no campaigns'

lostexpectation wrote:

i've search for mcevaddy but i can't remember seeing or reading this


Omega has significant experience with the unsolicited bid. The
company won its
Navy contract after volunteering a proposal, and it also has offered
planes to
the U.K. in case the Ministry of Defence's main tanker plan doesn't
work out.
Industry insiders say the company has even approached U.S.
intelligence agencies
about tanking services for detainee transfers, to reduce dependence
on foreign
air fields.

gobsmacking

Where is this a quote from, lostexpectation?