Plea from the heart. Kerry is as wrong for America as is Bush -- and for the same reason.
senhor san
representative government, freedom, peace, equality, human brotherhood,
quality of life, culture and happiness -- it puts Nazism, Communism,
Fascism in the shade, while, in fact, nourishing all three.
Proof? Just look at the news:
Canadian House of Commons Bill C-2 will treat as serious criminals those who
watch Arabic language channels to be outlawed.
The Canadian government is reviewing a new bill in the House of Commons
called Bill C-2, An act to ammend the Radiocommunications Act. Bill C-2
will make it illegal for anyone to watch Al Jazeera, ART Global, ART
movies, Dubai Satellite Channel, ESC-1, Future TV, LBC, MBC, Nile Dram even
if you pay for a subscription by a non- Canadian provider. Anyone caught
watching these channels will be liable to a $25, 000 fine or a year in jail
under the new proposed law. Bill C-2 will treat as criminals those who
watch Arabic language channels.
MPs Carolyn Parrish and Alexa McDonough have been active and vocal about
this problematic bill. Make your opposition heard by writing to the chair
and vice-chair of the Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, MP
Brent St. Denis at St.De...@parl.gc.ca. Marlene Jennings is the
Vice-Chair and she can be reached at Jenni...@parl.gc.ca.
Please be sure to cc. your own Member of Parliament and the Canadian
Arab Federation at communi...@caf.ca.
Points to be raised:
* This bill criminalizes those who enjoy cultural programming that is not
made available by Canadian providers
* The bill fails to distinguish between those who steal satellite signals
and those who pay for it legitimately
* There are over 500, 000 Arabs in Canada who are being deprived of their
right to programming that maintains their links to language, culture and
religion
* This is a violation of freedom of expression and the targetting of
specific communities and their civil liberties
* Clause 5 of the bill is very problematic in that it allows extraordinary
powers to inspectors who can enter any place where these channels are being
recieved and to remove or copy any item or document.
--
Former Mossad Chief: Yassin Offered Israel 30-Year Truce
JERUSALEM - Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin, assassinated in an Israeli air
strike, offered Israel a 30-year truce in 1997, the mediator who arranged
Yassin's release from prison said Tuesday.
Efraim Halevy, a former Mossad operative who was called in to resolve an
Israel-Jordan crisis after a botched assassination attempt against a Hamas
leader in Jordan in 1997, made the disclosure in an interview on Israel TV.
Halevy was a confidant of Jordan's King Hussein, and he suggested releasing
Yassin from Israeli prison as the price for freedom for six Mossad agents
captured in the abortive attempt to kill Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal. Yassin
was imprisoned in 1989.
http://tinyurl.com/2442z
======
Israeli security sources say that defence chiefs have decided to kill all
Hamas leaders without waiting for the organisation to carry out its threats
of bloody retaliation for Sheikh Yassin's death. (Wasn't that the whole idea
of killing Yassin in such an rage-inflaming way the first place???)
We'll wipe out entire Hamas leadership, says Israel
-Chris McGreal in Gaza City and Ewen MacAskill in Jerusalem
The Israeli government has approved the elimination of the entire leadership
of Hamas and other militant groups following the assassination of the
Islamic resistance movement's founder and spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmed
Yassin.
Among the targets is the uncompromising new Hamas leader named by the
organisation yesterday, Abdel Aziz al Rantissi, who has opposed tentative
political concessions and a ceasefire by the group.
Israel's internal security minister, Tsahi Hanegbi, said the government had
given a green light to the army to kill "the worst terrorists".
"Anyone who is involved in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank or anywhere else
in leading a terror group knows from yesterday there is no immunity.
Everyone is in our sights," he said.
Israeli security sources say that defence chiefs have decided to kill all
Hamas leaders without waiting for the organisation to carry out its threats
of bloody retaliation for Sheikh Yassin's death.
The defence minister, Shaul Mofaz, said the strategy would ultimately curb
suicide bombings and other attacks on Israelis.
"If we will continue, in a determined way, with our strikes against Hamas
and other terror groups ... including action against those leaders, we will
bring more security to Israeli citizens," he said.
The Israeli army chief of staff, Lieutenant General Moshe Yaalon, hinted
that the targets could now include Yasser Arafat, even though Ariel Sharon
has given a personal assurance to President George Bush that the Palestinian
leader will not be harmed. He also suggested Israel could attack the leader
of the Lebanese-based group Hizbullah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah.
"I think that judging by their [Arafat's and Nasrallah's] hysterical
responses yesterday they understand that it is nearing them. In the long
term, I hope that this will be a sign to all those who choose to hurt us
that this will be their end," said Gen Yaalon.
A government spokesman later sought to clarify this, saying that while
Sheikh Nasrallah was a target because he was committed to the destruction of
Israel, this did not apply to Mr Arafat.
But another government source said the promise given by Mr Sharon not to
harm Mr Arafat applied only to the run-up to the war in Iraq last year. The
government has so far considered exiling, but not killing, the Palestinian
leader.
Israeli firepower was resounding at both ends of the country last night.
Tanks rolled into a Gaza refugee camp under covering gunfire to clear an
area that Israel suspects militants use to fire on Israeli settlements. In
the north, meanwhile, helicopters attacked and killed two Palestinian
militants in south Lebanon who Israel said were preparing to fire rockets
over the border.
Tensions were heightened earlier in Gaza after Palestinians fired an
anti-tank rocket at an Israeli army position near a Jewish settlement,
prompting a gun battle.
Also in Gaza, Hamas named Dr Rantissi as its temporary leader after a ballot
among senior figures in the organisation. The announcement, at a memorial
rally for Sheikh Yassin in a Gaza City stadium, was greeted enthusiastically
by the crowd.
At the stadium, Dr Rantissi pledged to escalate attacks on Israel. "We will
be unified in the trenches of resistance. We will not surrender, we will
never surrender to Israeli terror," he said.
Among those attending the ceremony was the Palestinian prime minister, Ahmed
Qureia, who called the assassination of Sheikh Yassin an "ugly crime
committed by the government of murderers".
Many businesses were shut in Gaza and the West Bank as a mark of respect for
the quadriplegic Hamas founder, who was killed by a helicopter missile
strike as his bodyguards pushed him in a wheelchair after prayers at a
mosque.
Mr Hanegbi made it clear that Dr Rantissi was an early focus for the Israeli
military after saying the men targeted for death include "those who appear
on television", a veiled reference to the new Hamas leader and his deputy,
Mahmoud Zahar.
Gen Yaalon said that part of the motive for targeting Dr Rantissi and his
associates is to prevent Hamas seizing political control in Gaza.
"Even if in the short term the assassination increases the motivation to
carry out terror attacks, in the long run, the assassination is likely to
calm the situation in the Gaza Strip and encourage moderate forces to
prevent the founding of 'Hamas-land' in the [Gaza] strip," he said.
Israel remained on high alert yesterday. Its parliament announced that
personal security for its members is to be beefed up, and its foreign
ministry ordered diplomats abroad to increase security.
Crowds in central Jerusalem were thinner than usual, and there were fewer
people travelling by bus.
The US has warned its citizens in the Middle East that they could become
targets after Dr Rantissi called on Muslims worldwide to "shake the ground
of these Zionists and Americans who stand behind them".
Last night, in his first response to the assassination, President Bush said
that Israel had the right to defend itself against Hamas but urged the
Israeli government to keep "the consequences in mind". He said that he hoped
to send a delegation to Israel next week to try to revive a stalled
US-backed peace plan.
Meanwhile, the US blocked a draft security council condemnation of the
killing of Sheikh Yassin because it made no mention of Hamas terrorism.
--
Croatia Backs Off Iraq Troops, International Court
ZAGREB, Croatia (Reuters) - Croatia drew back Tuesday from previous
indications it would send troops to Iraq and sign a deal with Washington
exempting U.S. troops from prosecution by the International Criminal Court.
http://tinyurl.com/2blaz
--
Families of Sept. 11, 2001, victims were furious yesterday as they watched
aides to Presidents Bush and Bill Clinton say they couldn't go after Osama
Bin Laden until after the attacks that killed almost
3,000.
Top officials from the two administrations told the federal 9/11 commission
they were ready and willing to kill Bin Laden, but faulty intelligence,
inadequate attack plans, fears of collateral damage and political fallout if
the attack failed kept them from pulling the trigger.
Instead, they spent years in diplomatic offensives that failed to smoke Bin
Laden out and into the hands of the U.S.
And Clinton and Bush officials said an invasion of Afghanistan to get Bin
Laden was not an option before the shock of the Sept. 11 attack mobilized
the world into a coalition.
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/nation/8259959.htm
====
U.S. Criminal Oligarchs and Fake Patriot Toady Polticians Guilty of 9-11
Inside-Job Mass-Murder Frame-up -- Cautious Public Not Yet Ready to
Outwardly Display their Outrage and Determination for Remedy
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/5
=======
According to Dan Rather, CBS, Bin Laden was in a Pakistani military Hospital
at Pak Army's Headquarters in Rawalpindi, one day before the 9/11 attacks,
on September 10.
Needless to say, the CBS report is a crucial piece of information in the
9/11 jigsaw. It refutes the administration's claim that the whereabouts of
bin Laden are unknown. It points to a Pakistan connection, it suggests a
cover-up at the highest levels of the Bush administration.
details: http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html
===========
The September 11 commission insisted that Condoleezza Rice appear at today's
session, even though the Bush administration has warned that a public
grilling of a member of presidential staff would breach constitutional
protocol.
The White House was facing a crisis in confidence yesterday over its
handling of the al-Qaida threat prior to September 11, as a public inquiry
into the attacks demanded to question George Bush's national security
adviser.
The September 11 commission insisted that Condoleezza Rice appear at today's
session, even though the Bush administration has warned that a public
grilling of a member of presidential staff would breach constitutional
protocol.
The standoff with the inquiry could damage the White House's popularity in a
tightly contested presidential campaign, in which President Bush is
concentrating on his reputation as a decisive wartime leader.
The commission is due to submit its final report on July 26, just before the
Democratic party's convention.
Ms Rice has become a lightning rod for criticism of the administration after
the publication of a White House memoir by the president's former top
counter-terrorism adviser, Richard Clarke.
Mr Clarke portrayed Ms Rice as ill-informed about the seriousness of the
threat posed by al-Qaida. He said she "gave me the impression she had never
heard the term before".
He said that in an early meeting in January 2001, in which he tried to make
her realise the extent of the danger, she changed the subject and later
decided to exclude Mr Clarke from top level meetings and downgrade his
counter-terrorism security group.
The White House has launched a media counter- offensive to rebut Mr Clarke's
claims, with Ms Rice appearing on five talkshows. In one interview, Ms Rice
said: "Dick Clarke was counter-terrorism tsar for a long time with a lot of
attacks on the United States.
"What he was doing was - what they were doing apparently was not working. We
wanted to do something different."
Speaking during a cabinet meeting, President Bush denied that he ignored the
threat from al-Qaida.
"The facts are these: [CIA director] George Tenet briefed me on a regular
basis about the terrorist threats to the United States of America and had my
administration had any information that terrorists were going to attack New
York City on September 11, we would have acted," he said.
However, members of the September 11 commission, formally known as the
national commission on terrorist attacks upon the United States, were
furious that Ms Rice had taken such a high public profile after refusing to
appear before a public session of the inquiry. Timothy Roemer, a Democratic
commissioner, held up a copy of Mr Clarke's book at one point, saying: "I
would hope that this discussion would not be for the airwaves ... but
belongs in this hearing room tomorrow."
Such demands were greeted by applause from relatives of victims of September
11. The White House is already under fire from relatives for using scenes
from Ground Zero in its political campaign advertising.
It has also had a run-in with the commission before over sharing
information.
The disputes have led to the commission issuing two subpoenas and
threatening several more.
An initial offer by the president to spend an hour with senior members of
the commission behind closed doors also provoked outrage and the White House
has since signalled it might be flexible over the duration of the interview.
The commission yesterday closely questioned officials from the Clinton and
Bush administrations over their failure to take decisive measures against
al-Qaida after the 1998 bombing of US embassies in east Africa and the 2000
attack on the USS Cole.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,1176591,00.html
==========
Widow of Soldier in Jessica Lynch Unit Blasts Bush
Tue Mar 23, 2004
By Jim Forsyth
CENTER POINT, Texas (Reuters) - At a ceremony on Tuesday marking the
one-year anniversary of the Iraqi attack on Pvt. Jessica Lynch's Army unit,
the widow of a soldier who died in the fight blasted President Bush for
"lying to America" to justify the Iraq war.
In bitter comments beside the grave of Army Specialist James Kiehl, widow
Jill Kiehl accused Bush of fabricating reasons to launch the invasion that
toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
"The evidence that's starting to come out now feels like he (Bush) was
misleading us," Kiehl said, holding the couple's 10-month-old son Nathaniel,
born seven weeks after his father died.
"It's almost as though he had things fixed so it would look like he needed
to go to war," she said.
James Kiehl, a 22-year-old computer engineer, was one of 11 members of the
507th Maintenance Company killed when their convoy took a wrong turn at
Nassiriya in southern Iraq on March 23, 2003 and were attacked by Iraqi
fighters.
Seven others were captured, including Lynch, who was held for nine days
before U.S. troops rescued her from a hospital.
Several members of the unit, not including Lynch, attended the ceremony in
Center Point, 35 miles northwest of San Antonio.
Jill Kiehl described herself as "bitter" about Bush's decision to declare
war on Iraq.
"It's upsetting that he (Bush) would have lied to America to get what he
wanted," Kiehl said.
http://tinyurl.com/2eya3
------------
Groups call for the resignation of Sept. 11 commission director
Public interest groups are demanding the immediate resignation of the
director of the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist
attacks, just as the commission prepares to hold high-profile hearings this
week with senior officials from the Bush and Clinton administrations.
The 9-11 Family Steering Committee and 9-11 Citizens Watch, two separate
groups, are demanding the resignation of Philip Zelikow, executive director
of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States,
after information surfaced over the weekend that he participated in Bush
administration briefings prior to Sept. 11 on the threat al Qaeda posed to
the country.
"We believe that the very integrity of the commission is at stake here, and
that he should resign immediately," Kyle Hence, co-founder of Citizens
Watch, said Monday.
On Saturday, the Family Steering Committee wrote a letter to the commission
arguing that Zelikow has a conflict of interest because he could potentially
be held culpable for failing to heed warnings about al Qaeda prior to Sept.
11.
"It is clear that [Zelikow] should never have been permitted to be a member
of the commission, since it is the mandate of the commission to identify the
source of failures," the committee wrote. "It is now apparent why there has
been so little effort to assign individual culpability. We now can see that
trail would lead directly to the staff director himself."
Zelikow was a member of the team that helped with the Bush administration
transition to office. When he became executive director of the commission,
he recused himself from participating in any part of the investigation that
dealt with the time he served on the Bush transition team.
Critics have previously called for Zelikow to resign because they believed
he had at least an appearance of a conflict of interest. He co-wrote a book
in 1995 with Condoleezza Rice, who is now Bush's national security adviser.
Additionally, only Zelikow and commission member Jamie Gorelick are
permitted to read classified intelligence reports known as the presidential
daily briefs in their entirety.
Information that Zelikow participated in intelligence briefings on al Qaeda
before Sept. 11 surfaced over the weekend in interviews with the
government's former counterterrorism czar, Richard Clarke, who resigned last
summer after 30 years of public service. Clarke served in four
administrations as part of the National Security Council. He was the
counterterrorism czar for former President Clinton, served on the transition
team when Bush came into office and remained as a senior counterterrorism
official under the Bush administration.
On Saturday, Clarke told the New York Times that he gave briefings on the
threat posed by al Qaeda to Rice; Stephen Hadley, now Rice's deputy; and
Zelikow when he was part of the transition team from December 2000 to
January 2001.
Clarke told CBS' "60 Minutes" on Sunday that the Bush administration failed
to heed his warnings in the months leading up to Sept. 11, and then eagerly
tried to blame Iraq for the attacks in the aftermath when no connection
existed.
On Monday, Clarke's new book, Against All Enemies: Inside the White House's
War on Terror--What Really Happened, was released. In it he forcefully
criticizes the Bush administration's efforts to defend the country from
terrorist attacks.
Al Felzenberg, spokesman for the 9-11 commission, said Monday that no new
charges have been leveled that would cause the commission to ask Zelikow to
resign. Felzenberg reiterated that Zelikow recused himself from parts of the
investigation that deal with the time he served on the transition team.
"The commission finds the director's recusal sufficient," Felzenberg said.
"I don't see a single charge that has been made that would cause the
commission to change its view."
Felzenberg said Zelikow was not responsible for making policy decisions or
implementing recommendations during his time on the transition team. He
added that the commission has a policy regarding conflicts of interest and a
process in which complaints should be vetted.
The commission is planning two days of public hearings starting Tuesday. The
hearings will consist of testimony from high-level officials from the Bush
and Clinton administrations, with a focus on counterterrorism.
Scheduled to testify on Tuesday are Secretary of State Colin Powell and
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, as well as their counterparts in the
Clinton administration, Madeleine Albright and William Cohen. Scheduled to
testify on Wednesday are CIA Director George Tenet; Samuel Berger, former
assistant to Clinton for national security affairs; and Clarke. The
commission announced Monday that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage
also will testify Wednesday to beef up the administration's position on
counterterrorism.
The Family Steering Committee and Citizens Watch want Bush and Clinton, Vice
President Dick Cheney and former Vice President Al Gore, and Rice to testify
publicly under oath. Rice testified in February before a closed session of
the commission.
Citizens Watch and family members of Sept. 11 victims held a press
conference Monday to demand the commission provide transparency,
accountability and sworn public testimony from the highest government
officials.
Hence said the commission has so far experienced "a pattern of stonewalling
and slow walking" by the White House and federal agencies, such as the
Federal Aviation Administration and North American Aerospace Defense
Command.
"To date, no one in government--not a single government official--has been
held directly accountable for the apparent and as yet unexplained
simultaneous, massive, across-the-board failure of every single defensive
and intelligence measure this country had established," Hence said.
Citizens Watch also launched an advertising campaign Monday demanding that
Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Gore and Rice testify publicly under oath before the
commission. The group is running billboard advertisements in the Washington
metro rail system for four weeks, as well as quarter-page ads in The
Washington Post.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0304/032204c1.htm
Assassinations - or what the Western media due to Zionist pressure now
ridiculously refer to as "targeted killings" - are nothing new for the
Israelis. They have been going on for years.
The assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin was everywhere in the Arab media
yesterday. Arabs from all over the world are mourning his death and Saudis
are no different from their brethren. The murder has become the main topic
of conversation. Moreover, the photographs of the Sheikh with his head split
in half and parts of his brain spilling out were forwarded to hundreds of
thousands of people on the Internet.
Assassinations - or what the Western media due to Zionist pressure now
ridiculously refer to as "targeted killings" - are nothing new for the
Israelis. They have been going on for years. What is new is that this time
the assassinated person was an elderly wheel-chair-bound individual whom the
US alleged is a terrorist and "a person who has been personally involved in
terrorist attacks."
What is just as sad is that people in the US will look at the assassination
as something that was necessary for Israel's security. American networks
will start producing reports about how the late Sheikh inspired people to
commit suicide attacks in Israel under the banner of Hamas. They will
portray him as an evil person, personally responsible for the deaths of
Israeli men, women and children in suicide attacks, some of which have taken
place in Jewish settlements. What Americans will not see on their networks
or read in their newspapers is that the Sheikh was a spiritual leader. A
person who inspired thousands of Palestinians to continue their resistance
to the ongoing occupation of their lands; someone who constantly reminded
them to fight to the death and not to surrender their usurped rights. For
the state of Israel, his inspiration had to be eliminated. Like other
spiritual leaders, such as Marwan Barghouti, he was too much trouble for the
state of Israel and had to be removed.
For a person who reads American newspapers and watches American news
networks on a daily basis, I often find it shocking how news reports from
the Middle East are reported. In most cases, the reports are biased and have
only one perspective. In other cases, the reports are truthful but fail to
get the attention they deserve - simply because the killings happened on the
Palestinian side. An example of that is when a Palestinian suicide bomber
blows himself up and kills scores of people in a bus or local area. The
report is blown up. In addition, the most heart-rending photographs are
used: a weeping mother mourning the death of her loved one, beside the
coffin at the funeral. The report itself is surely biased since all the
interviews and comments come from Israeli police sources or Israeli
officials. Terrorism is the word used. However, when Israeli bulldozers
destroy Palestinian homes, pictures of weeping Palestinian mothers at the
remains of what used to be home are not printed. And the story of course is
not blown up. Not only that but in most cases, the story itself does not get
more than a news brief somewhere in the inside pages.
One day I made a comparison of how American media outlets were biased. A
report carried on CNN about a suicide bombing lasted a good 10 minutes and
included interviews with several people talking about the incident and the
terrorist act. Sometime later, when an Israeli bulldozer knocked down
several Palestinian houses, CNN gave it no more than 30 seconds, And of
course no interviews were done in which people denounced the demolishing and
described it as a terrorist act.
So according to American standards, terrorism is only described when
something happens to Israelis and not to Palestinian. When a suicide bomber
kills several Israelis, it is a cowardly, heinous, terrorist act that is
denounced by the Bush himself. However, when Palestinian homes are
demolished by Israeli bulldozers, silence prevails. When an Israeli toddler
is killed by a Palestinian sniper, it is a terrorist act and the story
appears in The New York Times and other newspapers. However, when Iman
Hejou, a Palestinian baby dies from a bullet in her chest from an Israeli
gun, she is nowhere to be found in the American media. Even the word
"occupation" is no longer to be found in the American media reports of
incursions of Israeli tanks into Palestinian areas.
One thing is for sure. Yesterday's comment from the White House only reminds
the Arab world that Israel will always be America's best friend and will go
unpunished and even rewarded with comforting words - such as "has the right
to defend itself." And once again, the truth will prevail that America and
Israel are two sides of the same coin.
http://tinyurl.com/24mt5
Hollywood Jews have one hell of a nerve -- News article from 1998
[Have you heard about the effort by Jews in Hollywood to have Mel Gibson
indicted for hate crimes -- because his motion picture about the last days
of Jesus of Nazareth, a literal verson of the Christian scriptures which are
still widely read in portions of the American mid-west I understand,
although Gibson did remove the part when the Jews call out to Pilate
"Crucify Him!" and "Let his blood be upon our heads!" and so forth. Yes,
the monopolists of movie making -- (of course, no one else is interested in
making movies or being in them anywhere else in the country, right?) -- are
moving heaven and earth to shut up this harmless actor with typical
middle-class Roman Catholic outlook - because he is promoting hatred of
Jews -- BUT WAIT! -- look at this old newspaper article from my the
garage:
Yakima Herald-Republic Friday, August 28, 1998 p. 2E
Under siege
Arab, Muslim groups protest depiction of terrorists in new film
By Ron Givens (New York Daily News)
New York -- Arab and Muslim anti-defamation goups are going public about
their unhappiness with a new Denzel Washington/Bruce Willis movei, "The
Seige," in which terrorists set off bombs in Brooklyn.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations and the American-Arab
Anti-Discrimination Committee, both based in Washington, are among several
groups that held a news conference Wednesday in Los Angeles to air their
concerns about depictions of Arab Muslims in the movie directed by Edward
Zwick ("Courage Under Fire," "Glory").
"The Siege" is scheduled to be released by 20th Century-Fox on Nov. 6.
"Nerves are raw from the recent terrorist bombings," says Ibrahim Hooper,
national communications director for the American-Islamic council. "It's
another reason to be deliberate and careful on these issues, not just feed
into them to increase the box office.."
Hooper says his organization would prefer the movie be redone so that the
bombers are neither Muslim nor Arab. That is unlikely, since the filming of
the movie has been completed for months and editing is under way.
WHile deleting references in the movie to the faith of Islam or adding a
disclaimer might be alternatives, Hooper says his group was not happy with a
statement attached to the 1994 Arnold Schwarzenegger movie "True Lies,"
which also involved Arab-Muslim terrorists.
The disclaimer came afer the disclaimer about how no animals were harmed
during the taking of the movie," says Hooper. "I had a hard time seeing it,
and I wrote it."
Ironically, Zwick and the film's producer, Lynda Obst, want "The Seige" to
change sterotypical attitudes about Arabs and Muslims. One of the good
guys, an FBI agent portrayed by Lebanese-American actor Tony Shalhoub, is a
Muslim Arab-American. And in a pointed comparison to the internment of
Asian-Americans during World War II, the polot also involves the rounding up
of Muslims and Arabs for detention.
Until now, the American-Islamic council and the anti-discrimination
committee have been working behind the scenes to express their objections to
Zwick, Obst and Fox. In an April meeting, the counmcil gave Zwick and Obst
a six-page memo detailing 60 specific objections.
The two filmmakers responded April 30 with their own six-page letter,
making it clear that some changes would be made, but the basic plot --
bombing by Muslim terrorists would stay.
Fox seems to have become involved after a letter was sent in mid-August
to Mill Mechanic, chairman and CEO of Fox Filmed Entertainment.
In a written statement released Monday, the studio said that "Within the
framework of an action-adventure, the film deals seriously with and
sensitively with timely and important themes, such as prejudice and
persecution, the price of our personal freedoms, and the protection of those
freedoms -- for all Americans."
Hooper says his organization became aware of "The Seige" when members saw
Arabi graffiti early this year on the movie's Brooklyn set. Recently,
members have objected to the movies coming-attractions trailer, which
juxtaposes scenes of Muslims praying with shots of bombing.
--
The gloves are off in terror war, and everyone is at risk
INDEPENDENT (London) March 23, 2004
By Robert Fisk
It doesn't take an awful lot of courage to murder a paraplegic in a
wheelchair. But it takes only a few moments to absorb the implications of
the assassination of Sheik Ahmed Yassin yesterday.
Yes, he enthusiastically endorsed suicide bombings - including the murder of
Israeli children. Yes, if you live by the sword, you die by the sword, in a
wheelchair or not. But something went wrong with the narrative of the news
story yesterday, and something infinitely more dangerous - another sinister
precedent - was set for our brave new world.
Take the old man himself. From the start, the Israeli line was simple.
Yassin was the "head of the snake" - to use the words of the Israeli
ambassador to London - the head of Hamas, "one of the world's most dangerous
terrorist organisations".
But then came obfuscation from the world's media. Yassin, BBC World Service
Television told us at lunchtime, was originally freed by the Israelis in a
"prisoner exchange". Then, later in the day, the BBC told us that he had
been freed "following a deal brokered by King Hussein".
Which was all very strange. He was a prisoner of the Israelis. This "head of
the snake" was in an Israeli prison. And then - bingo - this supposed
monster was let go because of a "deal". So let's remember what the "deal"
was.
Yassin was set free by no less than Benjamin Netanyahu when he was prime
minister of Israel. King Hussein wasn't a "broker" between two sides.
Two Israeli Mossad agents had tried to murder a Hamas official in Amman, the
capital of an Arab nation which had a peace agreement with Israel.
They had injected the Hamas man with poison, and the late King Hussein
called the US president in fury and threatened to put the captured Mossad
men on trial if he wasn't given the antidote to the poison and if Yassin
wasn't released.
Netanyahu immediately gave in. Yassin was freed and the Mossad lads went
safely home to Israel.
So the "head of the snake" was let loose by Israel itself, courtesy of the
then Israeli prime minister - a chapter in the narrative of history which
was conveniently forgotten yesterday. Which is all very odd.
If the elderly cleric really was worthy of state murder, why did Netanyahu
let him go in the first place? It was not a question that anyone wanted to
ask yesterday.
But there was something infinitely more dangerous in all this. Yet another
Arab had been assassinated. The Americans want to kill Bin Laden. They want
to kill Mullah Omar. They killed Saddam's sons. Just as they killed three
al-Qaeda men in Yemen.
The Israelis repeatedly threaten to murder Yasser Arafat. It's getting to be
a habit.
No one has begun to work out the implications of all this. For years, there
has been an unwritten rule in the cruel war of government-versus-guerrilla.
You can kill the men on the street, the bomb-makers and gunmen, but the
leadership was allowed to survive.
Now all has changed utterly. Anyone who advocates violence - even if they
are palpably incapable of committing it - are now on a death list. So who
can be surprised if the rules are broken by the other side?
The top guys are now in the firing line. Let us not say we didn't know.
http://www.thestar.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=132&fArticleId=381027
--
Hyenas in Washington
by Karen Kwiatkowski
On 9/11, CIA Was Running Simulation of a Plane Crashing into a Building
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/cia-simulation.htm
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?disc=149495;article=51531;title=APFN
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then
you win."~ Mahatma Gandhi
Conservatives and liberals alike are critical of neoconservative foreign
policy, a creature crowned with empire envy and war-lust yet starkly naked
of caution, conservatism or respect for sovereignty or human rights. We
stand together in awe at the "creative destruction" invoked by the American
Enterprise Institute's Michael Ledeen when no other rationale for the
occupation of Iraq survives.
With black humor, we call them neo-conmen, neandra-cons, neo-Jacobins or
neo-fascists, searching for a title that matches the philosophy. We agree
that new conservatives they've never been. Liberals won't claim them either.
It can be amusing and educational to analyze and criticize the neo-conmen -
on their good days. They have names like Max Boot - crisp with his highbrow
contempt for American traditionalism and entertaining with his Orwellian
name. Or Joel Mowbray, David Frum or Jonah Goldberg whose collective prose
once waded through reveals naďve youngsters trying on maturity like long
pants for the first time, and giggling about it. Not yet at home in the
world of adults, but no doubt earnest hopefuls.
The older crowd of neoconservatives can be almost as much fun. Or at least
they used to be before they got worried about the upcoming U.S. election,
invasions of Syria and Iran slipping like sand between manicured fingers and
the outrageous treachery of Spaniards. These days, the experience of
watching Charles Krauthammer grouse on Sunday morning that "the next big war
is Iran" - while even FOX's Brit Hume looks on in amazement - is surpassed
only by observing the ignominious Defense Policy Board departure of the
grubby Richard Perle in a last ditch attempt to maximize consulting profits
before it's too late. George Will, whose recent column attacked even little
old me, has gone so far downhill as an essayist that one thinks perhaps he
should retire and make way for new blood. Bill Safire seems grumpier than
ever, and even the charm of Grandpa Don Rumsfeld is getting strained and
tense.
Teasing these advocates of silly yet deadly foreign policies is all in good
fun. We should do so mercilessly, Bush-free-speech-zones notwithstanding.
With all due respect, we might even explain that imperial mass
democracy/geo-strategic global militarism is incompatible with a
constitutionally constrained Republic or traditions of sovereignty and
international law.
But the fun is evaporating. It's becoming downright painful to watch the
political organs of neo-conservatism in America metastasize. Seven months
from the election, we observe this Frankensteinian political phenomenon -
abstract idealism implemented through stamping boots, forever - morph into
something that is even more outwardly ugly, transparently self-consuming,
and doomed.
What proof can I offer that a withering away of the neoconservative grip on
policy is coming? Certainly our next President, John F. Kerry, is already
familiar with the neoconservative domestic and foreign policy playbook, and
does not reject it. But there are some promising signs.
Their reaction to criticism is broadening in scope and hideousness. Last
summer, neocon contempt for me after my first mainstream commentary was
limited to a mild attack by bench-warmer and Center for Security Policy head
Frank Gaffney, calling me simply an antiwar activist, likely to be a closet
Democrat and uninformed. Later, after the American Conservative series,
Richard Perle and others took to telling reporters privately that I was a
follower of Lyndon LaRouche. Again, a mild attack, as unfounded as the
charges of uninformed Democratic peace-activist. More recently, however,
following the Salon.com publicity, I have been named anarchist and dangerous
person, according to the nationally televised discussion on March 10th
between Foundation for the Defense of Democracies President Clifford May and
FOX's John Gibson. This was followed by a Max Boot declaration of my
flakiness and the recent George Will intimation that I am anti-Semitic. Will
deserved a response of course, and he got one.
The good news is that neoconservative attacks on truth tellers are becoming
so shrill that soon only our dogs will be able to hear them.
Until that happens, one gains understanding of strange noises by looking for
trends or patterns. Neoconservatives are nothing if not predictable, and
their pattern is to discount, then disparage, and then vilify. I suspect we
are nearing Ghandi's early winning stages, at least in the game for 2004.
My own neoconservative critics have increased in rank, their critiques in
stridency. These two measures of neoconservative hysteria comprise a
working-man's truth-meter, and it is starting to peg.
Like bats and mushrooms, neoconservative reaction to light is inverted. This
inversion goes beyond the rejection of common sense with their advocacy of a
U.S. empire of ideas, or the chronic misreading of the nature of both war
and terrorism. Neoconservatives also despise truth when embodied by their
own. It is not clear whether the unpleasant Mr. Perle left the Defense
Policy Board in order to make more money, or rather was asked to leave due
to his inability to sit through a media interview without losing his cool.
However, it is clear that some of the more moral and well-liked defense
staffers are looking for, or being pushed towards, the nearest exit.
As in Plato's cave, once this country turns away from the shadow and into
the light, there will be no going back. Senior and long-time public servants
in the Bush administration involved in diplomacy, state finance,
intelligence and counter-terrorism - people like Ambassador Joe Wilson, Paul
O'Neill, Greg Thielmann, and Richard Clarke - have turned away from the
shadow and are reporting what they saw.
At times like these, nervous neoconservatives, like hungry hyenas, become
irritable, aggressive and cannibalistic. My Mom always said you should say
something nice, and it is true. I bet they were cute when they were puppies!
March 24, 2004
Karen Kwiatkowski [send her mail] is a retired USAF lieutenant colonel, who
spent her final four and a half years in uniform working at the Pentagon.
She now lives with her freedom-loving family in the Shenandoah Valley, and
writes a bi-weekly column on defense issues with a libertarian perspective
for militaryweek.com.
Copyright Š 2004 LewRockwell.com
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski68.html
===========
For Wednesday, March 23, 2004
My Palestinian Wife
by Charley Reese
http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20040324/index.php
Every now and then, the rumor arises that I have a Palestinian wife. Some of
my kin were highly amused by a debate on that subject that was being
conducted by letters to the editor in their local paper recently.
Apparently, it does not occur to anyone simply to ask me. As a matter of
fact, I don't have a wife. I'm a widower, and the one wife I had was a sweet
Midwestern girl of Methodist, German and Swedish extraction. I don't have a
Palestinian mistress or girlfriend. I don't even have a Palestinian bowling
pal.
The recurring Palestinian wife rumor, I believe, is a result of some people
finding it impossible to believe that an American would have any sympathy
for the Palestinian people without an ulterior motive. That is a credit to
the effectiveness of the Israeli propaganda machine, which has, for more
than 50 years, stereotyped Palestinians as a wild, violent people. It is a
stereotype helped greatly by the news media, which rarely reports in depth
on anything foreign, and by Hollywood, where lately the venerable Nazi has
been replaced as the chief villain by the Arab terrorist.
Actually, Palestinians are a gentle people. If you get to know some and hear
their side of the story, you will feel sympathy for them, too, unless you
have a flint heart. The Palestinians were run over by history. I know that
various ethnic groups in the United States fiercely contend for the title of
victim, but the Palestinians had it imposed on them.
There was nothing they could do when the Ottoman Empire absorbed their land.
There was nothing they could do when the British Empire took their land away
from the Ottoman Turks at the end of World War I. There was nothing they
could do when the British Empire created the Palestine Mandate. There was
nothing they could do when the British Cabinet, for reasons historians still
argue about, decided Palestine would make a nice national home for European
Jews when and if the British Empire ever decided to give up its occupation
of Palestine.
That it did in 1947, after considerable encouragement by Jewish terrorist
organizations - the Irgun, led by Menachem Begin, and the Stern Gang, led by
Yitzhak Shamir. Yes, Jews used terrorist tactics against the British
occupation, and now Palestinians are using terrorist tactics against the
Israeli occupation.
In 1948, about 700,000 Palestinians were made refugees and then told they
could not return to their homes. Their homes, land and businesses were
eventually confiscated. In 1967, Israel seized the West Bank and East
Jerusalem from Jordan, the Golan Heights from Syria and the Gaza Strip from
Egypt. These are now the "occupied territories." The state of Israel has no
legal claim to even 1 square inch of any of this territory, but with the
backing of the United States it has been able to tell the rest of the world
to go stuff it.
Palestinians appreciate the irony of the fact that the United States went to
war allegedly to get Albanian refugees back into Kosovo and went to war
twice against Iraq allegedly to enforce United Nations resolutions. Of
course, we've done nothing for the return of the Palestinian refugees, and
we've ignored the fact that Israel is in open defiance of more than 60
United Nations resolutions. We've also ignored the fact that Israel is the
only country in the Middle East that really does have weapons of mass
destruction, including nuclear bombs.
For us, it's all about domestic politics. I've never heard of a Palestinian
donor invited to spend the night in the Lincoln Bedroom.
All Americans should feel a great deal of sympathy for the younger
generations of both Palestinians and Israeli Jews. These young people were
born into a conflict started by people long dead or now in their dotage. The
issue is simple: It's land. Both sides are dying over land.
You don't need a Palestinian wife to feel sympathy for these people. All you
need is to know the facts. Learn the truth, and you will feel sympathy for
Palestinians - but not very proud of American Middle East policy, which is a
continuing failure driven by greed and cowardice on the part of American
politicians. The hypocrisy of it has poisoned our image around the world.
Š 2004 by King Features Syndicate, Inc.
===========
senhor san
To: Senhor San
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 5:37 AM
Subject: IF THE 9-11 COMMISSION WON'T HEAR EASTMAN THE COMMISSION IS
BULLSHIT (AND CULPABLE IN OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE)
A Zionist Jew is in overall charge of the 9-11 Commission.
An awful thing to say, right?
But it is also true and it is also essential to exploring and breaking up
an obstruction of justice in the 9-11 high-government-crime mass-murder
case.
Another Zionist Jew, Al Felzenberg, is the Commission's information
gatekeeper whose primary function has been to keep out -- by directing
Pentagon photo-evidence presentations to "black holes" where they never
again emerge to light of day -- everything necessary for a REAL
INVESTIGATION OF WHO ACTUALLY DID 9-11 -- because in particular Zionist
Neo-conservatives running the Pentagon (Wolfowitz, Perle, Kissinger,
Rumsfeld, Gingrich) were the architects of the inside-job false-flag
mass-murder black-up as established by exposure of an operation that had to
have the intimate involvement of top Pentagon power, as, in turn,
established by by multiple photo evdience proving that the Pentagon was
hit by missiles fired by a jet fighter as the Boeing 757, seen by most
witnesses in its approach, actually overflew the Pentagon and, concealed
from the witnesses to the west, by flash and smoke and low morning sun,
was, within 3 seconds, closer to Reagan National Airport, only a mile
beyond, than to the crash.
No one can shake this evidence. The professor who has edited the super-hard
brain twisters for Scientific American, A.K. Dewdney, says that the photo
evidence proves the "small-plane" and "Boeing overfly" thesis, as do other
men of science. Cf.,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/5
The lines of proof are multiple -- six separate independent proofs that the
Pentagon attack was carefully planned high-tech "smoke and mirrors"
black-op "wet" (people get killed) operation to attain criminal ends.
Only two responses to "TRUTHBAZOOKA 5" conclusive evidence are being
offered:
1) Silence and censorship -- Felzenberg turning TRUTHBAZOOKA 5 away at the
door -- the monopoly media specifically forbidding any mention of the
"small-plane" evidence or the fact that the entire internet has either
accepted or given up trying to discredit the conclusions derived from this
established unimpeachable evidence.
2) Ad Hominem -- Since the perpetrators at the Pentagon and the people
blocking the emergence of the evidence into the light of public-awareness
and official-recognition day are all Jewish, then the people seeking to
present the information and pointing out the ZIonist Jew background of the
evidence-implicated perpetrators and coverup, then anyone holding or
introducing the 'small-plane" findings must be anti-ZIonist and a "hate"
criminal allied with terrorists who are also anti-Zionist hate criminals
etc. -- even though the small-plane findings imply that no terrorists really
existed, apart from the false-flag black ops of the true 9-11 perpetrators.
But this can't last forever -- either the multi-billionaires will be caught
by the people or the people will be crushed entirely by the
multi-billionaires (Zionism being the ideology of the merchant bankers who,
on paper, own the world.)
Meanwhile, you who have not been to bright, STOP GOING ALONG WITH THE
CHARADE -- THE COMMISSION IS WHITEWASH -- THE 9-11 FAMILIES WILL ONLY GET
TOKEN REVELATIONS OF MERELY THE SECONDARY OFFENSES -- THE OLIGARCHY WILL
NOT ALLOW THE BLOOD ON ITS HANDS TO BE KNOWN -- THE OLIGARCHY MUST BE
OVERTHROWN BY THE PEOPLE COMING TO THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE
EVIDENCE -- WITHOUT ANY WHITEWASH COMMISSION -- AND THEN BY SHEAR WEIGHT OF
PUBLIC AND WORLD OPINION TEARING THESE CRIMINALS FROM POWER (ECONOMIC AND
POLITICAL) ALL AROUND THE WORLD.
Tell a friend.
Dick Eastman
223 S. 64th Ave.
Yakima, Washington
=======
Hamas has distributed playing cards carrying the names of Israeli officials
that would be targeted, in an apparent move to imitate the American deck of
cards of "wanted" former Iraqi officials of Saddam Hussein's regime.
Khaled Mashaal, Hamas political bureau head, told the movement's website
that Hamas' response to Yassin's assassination would be "of the same size
and impact," meaning it would be targeting high-level Israeli officials and
that Hamas does not intend to carry out attacks against "international"
targets, saying the movement would focus its attacks exclusively against
Israel until the ending of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian
territories. "Sharon has become targeted by Palestinian resistance men and
Al-Qassam Brigades, in retaliation for the assassination of Sheikh Ahmed
Yassin,"
REMEMBER, IT WAS ZIONIST JEWS -- THE SO-CALLED 'NEO-CONS' AT THE PENTAGON
WHO WERE BEHIND THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 MASS-MURDER KILLINGS OF OVER 2000
PEOPLE IN NEW YORK AND ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA. REMEMBER TOO THAT AL QA'EDA IS
A CIA-MOSSAD-MI6 ENTITY INTENDED FOR BLACK-OPS TO UNITED THE WORLD AGAINST
THE (INNOCENT) MOSLEM WORLD AND TO GARNER MORE MILITARY AND ECONOMIC AID FOR
ISRAEL FROM THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND AMERICAN JEWS (MANY OF WHOM ARE AMONG
THE MOST HATEFUL AND PARANOID AND DYSFUNCTIONAL-TRADITION -BRAINWASHED
PEOPLE ON EARTH.) THE MOSLEMS ARE BEING FRAMED BY THE ZIONISTS AND IT TOOK
OVER 2000 AMERICAN LIVES FOR THEM TO DO IT PROPERLY -- OR SO THEY THOUGHT.
Dick Eastman
===============
Liberal Democrat (i.e. British populist) leader in Parliament, Shirely
Williams writes:
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel has chosen to escalate still further
the unending conflict with his Palestinian neighbors by assassinating their
revered spiritual leader, Sheik Ahmed Yassin. Sharon has always been a
risk-taker. By escalating the conflict he increases the pressure on his
strongest ally, the United States. The next 10 days may determine the fate
of the region - whether that be ever-growing violence or a massive effort to
bring about a negotiated peace.
Sharon has been trying to convince his fragmented and divided coalition
cabinet to back his proposal for a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and a few
settlements on the West Bank. In return he seeks to exact a high price from
Washington: endorsement of a major incursion into the West Bank amounting to
the annexation of 8 percent of the territory - a territory already reduced
to 22 percent of what was Palestine in 1948, when the state of Israel was
founded.
Eight percent sounds rather modest. But anyone who has travelled recently in
the West Bank, as I have done for the past week with two parliamentary
colleagues, knows it is not. Much of the West Bank, starved of water, is
arid. It is criss-crossed with handsome modern highways, linking one Israeli
settlement to another. Palestinians are not allowed to use them. Access to
Palestinian villages along the route of the roads is blocked by huge stones
and often by checkpoints manned by Israeli soldiers. Palestinian cars and
trucks cannot get through. Palestinians spend hours trying to cross these
lines to tend their fields or to meet family members.
The West Bank is not poorer than Gaza, a crowded enclave where unemployment
is more than 60 percent, which depends on the United Nations or busy
nongovernment organizations for food. But it is even more wretched. It is
almost impossible for a Palestinian anywhere near Jerusalem or any other
Israeli city get a license to build a house.
Since the second intifada began in September 2000, more than 1,000
Palestinian houses have been destroyed in the West Bank and East Jerusalem
for breaching planning laws. These laws appear to have been waived for the
new Israeli settlements on the West Bank, where thousands of white houses
march in regiments over hill after hill, dominating the scattered
Palestinian villages.
Security fences and outposts mark areas for future development, four times
the area of the existing settlements. In between, Palestinian farmers watch
their traditional olive groves and grazing land gradually swallowed up.
Thousands of acres of citrus orchards and olive trees have been uprooted and
destroyed, some by the Israeli military on security grounds. Palestinians
have little left to live on.
What Sharon is seeking from the United States is the legitimization of this
conquest-by-stealth. Sharon's unilateral plan for the West Bank is illegal
in international law and ignores the road map, the peace plan backed by the
international community. If Washington supports Sharon's proposal, the
so-called "two states" solution - a secure and sovereign Israel alongside a
secure and safe Palestine - will be dead in the water.
Israel has the energy, the education and the commitment to be a wonderful
country. It has great achievements to its credit. Sickened by the suicide
bombers that kill innocent Israeli civilians, a majority of the population
longs for a lasting peace.
Israel is also a vibrant democracy. Nongovernment organizations are
flourishing, many of them engaged in helping Palestinians. Physicians for
Human Rights, for example, mobilizes scores of Israeli doctors who give up
their weekends to attend makeshift clinics in Palestinian villages jammed
with desperate parents and sick children. Defiant Israelis rush to defend
Palestinian homes about to be demolished. The newspapers reflect the deeply
divided opinions of Israel's Jewish citizens. But with large areas of the
West Bank off-limits to Israelis, many do not know what is being done in
their name.
Israel's democracy could be the source of a much wider democratic movement
among her neighbors, if only the cycle of revenge and retaliation were
brought to an end. The most promising candidate for democratization is,
paradoxically, Palestine. We parliamentarians, on an all-party visit
sponsored by Christian Aid, encountered a lively civic society in Gaza and
the West Bank, where nonviolent activists run health centers, human rights
groups, and agricultural and environmental projects, each a victory of the
human spirit over despair. These men and women, not the backward-looking and
impotent Palestinian Authority, offer hope for the future, and could become
the partners whom Israel claims to want.
If President George W. Bush blesses Sharon's unilateral plan, and if he
condones a wall that splits farms and families and requisitions large new
areas of Palestinian land, without negotiating a solution acceptable to both
sides, the cancer of this conflict will claim new victims and create an army
of new terrorists.
===========
Dick Eastman recommends:
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
Thomas Jefferson
Bush's most avid supporters are a puritanical bunch. They attend church.
They pray on streetcorners. They bludgeon the unwitting with their
sanctimonious talk of God, Family, and the American Way. So convinced are
they of their moral superiority, they have no qualms about marching toward
even greater material gluttony over a pavement of charred corpses. In fact,
they seem to see this as a divine quest. You don't need a doctorate in
Theology to know that if Hell is real, its inmost pit has got to be reserved
for hypocrites such as these.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
ANALYSIS OF 9-11
Hijackers?
What makes you think you actually KNOW what happened on those planes? All
four were obliterated, along with everyone on board, remember? No crime
scene, no direct evidence, no recognizable remains, no witnesses
whatsoever -- it's a blank canvas. How convenient for any party intent on
launching a new era of global imperialism, and willing to spin this tragedy
into a viable excuse. Indeed, all of the attack's consequences are far
better explained by this agenda than by Bin Laden's purported death wish.
Those presuming to examine this matter, i.e. ALL OF US, need to recognize
that such trickery is a timeless specialty of governments.
And yet from that very day we have allowed the government-media complex to
focus all attention on one rather thin explanation: Crazy Arabs did it!
George W. Bush and his cabinet have made it known to us, in the most
arrogant terms, that they will brook no discussion of other possibilities --
an edict most Americans, in their desperation to believe in this man, seem
to have embraced. The Bush Administration even withholds its "proof" of Al
Qa'eda's guilt; clearly, it considers mere citizens too unimportant to
require full explanations, and once again, we're just rolling over and
taking it.
The phrases 'spiritually broken' and 'morally adrift' come to mind...
Until the full case against Al Qa'eda is made available for public review,
we have absolutely no assurance that this "proof" isn't exactly like the
"proof" of Iraq's weapons programs -- i.e., a big fat lie from top to
bottom. On these terms, wholesale acceptance of the hijacker scenario will
continue to be what it has always been: a pathetic display of blind faith in
this administration's utterances, and in those of its media accomplices. At
present, it is astonishing that anyone places faith of any kind in either
party: by means of the "WMD" debacle, both have proven themselves amoral,
duplicitous, and utterly devoid of humanity. Indeed, why do we give them so
much as a moment of our attention? No one with a lick of sense would do
this.
A rigorous civilian investigation of 9-11 would help resolve such doubts. If
Bush and the rest were standing on firm ground, they would fully support
such a thing. Instead, they have worked to thwart both its formation and its
progress, using every resource within their reach. Some time last year, they
seem to have realized they were only fueling suspicions this way, so Bush
grudgingly approved an "independent" investigation. The arrogance of this
bunch is so disabling, however, that they actually damaged their credibility
even further by naming Henry Kissinger to lead it. This is a man whose
dedication to "US interests" verges on homicidal psychosis (see his
treatment of Cambodians 1970, Chileans 1973, East Timorese and Kurds 1975,
MUCH more). He could only be expected to skew this investigation accordingly
, i. e., to omit and cover up any issue not conducive to empire building.
Ironically, even Henry had the sense to admit he was an inappropriate
choice, thus resigning from this duty, whereupon Bush immediately returned
to his original tactic of stonewalling (1). Could the man possibly have
something to hide?
To appreciate the ugliest possibilities of the 9-11 attack, one must first
become aware of the continuous practice of such manipulations by the entire
progression of American politicians. The need to cultivate this awareness is
itself an enigma: if you have the honesty to see this pattern at all, its
full enormity, emerging over time, will at some point cause your previous
ignorance to amaze you. Imagine living your entire life with an 800-pound
gorilla, then realizing one day it's not a sofa, after all. At the same
time, finding this enlightenment is challenging, because the relevant facts
are usually withheld from the public for decades, seldom appearing in
mainstream discourse even after they become common knowledge -- not because
of some grand conspiracy, but because legions of 'America Firsters,'
including most of the famous and powerful, simply don't want to hear it. The
telling of these facts is an affront to their most cherished political
assumptions. Invariably, they respond with hostile apologetics, ranging from
simple denial and ridicule to the claim that such incidents are random and
unrelated "mistakes." That they can sincerely believe this 'unrelated' claim
is remarkable, given the way it crushes into dust under any burden of
historical proof: America's state crimes have been ethically monstrous, vast
in both scale and number, unilateral in their aggression, virtually
uninterrupted in their chronology, and very coherent in both motive and
method. Certain themes just keep popping up:
1) Greed, particularly for territory;
2) Supremacism, driven only partly by race, perhaps more so by delusions of
national grandeur allowed to ramify without limit;
3) An enthusiasm for "total war" -- i. e., the indiscriminate butchery of
entire populations. This seems most likely to happen when "strategic"
territories, resources, or victories are at stake. That is, when those in
authority feel they "must win," and so discard principle to whatever extent
is necessary;
4) The systemic corruption and antidemocratic functioning of every level of
American government, made abundantly clear by its relations with sworn
enemies of the public interest, namely corporations;
5) The bid for global empire that has all but defined the American agenda
since W.W.II, in flagrant violation of democratic principle.
This last "US interest," discussed openly by flacks and shills only since
9-11 suspended all moral judgment on such matters, actually represents the
driving passion of our ruling elite, going all the way back to the
Revolution. Indeed, grasping the means of power, beginning with sovereign
domain, was their main motive for pursuing revolution at all. Starting then
and continuing ever since, they have whipped the people up to support their
warped appetites, even as they have misrepresented them spectacularly. EVERY
SINGLE TIME we as a people have committed to a war of expansion, we have
been duped into doing so by their twin handservants, American politics and
American media:
1776 to 1890
Innumerable 'Indian wars'
In which the western frontier was pushed through the territories of one
Indian confederation after another, all the way to the Pacific. An early and
definitive example is George Washington's post-revolutionary conquest of the
Ohio Valley, where the Washington Family held deeds to immense tracts of
prime real estate never actually ceded by the Indians. The lore that George
was a "surveyor" is a populist distortion; he was no blue collar grunt,
laying out property lines to earn a living. He was in fact the most
ambitious of an elite family of 'land speculators' -- the colonial
equivalent of venture capitalists -- and his toils were in the service of
his own family fortune. Already one of the richest people in
post-revolutionary America, he was determined to get even richer through the
sale of his Ohio holdings, and wasn't about to be stopped by 'two-legged
vermin' like the Shawnees and Miamis. To this end, he abused his dominance
of the early federal government, arranging for Revolutionary War veterans (a
battle-hardened militia) to be compensated with "land warrants" deep in
Ohio's wilderness, far beyond his own holdings. He also encouraged the
issuance of large bounties, equivalent to several months' income, for Indian
scalps along the upper Ohio River. These were essentially open murder
contracts that targeted ALL Indians, regardless of age, gender, or tribal
affiliation. By this means, genocide was openly subsidized for decades
wherever intact Indian cultures presented an obstacle to "progress."
Primitive as media was, its role in all this was crude but sufficient:
posting the bounties while inflaming the settlers' hatred with tales of
Indian atrocities, real and imagined. In the Ohio Territory, these tactics
rapidly progressed to open war, orchestrated by Washington against
Tecumseh's Shawnee Confederation, and then to the total extermination and
westward displacement of the Ohio tribes (2).
1846 to '48
The Mexican War:
Beginning in 1818, when the Oregon Territory was acquired, American
imperialists developed an intense interest in California. Simply adding it
piecemeal to their territorial inventory wouldn't have worked, however: it
was too isolated, too defensible by the Mexicans. To take California, all of
northern Mexico -- what is now California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New
Mexico, Texas, and portions of Oklahoma, Kansas, and Colorado -- would have
to be taken, requiring the invention of some PRETEXT for doing so. In 1836,
American "adventurers" (freelance political operatives) instigated a
regional coup in the Mexican province of Texas, splitting it off to form an
independent country, the Republic of Texas. Nine years later, this nation
was annexed as the 28th state. Immediately afterward, President Polk made
the predictable move of sending belligerent military incursions into
disputed lands along the new border with Mexico. The Mexicans replied with
patrols of their own, and then clashes developed, leading to the "spilling
of American blood on American soil." Or so the press told it (their bias
could be summed up in a phrase they coined around this time: "Manifest
Destiny"). In fact, the soil in question was situated between the Nueces and
Rio Grande rivers, an area both governments held equal claim to. But no
matter -- the people eagerly accepted this distortion, Polk got his dirty
little war, and then proceeded to steal something like 650,000 square miles
of territory from our next-door neighbor. Add to this the previous criminal
acquisition of territory from Mexico, i.e. the "Lone Star State," and the
area usurped approaches one-third of the contiguous 48 states, or HALF of
what was originally Mexico (3).
Some years later, a fantastic mineral strike in this stolen territory -- the
Comstock Lode -- would provide the Hearst Family with an immense fortune,
soon parlayed by William Randolph into an infamous media empire.
1898 to '99
The Spanish-American War/Philippine Campaign:
Though still a colonial client of Spain during the 1880s and '90s, Cuba was
also a hotbed of insurrection, thanks to the efforts of Jose Marti and
others. By 1898, the Cuban independence movement had Spain's colonial
government on the ropes. The prominence of blacks among the rebels made this
situation alarming for fin de siecle American royalists, among whom
"Darwinist" (i.e. proto-Nazi) political thought was at the height of its
popularity. Also, having just recently subdued the last free-roaming Indian
tribes back home, their passion for grabbing other people's land could now
be expanded into the Caribbean, Central America, and Pacific, via expanded
activities of that handy agency, the US military. So in the fall and winter
of 1897-98, the Hearst syndicate and other news organizations were blasting
Americans with "yellow journalism" on the subject of Cuba -- sensational and
often ludicrous accounts, custom made to induce support of US military
intervention. The public thus primed, the sinking of the battleship USS
Maine in Havana Harbor gave McKinley all the excuse needed to commence
grabbing up not only Cuba, but also Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.
It was in the Philippines that the US military took "total war" beyond North
America for the first time. Encouraged by the Filipino's uncanny resemblance
to Native Americans, US troops mass-murdered something like 25% of the
civilian population. As imperial outrages go, this was the equal of anything
that's happened since (4).
A 1975 investigation led by Admiral Rickover determined that the Maine's
hull was breached by an explosion originating INSIDE the ship. This could
have been a spontaneous "coal-bin explosion," or it could have been a bomb
placed by an imperialist traitor. As with 9-11, this catastrophe neatly
erased any inconvenient witnesses to its real mechanics.
1917 to '18
World War I:
Three years into the "Great War," it looked as though Germany would defeat
Britain and France, our primary capitalist hosts in Europe. Big financiers
like J. P. Morgan and John D. Rockefeller, who between them had billions
invested "over there," weren't about to just sit back and watch this happen.
They barked orders to their underling, Woodrow Wilson, who then declared
war, using German interference with US shipping activities as a feeble
pretext. Leading up to this, the media minions whipped the public into a war
frenzy, basing their wildly manipulative propaganda on incidents such as the
sinking of the Lusitania, two years earlier. Funny thing about the
Lusitania: it's hold contained a secret, illegal, and massive cargo of
ammunition and other materiel bound for Liverpool, and its passengers were
used as unwitting human shields for this cargo by the US government, which
is why they died. Neither Wilson nor the media of the day ever admitted any
of this (5).
The dynamics behind America's entry into World War II were virtually
identical. Over 500,000 Americans died in these two wars, with 875,000 more
wounded, and an additional and unknown number emotionally shattered, all of
which brought untold misery to their families and communities. Given the
choice between destroying all those lives or allowing the likes of Morgan
and Rockefeller to suffer the tragedy of somewhat less obscene wealth, our
"representatives" chose the former as the lesser sacrifice.
1941 to '45
World War II:
France already lying crushed beneath Hitler's war machine, and Britain under
a devastating siege, the White House was once again compelled to intervene
on behalf of its capitalist masters, whose European investments had grown
two magnitudes since the close of W.W.I. Unlike Wilson, however, FDR did a
truly brilliant job of constructing a pretext. in September of 1940,
Germany, Italy, and Japan signed the Tripartite Pact, a treaty committing
all three countries to counterattack against new foes faced by any one of
them. This gave Roosevelt a back door into Europe via the Pacific. Beginning
one month later, and fourteen months prior to the Pearl Harbor attack, he
launched secret military and economic operations against the Japanese
Empire, obstructing its only access to oil, rubber, and other strategic
resources. The Japanese response to this blockade -- open hostilities
against the United States, beginning with a crippling preemptive attack on
the Pacific Fleet -- was entirely predictable. In fact, it was Roosevelt's
whole purpose in setting up the blockade: Nearly unanimous "isolationist"
sentiment at home was his first military target, and precipitating a
"vicious sneak attack on US soil" was his deliberate design for destroying
that sentiment. For this reason, he concentrated the Pacific Fleet in Hawaii
as never before, where it would be seen as an imminent threat by Japanese
generals. He then withheld intelligence of Japan's attack preparations from
Pearl's top officers, continuing to exclude them even when radio intercepts
revealed the movement of a Japanese carrier group toward Hawaii (6).
From 1941 to '46, and again in 1995, Congress investigated "the intelligence
lapses that made this sneak attack possible" no less than NINE TIMES. On all
of these occasions, officials of the Roosevelt Administration and the Office
of Naval Intelligence perjured themselves and concealed vast amounts of
evidence to preserve the historical fictions surrounding the Pearl Harbor
attack. To this day, the NSA claims "national security" as its basis for
withholding relevant material from the public. "National security" stands
revealed, then, as a euphemism for this government's ruthless grip on
power -- a thing that certainly would be threatened, were we to become fully
aware of the treacheries it spawns. This context radically transforms
"national security" rhetoric into an ideal excuse for all sorts of betrayals
and deceits, and this seems to be it's actual interpretation among those who
"safeguard" it.
The agonies of Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, etc. under Hitler, not to mention those
of the Chinese and Koreans under the Japanese Empire, were incidental at
best to US motives for pursuing W.W.II, both before and during. It was only
afterward that the camps were seized upon as a full-blown "pretext in
retrospect" to maximize America's apparent heroism. With each year that has
passed since, this myth has been more shamelessly advanced, so that now some
stunning percentage of Americans believe that "halting genocide" was their
government's main motive for waging war at all.
1945 to '89
The Cold War (a.k.a. W.W.III):
was launched by the closing episode of W.W.II, i.e., the atomic bombing of
Japan. President Truman's official rationalization for the bombing,
trumpeted ad nauseum by the media of the day, was that it was the only way
to end the war quickly, thus avoiding a horrific house-by-house assault of
the entire Japanese Archipelago. In fact, the Japanese were already making
conditional surrender overtures. Accepting their terms, however, would have
made Truman's victory conditional as well, and he was determined to
humiliate them. Even the total surrender he insisted on was only a few
months away, by all signs. Meanwhile, the war in Europe having ended in May,
the Russians were now free to join the allied fight against this old enemy
of theirs, and were preparing to do exactly that. Given enough time to enter
the Pacific War, they would have claimed a portion of Japan upon its
surrender, just as they had recently claimed the eastern half of Europe. To
keep the Soviets from horning in on this pending crown jewel of America's
Pacific Empire, Truman needed his total victory immediately, and The Bomb
gave him an irresistible means by which to secure it. As an early devotee of
anti-Communist paranoia, he was also confronting the Russians with a
demonstration of America's 'invincible technological prowess.' Finally, his
decision to vaporize 200,000 Japanese civilians was made easier by his
avowed hatred of the entire race (7).
The cover provided by the Cold War enabled the United States to pursue its
largest campaign of expansion by far, extending its economic and strategic
tentacles into every corner of the planet and even into space by means of
literally hundreds of "anti-Communist" initiatives, interventions, and proxy
wars. Our present "global hegemony," a source of endless glee for Bush and
other miscreants, didn't "just happen" -- it was the overarching and
unspoken goal of US Cold War politics.
Another important thing to understand about the Cold War: the "War on
Terrorism" is directly adapted from it, just as the Cold War itself
developed directly from W.W.II, which was in turn a direct consequence of
W.W.I, which was Germany and Britain vying with one another for world
domination -- a contest America ended up winning. What an epic of
greed-crazed murderous lunacy! One that the present regime seeks only to
perpetuate, and for the same reasons as always: expansion and consolidation
of empire.
1950 to '53
The Korean War:
To coerce public support for this war, the press and the Truman
Administration whipped up public hysteria about the "Red Menace!" that was
then "swallowing up" obscure Far Eastern precincts. No mention, of course,
that the mounting anti-US sentiment in those precincts resulted entirely
from collaboration between US occupation forces and the Japanese fascists
they were supposedly there to remove. This collaboration ranks as one of the
most arrogant foreign policy blunders in US history. For people throughout
the Far East, it was an unbearable betrayal, as it effectively prolonged
what had already been one of the most gruesome and protracted military
occupations EVER. Similar dynamics had already developed in mainland China,
a hornet's nest so immense that withdrawal quickly resolved as our only sane
option. And also in the Philippines, where US troops and Huk rebels started
out fighting side by side to expel the Japanese. Indigenous sovereignty
being the Huk's ultimate goal, the Americans began killing them, too, as the
Japanese were subdued. Two thousand miles from all these places, in French
Indochina, the exact tensions seen in Korea arose AGAIN in response to
brutal French/Japanese collaboration -- abetted by American field agents,
naturally (8).
In all four places, revolutionary leaders greatly admired America's
political tradition of anti-colonialism and self-determination, and sought
to claim these values for their own countries. They even made earnest
attempts to form friendships with the US; they thought colonialism was a
'european thing,' so that we must therefore be 'the good guys.' For
strategic planners back in Washington, all this was at odds with their grand
design for the Far East: now being vacated by its previous colonial tenants,
it was seen as a "power vacuum," fairly begging for RE-colonization
according to America's obfuscated formula of puppet politics and corporate
infiltration.
American society has yet to recover from the "Red Menace!" propaganda
barrage, which soon became a constant theme of international news coverage,
and remained so for the next 40 years. As a means of inducing mass paranoia
and public consent to limitless militarization, the "Red Menace" lost its
punch following the collapse of the Soviet Union, necessitating its
replacement with a more robust methodology -- the "Terrorist Menace!" Nazi
Germany and Israel being the great innovators of this second method, America
owes a great debt to both of them.
1965 to '73
The Vietnam War:
By way of manipulating Congress into granting him war powers, LBJ reprised
the "vicious sneak attack" gambit with his brazen lies regarding such action
by the North Vietnamese against US Navy vessels in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Beginning in 1969, Nixon and Kissinger expanded on this crime enormously,
adding Laos and Cambodia to North Vietnam as targets of a redoubled 'total
war' initiative. Several million tons of cluster bombs were then used to
totally destroy vast civilian districts in all three countries (districts
simply crawling, mind you, with subsistence farmers bent on global
domination). All of which exactly repeated the pattern of the Korean War --
right down to America not winning (9).
As huge as the American effort against Vietnam was, it was just one element
of a yet more enormous strategy of military encirclement (a.k.a.
"containment") directed against mainland China. Other elements were: the
permanent and massive U.S. military presence in Japan; a similar presence in
Thailand; unlimited military and economic support to Chiang Kai-Shek's exile
government on Formosa (Taiwan); the Korean War and subsequent permanent U.S.
military presence in Korea; a strong strategic interest in India, including
covert support of an otherwise preposterous nuclear weapons program; also, a
U.S.-equipped and -trained covert army of Chinese "nationalists" in eastern
Burma, within what became known as the "Golden Triangle." It was here that
the CIA first learned of the marvels of the international heroin trade.
To advance its "interests," the U.S. government has manipulated the affairs
of every region of the planet on this same incredible scale, and continues
to do so. Other hotspots include Europe, the Middle East, Central Africa,
and all of Latin America and the Pacific.
1991 to 2003
The Gulf War / "No-fly Zones" / Sanctions:
To con Americans into backing this outrage, Daddy Bush and his media
bed-buddies told a couple real whoppers. First there was the one about the
satellite photographs of a massive Iraqi invasion force assembling on the
northern border of Saudi Arabia (10). Then there was the Kuwait Incubator
Hoax, an inventive revival of the childish "babies on bayonets" propaganda
of World War I -- as told by a child, no less (11). As it turned out,
Operation "Desert Storm" was merely the opening episode of a ruthless
destabilization program, aimed primarily at hapless civilians, that would
continue for over a decade, killing no less than 500,000 Iraqis in a fairly
obvious attempt to turn them against their head of state. This fulfills any
sane definition of terrorism, and is probably the most grandiose recent
example of the state-sponsored variety. It was maintained with enthusiasm by
the Clinton Administration.
2001 to present
The "War on Terror" (a.k.a. W.W.IV):
Pretexts include: 1) the 9-11 attack; 2) this Administration's single-minded
incrimination of Al Qa'eda (a CIA proxy), backed up with such things as; 3)
an obviously fraudulent videotape of Osama "confessing;" 4) the conceit that
Al Qa'eda's guilt justified a full-scale invasion of Afghanistan (the
combined strike force for which began building up at least six months prior
to 9-11, disguised as a "war game"); 5) an implied equation between Al
Qa'eda and Iraq's Ba'athite regime, and; 6) the absurd fantasy that Iraq, a
country left all but helpless by the previous campaign, might pose a real
threat to the world's deadliest strategic power.
By rights, I should have included the Civil War in this run-down: all the
ingredients are there, with antidemocratic preservation of domain being
equivalent to expansion. Also, the fable that 'freeing the slaves' was its
entire purpose has to rank among the wildest disinformation campaigns ever
perpetrated upon Americans by our "free press."
Though they never precipitated the full-scale wars their authors had in
mind, a few other nasty episodes are especially relevant to 9-11:
Operation "Northwoods"
A Pentagon plan for a massive "false flag" terror campaign against American
citizens, the purpose being to provide pretext for a full-scale invasion of
Cuba. If approved, it would have entailed such things as sniper attacks on
random US citizens (a la the DC sniper), terrorist bombings, and a bogus
missile attack on an unmanned, remote-controlled US airliner in the
Caribbean, the plane's fictitious passengers to be reported as "entirely
lost." All of this was to be carried out by US intelligence agents posing as
Cuban operatives, whose dirty work would translate directly into the sort of
massive public manipulation campaign this government always launches when it
sees profit in war. The Northwoods plan was called off by Robert McNamara
only when it was submitted for executive approval, having already been
approved by every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (12).
Northwoods would never amount to anything more than a glimmer in some agency
psychopath's eye. In Europe, however, the CIA's most deranged anti-leftist
terror tactics were actually implemented ...
Operation "Stay Behind"; Operation "Gladio"
As part of a larger US withdrawal strategy following W.W.II, the CIA created
underground right-wing militias throughout Western Europe, to be activated
as guerilla armies in the event of invasion by the Soviets. These were known
as "Stay Behind" forces; they were a rogue's gallery of mercenary scum,
dominated by devout ex-Nazis recruited by SS-cum-CIA agent Reinhard Gehlen.
As the years passed and the Soviets failed to provide the anticipated
invasion, the Stay Behinds resorted to other means of justifying their CIA
paychecks. All across Europe, beginning in the 1950s, they morphed into
right-wing hit squads and terrorist groups. They participated in massive
CIA-NATO destabilization efforts against the Soviet Bloc countries,
assassinating Soviet officials, sabotaging industrial plants and public
infrastructure, and generally terrorizing civilian populations. The pattern
should be familiar from similar terror campaigns against Cuba and Nicaragua.
In East Berlin, the activities of Stay Behind units were the primary reason
for the construction of the Berlin Wall. The Stay Behinds did not limit
their mayhem to the Soviet Bloc, however; as time passed, their attention
turned more and more to equivalent activities within their NATO home
countries. Throughout Western Europe, particularly in Italy, leftist
politics had a stronger following than it has seen in the U.S. since the
1930s, and the Stay Behinds were the CIA's primary footsoldiers in its
"dirty tricks" campaign against this percieved enemy. In a psy-war effort to
alienate the public from the political left, they launched bogus left-wing
terror outfits (the "Baader-Meinhof Gang") or framed real leftist
undergrounds (the "Red Brigades") for atrocities they committed themselves.
In Italy, where the Stay Behind operation was code-named "Gladio," agents
posing as left-wing extremists perpetrated many public bombings during the
'70s, killing at least 300 people. These culminated in the August 1980
Bologna Train Station Bombing, which killed 86. The 1978 kidnapping and
murder of Aldo Moro was another Gladio exploit. These activities had one
purpose: to portray the political left as public enemy number one, thus
isolating it domestically while building consent for military escalation and
NATO aggression against the Soviets (13).
* * * * * * * * *
So what's it all about, anyway, all this intrigue and stomping of jackboots
on distant shores? Thanks to its unrivaled military strength and exceptional
geographic isolation (oceans make bitchin' moats), this country is all but
perfectly invulnerable to invasion, and repelling invaders would seem to be
the only defensible function of armies. No one's invaded this country since
the War of 1812, when British expeditions came out of Canada, Florida, and
the Gulf of Mexico. Don't expect a repeat anytime soon. Although a massive
one, the Pearl Harbor Attack was still just a raid, on what at the time was
this country's farthest-flung primary military base.
To keep the entire planet under its thumb, our government burdens us with
the gargantuan cost of the world's largest military, which it mostly uses to
crush pitiful rebellions in the remotest and poorest corners of the world,
places we truly have no business being in. This is exactly like a bully
swaggering around a schoolyard, shaking down all the little kids. Is that
really how you want your government representing you to the rest of the
world? Shouldn't DOMESTIC policy take priority instead? Things like adequate
health care and effective primary education -- programs that would serve the
wants and needs of YOU, their citizen, whom they claim to be their master.
But this is not their priority, and never has been. The geometric growth of
this economy, by various forms of conquest, is their abiding passion, with
domestic policy being attended to almost as an afterthought. To force our
consent, they hypnotize us with lurid visions of one boogeyman after
another, maintaining childish fear as our primary political sensibility,
keeping us dependent, trusting, stupid, distracting us from our own
self-interests...
Why is that?
WHO BENEFITS??
The average American, who spends his or her life chained to the machinery of
wealth production, watching their share of its output dwindle steadily, sure
as hell doesn't. The stratum of society that truly gains from all this just
happens to be the same one that finds employment in high-level intelligence
positions: big-time spooks like Kermit Roosevelt, the Dulles brothers,
Nelson Rockefeller, George H. W. Bush -- i. e. America's ruling families. In
their parlance, "U.S. Interests" is just doublespeak for global empire and
corporate colonialism, and these have always been the real purposes behind
their warmongering.
All told, these wars killed over a million US soldiers, along with many
times this number of civilians and combatants in the lands invaded, and this
isn't even touching on the dozens of proxy wars that have been the American
Empire's main battle front for going on sixty years. All of these millions
of people, American and foreign alike, were MURDERED by a government intent
on advancing the interests of a tiny minority while betraying the rest of
humanity; a government willing to wield its power in their service in any
manner, including technological and economic terror campaigns waged against
entire national populations. And yet this government has the audacity to
call itself a "beacon of hope to the world!" And the majority BELIEVE THEM!!
It simply amazes.
America's shadowy patricians were already too powerful before the Cold War.
And then decades of public hysteria borne of imminent nuclear annihilation
delivered them into the fabled realm of "absolute power." This has been
pretty obvious. Americans have avoided realizing it only by actively
pursuing a mental state of utter denial on this subject, sort of like the
three monkey icons of Shinto. Thanks to this determined ignorance, keeping
the rest of us in the dark has been childishly easy for people like the
Bushes. They can even be incredibly brazen and sloppy and get caught
red-handed, as with Watergate. No biggy: just tell all the boobs it was
Nixon acting alone, assisted by his best buddies, who just happened to be,
um, CIA agents. Yah. They'll never notice this story's unbelievable stench;
they'll be too relieved at having any sort of excuse to NOT think about it.
You know, just like when the Warren Commission's whitewash came out.
One hypothesis is particularly good for sending 'America Firsters' into an
apoplexy of denial: that the political culture now emerging in Washington is
actually a product of 40 years of covert penetration into the Executive
Branch. To substantiate this, one need look no further than the lineage of
our present "leader." His grandfather, Prescott Bush, was a military spy
during W.W.I, a key financial collaborator with the Nazis, and a US Senator.
His father, George H. W. Bush, was heir to the CIA realm under our most
infamous presidential regime, a fixture in presidential politics for 20
years, and all in all one of the creepiest figures ever to darken the
American political stage. The 'quiet coup' that brought this man to power
traces back to the Eisenhower Administration, when the utterly creepy
"National Security" underworld first became a secret and malevolent force in
national politics -- a force whose power is still nearly impossible to
measure. There are ominous glimpses, though: in 1960, Eisenhower's VP and
political heir, Richard M. Nixon, was shouldered aside by John F. Kennedy,
who over the next three years developed grave misgivings about this
underworld and its power. Then he ended up dead, and yes, his assassination
DID stink of black ops, as did the similar jobs on Malcolm X, Martin Luther
King, and his kid brother "Bobby," who would have been the SECOND Kennedy to
sour Nixon's presidential hopes, had he lived to see the 1968 election...
Though the CIA denies it, several independent sources identify George H. W.
Bush as a high-ranking agent during the Kennedy Administration, commanding
covert operations against Cuba. The ships used in Operation "Zapata" (the
"Bay of Pigs" invasion) were named by him, it is said, after members of his
family. Those names indeed correspond with those of his wife and children.
Among the most conclusive sources is an official memorandum from J. Edgar
Hoover, dated November 29, 1963, which refers to a "Mr. George Bush of the
Central Intelligence Agency" (14). The memo refers to Bush's evaluation of
emotional reactions to Kennedy's assassination among Cuban exiles under his
watch.
From here, Bush the Elder went on to become a protege of Richard Nixon's,
was a mid-echelon member of his cabinet beginning in 1971, had very
interesting connections to CREEP, and somehow eluded Congress's Watergate
dragnet.
Watergate and a few other incidents proved that Nixon had a most unwholesome
relationship with the CIA. Once this scandal had hemorrhaged to the point
that Congress could no longer avoid taking action, containing the damage
could be seen as the main theme of its response -- a hallmark of
Congressional investigations. There was far too much eagerness to examine
this matter only in terms narrowly relating to impeachment, thus leaving
larger questions wholly unexplored: did the Watergate break-in really happen
on Nixon's orders, or was the intelligence underworld acting on its own,
using 'dirty tricks' to prop up their man in the White House, exactly as it
has on countless occasions for entire puppet governments all over the world?
In the latter case, letting Nixon take the fall would have been an extreme
measure, but possibly the only sure way to divert attention from an
abhorrent and illegal power structure, thus preserving it. Nixon himself
would have been a likely author of this tactic, as it was he who trumped
Congress' investigation by resigning, whence the entire matter was eagerly
dropped.
Bone-tired of Watergate in any case, the public was predisposed to accept
Nixon's implied guilt as the final answer: "responsibility can't go any
higher than the President, right? Harry 'the buck stops here' Truman said
so." In reaching this conclusion, we were assisted by major media organs,
which immediately began spinning this as Watergate's "final resolution." In
fact, this conclusion resolved nothing -- it left the most crucial questions
hanging in mid-air, soon to be shrouded in rhetoric by professional
apologists from all quarters. Its only definite outcome was the softening of
a renewed public spirit of scrutiny and resistance, which in turn allowed a
deadly authoritarian cancer to resume its march throughout our body politic.
After going underground for seven years, this cancer emerged in full force
as the Reagan Administration.
Dubya's announcement last April of another bogus 'conclusion' -- that of his
Hitlerian conquest of Iraq -- had a strikingly similar effect. Once again,
mounting vigilance was undone by a well-timed lie, universally disseminated.
Following Nixon's resignation, Poppy finally hit the big-time when Gerald
Ford named him Director of the CIA. After toppling Carter, he became VP
himself, and for the next twelve years was at the center of the Reagan era's
continuous parade of treasonous covert operations. A few highlights: 1) the
campaign to prevent an "October Surprise," in which Bush & Co. induced the
Iranians to delay release of the American embassy hostages, thus undermining
Carter's re-election bid; 2) an inhuman terror campaign against the people
and government of Nicaragua, even after Congress declared it illegal, at
which point the CIA was forced to devise covert funding arrangements such as
3) "Iran-Contra" and 4) operation "Watchtower." This last episode, which was
going on around the time of Bush Senior's succession, is easily the most
incredible: the CIA was a major domestic smuggler and distributor of "Crack"
cocaine during the late '80s, when this drug became an inner-city plague
(15).
At this point, the CIA was contemptuously wiping its ass with the
Constitution, and got completely away with it. If this were truly the
America the Boy Scouts taught you to believe in, the exposure of operation
"Watchtower" would have destroyed the CIA.
Late in Reagan's second term, 60 minutes was granted a horrifying personal
interview with Ronnie and Nancy in the Oval Office. Horrifying because, even
though Reagan's Alzheimer's wasn't disclosed for several more years, it was
perfectly obvious the man was totally gone. Faced with a steady stream of
unscripted questions from Mike Wallace, Reagan's usual patter rapidly
degenerated into stark senile mumblings. Desperate to conceal her husband's
incoherence, Nancy kept practically thrusting her face into the cameras.
This is consistent with puzzled accounts of writers and artists of the time,
who, as dinner guests of the Reagans, were mystified as to how such an oaf
could present himself so effectively on television.
All of which implies a striking parallel between the Reagan Presidency and
that of Bush II: in both cases, Bush Senior can be discerned as the man
behind the curtain, while the "president" is a mere speech reader, whose
real job is to keep the public distracted with his amiable, vacuous,
universally televised performances. Dubya's main puppeteers -- Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Powell -- are all Poppy's cronies, going all the way
back to the Nixon Administration. The five Supreme Court Justices who put
Junior in power are also Nixon/Reagan/Bush cronies, and their cancellation
of democratic process was a classic "installation," reminiscent of the CIA's
long-running antidemocratic escapades throughout the world.
It has Poppy's pawprints all over it.
If not for daddy's influence, Silver Coke-spoon Boy would be lucky to find
work fishing golf balls out of water hazards at the local country club. This
is obvious, and widely acknowledged. Most Americans, however, aren't willing
to examine the enormously sinister ramifications, given Poppy's background,
of the Bush Family's dynastic grip on American politics. Most Americans,
after all, are a weak-minded lot -- though harassed by apparitions of
unprecedented corruption, they lack the courage needed to fix their gaze
upon them.
Which brings us to 9-11...
The most venerable means of transmitting control inputs from a plane's
cockpit to its various aerodynamic control surfaces (rudder, ailerons, etc.)
is via a system of cables, i.e. "aircraft cables." With the introduction of
huge planes during and after W.W.II, unassisted human arms could no longer
provide the force needed to actuate proportionately huge control surfaces,
and so hydraulic assist devices and fully hydraulic control systems were
developed. The introduction of autopilots and landing guidance systems over
the next three decades layered yet another 'control system' over this one,
an electronic layer capable of manipulating the hydraulics directly and thus
flying the plane on its own. In the 757- and 767-series planes boarded by
"the hijackers," Boeing expanded this layer enormously, making it much more
sophisticated and integral to the continuous operation of these planes. For
one thing, it continuously monitors such things as attitude, acceleration,
turn rates, etc., and if necessary can assert exclusive control of the
hydraulics at any time, modifying or even overriding pilot decisions that
would otherwise result in drastic maneuvers, inappropriate for passenger
service. Though meant to provide an added margin of safety in the event of
gross pilot error, this arrangement introduces an ominous new dimension: in
a very real sense, the humans on the flight deck have only tenuous control
of flaps, rudder, etc.; the computer, the arbiter between the two, allows
them direct control only on it's own immutable terms. If the computer can
override the pilot some of the time, a potential exists for it to override
the pilot ALL of the time. This is a vulnerable arrangement, as anyone who
has dealt with a virus should know. In other words, the advancing dependency
on avionic interfaces has brought with it an advancing potential for the
total electronic co-optation of those interfaces. As they have grown
exponentially in complexity, so too has the number of entry points by which
such co-optation might be effected. All that was needed was for
technologists to devise a "back door"...
Enter the U.S. government and its defense contractors, who began joint
development of remote flight control and flight circumvention technology at
least two decades ago, using the full force of their virtually infinite R&D
resources. The existence of these programs, and of the resulting technology,
was verified soon after 9-11 by a panel of commercial and military pilots
participating in an independent inquiry (16).
The existence of such technology IN ANY FORM raises intriguing
questions/possibilities about 9-11: 1) could the planes have been hijacked
via this technology alone? 2) Were they? 3) Remote hijacking and on-board
hijacking are not mutually exclusive scenarios; if there were actual human
hijackers on those planes, their plot may have been remotely co-opted by
another party they knew nothing about, leaving them as horrified as anyone
when the planes took control of themselves and banked straight into
buildings.
Photographic evidence and eye-witness accounts support the idea that the
override functionality of the planes' computers was somehow defeated,
allowing "the hijackers" to make prohibited maneuvers. For example, there
are multiple photographs and video clips showing AA Flight 175 making an
outrageously hard turn into the second tower. According to official
information, the plane that hit the Pentagon also made aerobatic descent
maneuvers worthy of a fighter pilot. To have flown the planes in this
manner, Atta and the rest would have needed 1) advanced large plane skills,
and 2) a way to defeat the planes' avionic systems. Since that flight school
they attended in Venice, Fla. probably didn't offer a course titled "Hot-dog
Maneuvers with Airliners 101," they must have possessed these abilities
already, so why would they have bothered with flight lessons at all? Any
benefit they realized in terms of understanding new control layouts would
have been at the cost of increased exposure, thus endangering their mission.
On the other hand, if they were as inexperienced as the presstitutes tell us
("I just want to learn how to steer"), they couldn't possibly have flown the
planes this way at all, which means someone else must have.
However distasteful, there is a real possibility that remote circumvention
occurred on those planes, a possibility that any credible investigation
would hardly ignore. All the more so because the necessary hardware isn't
just a cockamamie theory: a fully developed, totally programmable remote
flight control platform actually exists. Suggestively named the "Flight
Termination System," it is manufactured by Systems Planning Corporation of
Rosslyn, Virginia, which maintains web pages devoted to the FTS and various
subsystems:
A system overview:
http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/FTS
The transmitter hardware:
http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/CTS
Related software:
http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/MkVSW
The CEO of Systems Planning's international division, Dov Zakheim, is a
long-time DoD and Republican Party insider, and a founding member of the
Neoconservative cult. While Bush was still Governor of Texas, Zakheim became
one of his closest advisers, counseling him on defense technology and
strategic aspects of Middle Eastern affairs. After the 2000 "election,"
Rummy rewarded Zakheim with a low-profile but strategically important
position -- Comptroller, i.e. head money man, of the Defense Department.
Zakheim also co-authored the Heritage Foundation's infamous tract,
"Rebuilding America's Defenses," in which the Bush Administration's entire
design for renewed global conquest was laid down a full year prior to 9-11.
On page 63, the authors note that timely implementation of their ideas would
require "some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."
See for yourself:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
To identify the expansionist motive behind the "9-11 Wars," one need look no
further than this document. Echoing Ziggy Brzezinski's thoughts in "The
Grand Chessboard," the authors identify the Persian Gulf / Central Asian
region as the world's greatest geopolitical prize, and recommend that
decisive control of this region be made a top strategic priority.
The remote control scenario also neatly punctures the 'yada-yada objection'
always employed by conspiracy theory critics: "It couldn't have happened
that way, because too many people would have known, and someone would
blab..." In fact, the most sensitive part of this plot would be that of
anticipating or enabling nineteen flesh-and-blood "hijackers," and yet this
part of the scenario is all but universally accepted. Nineteen men backed by
a larger organization schemed to get on those planes and take control of
them, and then they did; everyone knows they did because CNN has stated this
"fact" about ten thousand times and counting. As for exactly WHICH
organization did the backing, well, there's a saying about 'dead men' ...
Once the patsies were in position, the rest of this scenario -- the "really
unbelievable part" -- could have been carried off in its entirety by a tiny
team wielding extravagant technical skills and multimillion-dollar
equipment. No larger conspiracy is necessary. As for the apparent complicity
of the entire government and media, this is mostly just cynical opportunism
and jello-brained obedience rising to the occasion -- a response easily
anticipated by the real conspirators, for whom history provides a
never-ending parade of examples on which to base such expectations.
Mind you, this is not to say that remote circumvention is definitely what
happened. On its face, this scenario is wildly improbable. Speaking of
improbable, what about four airliners being taken over simultaneously and
used as missiles? Since this actually happened, we have no choice but to
consider fantastic scenarios, and since the official scenario is itself an
unsubstantiated "conspiracy theory," competing scenarios should also receive
serious attention. Our reluctance to question official doctrine on this
matter is a symptom of the societal role most of us have been bred and
trained for: to be ever-faithful hounds, tails thumping the floor as we
contentedly slorp the hand of class authority. Such credulity also becomes
inevitable when the alternative is so unbearable: if someone in Bush's
position is capable of lying to us about something as huge, as
gut-wrenchingly horrible as 9-11, then everything we believe about this
country -- about the nature of civilization itself -- might just be childish
nonsense...
Most people simply don't have the guts to go there.
Given a desperate enough need to sustain the childish belief in
government-as-benevolent-father, a person will adapt that belief to any
circumstance. The behavioral end result can resemble courage; indeed, we are
taught to regard it as the DEFINITION of courage. Actually, it's one of
cowardice's darkest moments. Even a casual examination of Nazi Germany,
where this phenomenon was rampant, will drive this point home.
It's almost funny, the way people readily see the threat of technological
circumvention presented by Diebold's electronic voting machines, yet when
the subject switches to the "Flight Termination System," which is every bit
as real, and to the exactly parallel possibilities it represents vis-a-vis
9-11, they suddenly retreat into profound and combative denial. It's as if a
threshold has been crossed into a realm of possibilities too vile to
entertain, so they simply don't. Never mind that this country's operatives
have been traveling the world, perpetrating similar horrors, for all of the
past century. Rather than acknowledge the possibility of a unifying pattern,
Joe Average would much rather 'shoot the messenger.'
Every so often, such people establish a new high-water mark for cowardice
and facultative stupidity, and the present is definitely one of those times.
After all, the official 9-11 scenario they cling to with such desperate
faith comes from only one source: the Western "intelligence community" --
the most brazen, systematic, resourceful, and interlocked association of
habitual liars this world has ever seen. As should have been made clear by
the 'British dossier' scandal of last winter, the credibility of this bunch
goes past zero into the negative: pending airtight proof, anything they say
should be reflexively deemed a lie. You may remember that MI5 also provided
the identities of "the 19 hijackers" -- information that soon also became
quite suspect. At least six of the hijackers, possibly as many as nine, are
still alive in the Middle East -- a pretty good alibi, considering. Several
of these ex-suspects had their passports or other IDs stolen from them over
the years, and it's entirely possible that all 19 hijackers had stolen
identities, meaning they could have come from anywhere, or been absent
altogether. The US media was pretty slack about acknowledging this at the
time, and since then has dropped this ball entirely (17).
Rather than allow the "intelligence community" to render every detail of our
comprehension on this matter, we would be much wiser to carefully identify
and discard every assumption they hand us.
Far from being a source of independent corroboration, our "free press" is
more like a public relations contractor for the spooks. This is because the
entire fourth estate AND the governments of the West, including their
intelligence services, are essentially employees of a single entity: the
US-dominated coalition of international corporations -- by several
magnitudes the largest concentration of wealth in human history.
The subjugation of governments by such an entity is hardly unprecedented.
The Twentieth Century saw several extremely unsavory examples. It's called
Fascism. You don't need to take my word for this -- just peruse the opinions
of acknowledged experts:
Benito Mussolini:
Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism
because it is a merger of State and corporate power.
Franklin D. Roosevelt:
The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate
the growth of private power to the point where it becomes
stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence
is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a
group or any controlling private power. Among us today
a concentration of private power without equal in history is
growing.
For many Americans, the word 'fascist' instantly evokes jackbooted Germans
wearing Swastikas and stuffing Jews into ovens. In fact, that representation
is a cardboard diorama, empty of nuance and historically specific almost to
the point of meaninglessness, which is why the closet fascists who own the
media keep force-feeding it to you.
Fascism is certainly a violation of every noble and enlightened political
impulse. To advance their agenda, fascists must bring about a mass rejection
of egalitarian and democratic ideals, and seem to get the best results by
inflaming and feeding upon common fears and popular bigotries -- racist,
nationalist, classist, religious, political, etc. ANY set of bigotries,
suitably stimulated, will provide fertile soil for fascism, and the
incurably ignorant, always a majority, are easily swayed by such methods --
fascism is a dictator's fantasy formula for subverting democracy. Bigotry,
however, isn't fascism's whole essence; it's simply an expedient means by
which fascism's agents, classic political pragmatists, consolidate the
monolithic pattern of government corruption that is their true calling -- a
syndrome America has been sliding into deeper and deeper throughout its
history. Just look at the consistent warnings from all the presidents who
noticed this trajectory and tried to alert a nation of groveling
candy-asses:
Thomas Jefferson:
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our
moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge
our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to
the laws of our country.
Abraham Lincoln:
The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace
and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more
despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy
and more selfish than a bureaucracy. It denounces,
as public enemies, all who question its methods or throw
light upon its crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern
Army in front of me and the bankers in the rear. Of the two,
the one at the rear is my greatest foe.
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves
me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.
As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned .....
An era of corruption in high places will follow and the money
power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the
prejudices of the people... until wealth is aggregated in a few
hands ... and the Republic is destroyed.
Theodore Roosevelt:
Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible
government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no
responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible
government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt
business and corrupt politics is the first task of the
statesmanship of today.
Franklin D. Roosevelt:
The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know,
that a financial element in the large centers has owned
the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, from his farewell address, 1961:
In the councils of government, we must guard against
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military-industrial complex. The potential for
the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
John Kennedy took Eisenhower's warning to heart, apparently. During the last
year of his life, as he contemplated a second term and his own final
contribution to history, he resolved to reverse America's moral and civic
death-spiral, a.k.a. "the Cold War." His ideas included: ending the CIA's
freedom from oversight; abandoning the country's rabid anticommunist stance,
beginning with de-escalation in Vietnam; normalizing relations with Cuba and
Moscow; by doing these things, redirecting Washington's immense weapons
budget into sweeping domestic reforms (18). What's more, Kennedy's popular
mandate was strong enough by this time that he probably would have
succeeded.
From the viewpoint of the corporate capos that truly rule this country, one
aspect of the Cold War was all-important: it was a pork barrel straight out
of their wildest dreams of avarice. Watching Kennedy plant his feet and
reach for its plug, these 'absolute power' addicts would have been sorely
tempted to seek his removal by any means. As it just so happens, several of
them were also supreme civilian commanders of the 'National Security'
apparatus, meaning they had direct control of the most suspect means of
effecting that removal (19).
Since Kennedy's death, dire warnings about corporate power have been
conspicuously absent from the pronouncements of American presidents. Funny,
huh? By daring to stand on his conviction that it was he, not them, who held
the reins of American society, Kennedy quite possibly forced the financial
elite to make an example of him. Since that time, their supremacy has been
unchallenged by politicians.
It's as if democracy itself 'got whacked' by the Corleones and Gambinos!
Fortunately for them, Americans are kept too delusional to notice.
* * * * * * * * *
On the strength of the fear-driven and essentially mindless popular mandate
that followed the 9-11 attack, the Bushes and their kind are now concluding
a plan they began formulating long before 1963: transforming this country
into an abomination, a clinically exact violation of everything their core
public THINKS it believes in. The situation is a three-ring circus of
ironies: People like the Bushes, Ashcroft, etc., don't operate in a vacuum;
they don't suddenly and magically "seize power," any more than Hitler did.
The history of the Nazis holds many lessons of great value to present-day
Americans. Among the more important: political lunatics become dangerous
only when whole populations lose their marbles enough to deliver them into
real power. Truly, it's absurd to blame amoral monsters who insinuate
themselves into high places. OF COURSE they're going to do that; it's why
they were born. The sensible object of that disgust is 'The People' who
allow them to stay there; who idly watch as other groups suffer, too stupid
to realize that tomorrow the guns will turn on them; The People, who hand
these scumbags ALL of their power by becoming eager footsoldiers in the
global mafias they create. Helen Keller knew this:
"Strike against war, for without you no battles can be fought!
Strike against manufacturing shrapnel and gas bombs and all other tools of
murder!
Strike against preparedness that means death and misery to millions of human
beings!
Be not dumb, obedient slaves in an army of destruction!"
So did Emma Goldman:
"How long would authority ... exist, if not for the willingness of the mass
to become soldiers, policemen, jailers, and hangmen."
No matter what label a government assigns itself -- democratic, communist,
etc. -- The People who live under that government, who are its real
repository of power, have an uncanny way of getting exactly what they
deserve. If a government has descended into utter moral dissolution, and its
people actually deserve better, they will summon the courage to do what's
right for themselves, as did the French, the Russians, the Cubans. If a
government is basically sound, but its people are grotesque petulant infants
gobbling at giant tits of material excess, then it won't be long before that
government sees its opportunity to build jail cells around them. Why not?
Frantic tit-suckers aren't likely to notice, and if they do, a jail cell
isn't so unlike a womb. If by some bizarre chance they should actually
protest, they can simply be told it's for their own safety. Infants are
easily duped with such talk, which they will regard as irrefutable when
backed up with lurid cartoons showing "The Enemy In Action!!"
This was the context in which Jefferson used terms like 'inalienable' and
'self-evident.' People determined to discover their own power will find a
way. So will those determined to live as slaves. The role of government is
secondary. If the American people didn't deserve this buffoon president and
his panel of corporate handlers... if this were other than a land of selfish
tit-feeders, spoiled insane... if "The Home of the Brave" didn't ring quite
so false... then the outrage of the 2000 "election" would have unleashed a
nationwide tsunami of riots, martial law would have been declared, and the
ruling class would have hastily dumped him before things REALLY heated up.
As it stands, Dubya's sickening success is owed primarily to a curious
"political awareness," shared by a decisive majority of Americans:
intuitively, they know they're on the sugar-dumpling end of the global
economy. If staying there means everyone else gets hurled at birth into a
fuming acid bath, well that's okay, too -- just don't ask them to notice.
Just as rampant corruption is symptomatic of fascist governments, this 'let
them eat cake' mindset is also typical of the national populations that
sustain those governments through their complicity and inaction. Corruption
isn't just a disease of governments, elites, etc. -- it's a creeping
contagion that infects whole societies, eventually reducing them to colonies
of moral bacteria. If the wealth of a society is large enough that this
degeneracy can progress long enough, its members become so drained of the
essentials of character that whatever 'Great Things' they've accomplished
become like marble temples built on a lake of pus.
America, for example, once had a heroic reputation among freedom-seekers
around the world. Starting many years ago, the keepers of that legacy grew
so arrogant, so artless, that their attempts to disguise their selfish
motives became transparent to the average ten-year-old, so now America finds
itself becoming an object of generalized hatred. And deservedly: when an
elite cult of villains and cowards waylays all the governments of the world
by holding a nuclear gun to their heads, they SHOULD be hated, and that's
exactly what this government did while its subjects snoozed at the Big Boob
these past five decades. The aggrieved parties will of course be deemed
"just jealous" by the press, whose pronouncements are both source and
product of the tit-feeder mentality.
With Buffoon & Co., the pretenses are now so tissue-thin that even Americans
should have no trouble seeing through them. The one thing stopping them is
all-determining: they don't want to. This sort of delusion even extends to
self-described "liberals," who love to vomit the platitude that "America's
PEOPLE can't be held responsible for the excesses of their GOVERNMENT."
I wish one of these nutless wonders would explain to me exactly how this
works; from where I sit, ultimate responsibility for the criminal conduct of
this government belongs to THEM. After all, thirty years ago most of them
were intensely aware of this government's capacity for evil. Since then,
they've been seduced by accumulations of property, privilege, and mental
lethargy, thereby settling into America's most selfish middle class
generation EVER. Watching them recite fatuous denials to themselves, I'm
reminded of the French Court under Louis XVI. Their stock concept of
'political involvement' -- filling in a ballot once a year -- hardly seems
likely to fix a goddamn thing, since the forces of wealth clearly have both
major parties in their pocket. By all indications, they don't even care; the
interests of wealth have become their own. If Bush's 2000 installation left
any doubt about collusion between the two parties, Schwarzenegger's triumph
in California just removed it. The California Democratic Party simply HAD TO
KNOW that Gray Davis was history, so why did they fail to put all their
marbles behind ONE potent alternative candidate? They can't strategize on
their own behalf worth a damn, but they sure do a bang-up job for the
repugs. Is it insane to wonder if they both get their marching orders from
the same place?
Voting should certainly be part of a larger strategy -- it may not mean as
much as we're told, but at least it's something. Real change, however, would
seem to require much more from us: open dissent and resistance, civil
disobedience, total rejection of bourgeois sensibilities, including
careerism, as this is the path taken by most on their journey into apathy
and selfishness. It's no wonder, then, that causing each of us to nurture
dreams of professional glory has long been this country's most lavish
"philanthropic" project. Our unprecedented university system -- is it really
about giving us all a leg up, or is it a clever and utterly cynical social
engineering program? As they hand out huge endowments, what do the bloodless
billionaires really mean with all their malarkey about "investing in the
future." The working class is the true home of the political left.
Demographically and politically, it once dominated this country, and
thoughtful people didn't always have reason to flee from it. Now it's a
defeated mass of Bush-boosting, TV-mesmerized morons. When class assignment
at birth is an immutable life sentence, intelligent members of an exploited
class tend to become revolutionaries. By its very nature, the "classless"
careerist ethic solves this problem by identifying the gifted among them as
young as possible and reassigning them to a separate social order, where
they're supplied with selfish reasons for staying quiet. Added together,
their class defections and betrayals make up the aforementioned
billionaires' "return on investment." Divide and conquer, divide and
conquer...
In so many ways, the true genius of American politics has been in making
sure the average slob has far too much to lose by rejecting bourgeois
temptations. The tragedy of this design is that it makes us all full
partners in the prevailing order of plunder and corruption. During the Great
Depression, poverty was so rampant here that this formula began to unravel,
prompting our keepers to feign benevolence with an improvised Head
Amputation Prevention System, otherwise known as "the New Deal." Given the
power of the information technology now at their disposal, they seem to be
preparing to let it unravel again, this time to be replaced with an
all-seeing electronic security state. This is probably the real reason
behind the USAPATRIOT Act, rampant domestic spying, mounting repressive
tactics and nationalist propaganda, vast enlargements of prison
infrastructure, and so on. Kudos to all the technological utopians out
there; far be it from them to realize that those in power always pervert
emerging technology into a means of grabbing even more power.
The American political scene is now becoming so ominous that many Americans
are finally waking up, achieving real political awareness for the first time
in their lives. As they discover reality, they are finding themselves in a
horrifying predicament: this country is but a few steps away from becoming
an overt dictatorship, and the Neo-cons seem determined to go the distance.
All they need to do at this point is arrange another "Pearl Harbor."
Anything short of massive, uncompromising civil disobedience seems unlikely
to stop them, and the vast majority of Americans are unlikely to engage in
any such thing. Incapable of even noticing how bountiful their lives are,
what could possibly induce them to reflect on the malevolent work by which
that bounty has been concentrated, or to acknowledge the rights of people
and other beings, living and dead, from whom it has been stolen? The
hopelessness of the situation is deepened by the relentless and all but
inescapable onslaught of commercial media, whose role of promoting this
exact selfishness and civic apathy is now performed with incredible
audacity. Most of these "Good Americans" just trudge along mindlessly in the
rut indicated by their message, willfully oblivious to its subtexts.
America's malaise isn't entirely a product of conscious effort, but on the
other hand, none of it is accidental. How is this possible? The main thing
people use "logic" for is to conceal even from themselves the mediocre
nature of their true motives. America's corruption, like that of all
nations, is an organic phenomenon, i. e. it is neither orchestrated nor
needs to be. It has been advanced not by the lurking efforts of secret
circles so much as by the main thrust of American culture. Those
frontiersmen in Ohio, for example, scarcely needed the inducements
Washington offered them; they were eager to exterminate the Indians and
steal their land. And so it goes. By such means, the corruption of our
entire civic culture has been advanced by all of us, through habits of
thought that lie beneath the level of consciousness -- for example, in the
sane and humane alternatives we consistently choose to NOT consider. Again,
media's leadership in this area has been inestimable.
My gratitude to those who have protested and been civilly disobedient over
the years is beyond measure -- they are the true bearers of Liberty's
flame -- but I am doubly contemptuous of those among them, seduced by
privilege, who have ended up swinging to the other side. They are the very
soul of corruption, and traitors even to their own dreams.
Here's the richest irony of all: Bush's most avid supporters are a
puritanical bunch. They attend church. They pray on streetcorners. They
bludgeon the unwitting with their sanctimonious talk of God, Family, and the
American Way. So convinced are they of their moral superiority, they have no
qualms about marching toward even greater material gluttony over a pavement
of charred corpses. In fact, they seem to see this as a divine quest. You
don't need a doctorate in Theology to know that if Hell is real, its inmost
pit has got to be reserved for hypocrites such as these.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Notes:
1) Even now, the "independent commission" is shot through with incredible
conflicts of interest, exemplified by the present chairman's financial ties
to members of the Bin Laden Family. Such a panel can hardly be expected to
deviate from the gutless pattern of past "investigative commissions": the
Warren Commission, the Rockefeller Commission, the Iran-Contra hearings,
etc.
Chossudovsky, Michel. Who's Who on the 9/11 "Independent" Commission.
see http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO307B.html
2) Churchill, Ward. A Little Matter of Genocide: Holocaust and Denial in the
Americas, 1492 to the Present. (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1997) pp.
209 - 214
3) Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States, 1492 - Present.
(New York: Harper Collins, 1999) pp. 149-169
4) ibid, pp. 297-320
5) ibid, pp. 359-376
6) Stinnett, Robert. Day of Deceit: the Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor.
(New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000) See ALL
7) many historical documents support this analysis, including:
United States Strategic Bombing Survey, Summary Report (Pacific War)
(Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1946) p.26:
"Nevertheless, it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks,
air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring
about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion... Based on
a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of
the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that
certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1
November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not
been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no
invasion had been planned or contemplated."
8) Blum, William. Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since
World War II. (Monroe, Maine, USA: Common Courage Press, 1995) pp. 21-23,
39-43, 50, 51, 122-127
9) ibid, pp. 129-145
10) Heller, Jean. Public Doesn't Get Picture With Gulf Satellite Photos. St.
Petersburg Times, 1/6/1991
11) MacArthur, John R. Second Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf
War. (New York: Hill and Wang, 1992) pp. 37-77.
12) Bamford, James. Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National
Security Agency from the Cold War Through the Dawn of a New Century. (New
York: Doubleday, 2001) pp. 82-91
13) Blum. Killing Hope. pp. 106-108
14) A scanned copy of this memo can be seen in
http://www.internetpirate.com/bush.htm -- scroll down
15) Webb, Gary. Dark Alliance. San Jose mercury News, 9/18/1996
available online at:
http://home.attbi.com/~gary.webb/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html
16) de Grand Pre, Donn; Col. US Army (Ret.). The Enemy is inside the Gates
available online at
http://scribblguy.50megs.com/evidence.htm#THE%20ENEMY%20IS%20INSIDE%20THE%20GATES
17) multiple sources:
Kennedy, Dominic. Suicide Hijackers Hid Behind Stolen Arab Identities.
London Times, 9/20/01
MacFarquhar, Neil. A Nation Challenged: The Hijackers; Confusion Over Names
Clouds Identities of Attackers on Jets. New York Times, 9/21/01
available online at
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/21/international/middleeast/21IDEN.html
Jeffery, Simon. Special Report: Terrorism in the US. The Guardian, 9/21/01
available online at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/story/0,11209,601550,00.html
Harrison, David. Revealed: the men with stolen identities. The Daily
Telegraph, 9/23/01
available online at
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/09/23/widen23.xml
Author unknown. Hijack 'Suspects' Alive and Well. British Broadcasting
Corporation, 9/23/01
available online at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/middle_east/newsid_1559000/1559151.stm
18) Hepburn, James. Farewell America. (Vaduz, Liechtenstein: Frontiers
Publishing, 1968) see ALL.
Available online at http://www.voxfux.com/Kennedy/farewell/farewell00.html
19) The most suspect parties here are Nelson Rockefeller and his demonic
lackeys, the Dulles brothers. The threads implicating Rockefeller in
Kennedy's death are explored rigorously in:
Colby, Gerard and Charlotte Dennett. Thy Will Be Done -- The Conquest of the
Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil. (New York, USA:
HarperCollins, 1995)
Approaching this matter from different directions and supporting their
arguments with extraordinary historical documentation, the authors of
'Farewell America' and 'Thy Will Be Done' arrive independently at strikingly
similar conclusions.
senhor san
between monopoly and antimonopoly
----- Original Message -----
From: Dick Eastman
To: standf...@yahoogroups.com ; penta...@yahoogroups.com ;
antiw...@yahoogroups.com ; TRUTHB...@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 10:16 AM
Subject: [Antiwar com] Henry Demarest Lloyd (first "Muckraker") "Monopoly
and Social Control" (North Amrican Review, June 1884)
ASK YOURSELF -- HAS KERRY SAID ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT HIS ANTI-TRUST POLICIES
THROUGH HIS JUSTICE DEPARTMENT WILL BE? -- IS THERE ANYREASON TO SUSPECT
THAT HE POLICIES WILL BE DIFFERENT THAN THOSE OF ASHCROFT (JANET RENO IN
PANTS) OR JANET RENO (ASHCROFT IN A DRESS) ????
THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES DO NOT EXIST FOR EITHER OF THE MAJOR PARTY
CANDIDATES OWNED BY THE OLIGARCHS AND FOR THE OLIGARCHS.
I just spent two hours typing this from a The Annals of America -- I want
you to read it -- I hope you will. It gives a an earlier look at the
same monster that perpetrated 9-11 to obtain two and more profitable war
ventures.
Dick Eastman
Monopoly and Social Control (1884)
by Henery Demarest Lloyd
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Henry Demarest Lloyed, the earliest of the social reformers who were later
to be called "muckrakers" because familiar with the problem of trusts and
monopolies while financial editor of the Chicago Tribune. His "Story of a
Great Monopoly" (1881) exposed the methods of the Standard Oil and railroad
trusts and established him as a champion of the consumer, independent
competitor, and the laborer. Lloyd's conviction that "liberty and monopoly
cannot live together" and that goods "cooperatively produced [must be]
cooperatively enjoyed" led him to attack all forms of monopoly in "lords of
Industry," portions of which follow.
When President Gowen of the Reading Railroad was defending that company, in
1875, before a committee of the Pennsylvania legislature, for having taken
part in the combination of the coal companies to cure the evil of "too much
coal" by putting up the price and cutting down the amount of sale, he
pleaded that there were fifty trades in which the same thing was done. He
had a list of them to show the committee. He said:
Every pound of rope we by for our
vessels or for our mines is bought at a
price fixed by a committee of the rope
manufacutrers of the United States. Ev-
ery keg of nails, ever paper of tacks, all
our screws and wrenches and hinges, the
boiler flues fro our locomotives are never
bought except at the price fixed by the
representatives of the mills that manufac-
ture them. Iron beams for your houses
or your bridges can be had only at the
prices agreed upon by a comimnation of
those who produce them. Fire, brick, gas,
pipe, terra-cotta pipe for drainage, every
keg of powder we buy to blast blast coal are
purchased under the same arrangement.
Every pane of window glass in this
house was bought at a scale of prices es-
tablished exactly in the same manner.
White lead, galvanized sheet iron, hose
and belting and files are bought and sold
at a rate determined in the same way.
When my friend Mr. Lane was called
upon to begin his speech the other day
and wanted to delay because the stenog-
rapher had not arrived, I asked Mr. Col-
lins, the stenographer of your committee,
if he would not act. He said, no, it was
against the rules of the committee of ste-
nographers. I said, "Well, Mr. Collins, I
will pay you anything you ask. I want to
get off." "Oh," said he, "prices are es-
tablished by our combination, and I can-
not change them." And when we come
to the cost of labor, which enters more
than anything else in the cost of coal, we
are met by a combination there and are
often obliged to pay the price fixed by it.
Adam Smith said in 1776: "People of the same trade hardly meet together
even for merriment and diversion but the conversation ends in a conspiracy
against the public or in some contrivance to raise prices." The expansive
ferment of the new industry, coming with the nes science, the new land, and
the new liberties of our era, broke up these "conspiracies," and for a
century we heave heard nothing of them; but the race to everrun is being
succeeded by the struggle to divide, and combinations are reappearing on all
sides. This anyone may see from the reports of the proceedings of the
conventions and meeting of innumerable associations of manufacturers and
dealers and even producers which are being hold almost constantly. They
all do something to raise prices or hold them up, and they wind up with
banquets for which we pay.
For years ago the Chicago Lumbermen's Exchange adopted a resolution
declaring it to be "dishonorable" for any dealer to make lower prices than
those published by it for the control of prices in one of the greatest
lumber markets of the world. Monthly reports are required by this exchange
from dealers so that accurate accounts may be kept of stock on hand in order
to regulate prices. The price lists of the exchange are revised and made
"honest" at monthly banquests. In Febrauary 1883, it was found that members
who ostensibly adhereed to the price lists dipped into the dishonorable
practice of competition on the sly by giving buyers greater than usual
discounts. This was forbidden, and another pathway of competition closed. .
. .
The mills of Puget Sound, which supply a large proportion of the lumber
consumed in the Pacific states, formed a combination last year to regulated
the production and sustain prices. It is said by the local newspapers that
the mills which do not belong to the association are hired to stand idle, as
there are too many mills, and the association finds it profitable to sustain
prices at the cost of thousands of dollars paid out in this way. The lumber
market of the Pacific Coast is ruled by the California Lumber Exchange, and
that is controlled by a few powerful firms. The prices of redwood are fixed
by the Redwood Manufacturers' Association, and those of pine by the Pine
Manufacturers' Association. During the past year the retail dealers of San
Francisco have had to sign contracts with these associations, binding
themselves to buy only from members of the associations, to buy and sell
only at prices fixed by them, to give time and discount only according to
rule, and to keep accounts so that every item will be clear to the
inspectors hired by the association to look after the retailers. Finally,
the retailer binds himself, if he is "found guilty" of committing any of the
forbidden sins, to pay a fine which may amount to $1,000, to be divided
among the faithful. The literature of business can show no more remarkable
productions than the printed forms of these contracts. This system is in
imitation of the "special contracts" with shippers which have been put in
force by the Central Pacific Railroad.
Western ranchmen complain that the competition of buyers is disappearing.
They declare that there exist at the Chicago stockyards combinations of
buyers who, by their ability to make large purchases and their agreemtn to
offer but one price, get cattle at their own figures. One member of the
"ring" does the buying today; another tomorrow; and so on. The cattle kings
have combinations to defend themselves from cattle thieves, state
legislatures, and other enemies, and to propose to extend this category so
as to include the middlemen at the stockyards. The Stockgrowers'
Association of Wyoming have $100 million in cattle. At the recent
convention held by this body in Cheyenne, it was unanimously declared that
its business had been "seriously injured by the pooling arrangements
prevailing among buyers at the Chicago stockyards," and the executive
committee were instructed to obtain the fullest possible information as to
the means by which cattle might be shipped direct to the European consumer.
Last July, Messrs. Vanderbuilt, Sloan, and one or two others out of
several hundred owners of coal lands and coal railroads, met in the pleasant
shadows of Saratoga to make "a binding arrangementfor the control of the
coal trade." "Binding arrangement" the sensitive coal presidents say they
prefer to the word "combination." The gratuitous warmth of summer suggested
to these men the need the public would have of artificial heat, at
artificial prices, the coming winter. It was agreed to fix prices and to
prevent the production of too much of the reaw material of warmth by
suspensions of mining. In anticipation of the arrival of the cold wave from
Manitoba, a cold wave was sent out all over the United States, from their
parlors in New York, in an order for half-time work by the miners during the
first three months of this year, and for an increase of prices. These are
the means this combination uses to keep down wages -- the price of men, and
keep up the price of coal -- the wages of capital. . . .
The coal combination was again investigated by the New York legislature
in 1878, after the combination had raised the prices of coal in New York to
double what they had been. the legislature found that private mine
operators who were not burdened like the great companies with extravagant
and often corrupt purchases of coal lands, heavily watered stock, and
disadvantageous contracts forced on them by interested directors, and who
have only to pay the actual cost of producing the coal, "can afford to sell
at a much less price than the railroad coal-producing companies, and would
do so if they could get transportation from the mines to the market." This
is denied them by the great companies.
"The private operators," says the report, "either find themselves
entirely excluded from the benefits of transportation by reason of the high
freights, or find it for their interest to make contracts with the railroads
by which they will not seel to others, and so the railroads have and will
keep the control of the supply of the private operators." TO those who will
not make such contracts, rates are fixed excluding them from the makret,
with the result, usually, of forcing them to sell theri property to the
lords of the pool. "The combination," the committee declared, "can limit
the supply and thereby create such a demand and price as they may deem
advisable." . . .
One of the sights which this coal side of our civilization has to show is
the presence of herds of little children of all ages, from six years upward,
at work in the coal breakers, toiling in dirt and air thick with carbon
dust, from dawn to dark, of every day in the week except Sunday. Those coal
breakers are the only schools they know. A letter from the coal regions in
the Philadelphia Press declares that "there are no schools in the world
where more evil is learned or more innocence destroyed than in the breakers.
It is shocking to watch the vile practices indulged in by these children, to
hear the frightful oaths they use, to see their total disregard for religion
and humanity." In the upper part of Luzerne COunty, out of 22,000
inhabitants, 3,000 are children between six and fifteen years of age, at
work in this way.
"There is always a restlessness among the miners," an officer of one of
the New York companies said, "when we are working them on half time." The
latest news from the region of the coal combination is that the miners are
so dissatisfied with the condition in which they are kept, the by suspension
of work and the importation of competing Hungarian laborers in droves that
they are forming a combination of their own, a revival of the old Miners and
Laborer's Association, which was broken up by the labor troubles of 1874 and
1875.
Combination is busy in those soft-coal districts, whose production is so
large that it must be sent to competitive markets. A pool has just been
formed covering the annual product of 6 million tons of the mines of Ohio.
Indiana and Illinois are to be brought in, and it is planned to extend it to
all the bituminous-coal districts that compete with each other. The
appearance of Mr. Vanderbilt, last December, in the Clearfield district of
Pennsylvania, at the head of a company capitalized for $5 million, was the
first entry of a metropolitan mind into this field. Mr. Vanderbuil's role
is to be that of producer, arrier, dealer, and consumer, all in one.
Untilhe came, the district was occupied by a number of small companies
and small operators, as used to be the case in the anthreacite field in the
old days. But the man who works himself, with his sones, in a small mine,
curring perhaps from twenty to forty tons a day, cannot expect to survive
the approach of the Manhattan capitalist. The small Clearfield producers,
looking at the fate of their kind in the anthracite country, greeted Mr.
Vanderbuilt's arrival with the question, "What is to become of us?" "If the
small operator," said on of the great man's lieutenants, "goes to the wall,
that is his misfortune, not our fault." In March last the prominent
Clearfield companies gave notice that wages must be reduced on the 1st of
April, and immediately thereafter a union of their employees resolved that
if the reduction, which they declared to be "without reason," was made they
would strike. . . .
On the theory of "too much of everything," our industries from railroads
to workingmen, are being organized to prevent milk, nails, lumber, freights,
labor, soothing syrup, and all these orhte things from becoming cheap. The
majority have never yet been able to buy enought of anything. The minority
have too much of everything to sell. Seens of social trouble germinate fast
in such conditions. Society is letting these combinations become
institutions without compelling them to adjust their charges to the cost of
production, which used to be the universal rule of price. Our laws and
commissions to regulate the railroads are but toddling steps in a path in
which we need to walk like men. The change from competition to combination
is nothing less than one of those revolutions which march through history
with giant strides. It is not likely that this revolution will go backward.
Nothing goes backward in this country except reform. When Stephenson said
of railroads that where combination was possible competition was
impossible, he was unconsciously declaring the law of all industry.
Man, the only animal which forgets, has already in a century or two
forgotten that the freedom, the independence of his group, of the state, and
evenof the family, which he has enjoyed for a brief interval, have been
unknown in most of the history of most races. The livery companies of
London, with their gloomy guildhalls, their wealth, their gluttony and
wine-bibbing, their wretched Irish estates, exist today, vain reminders to
us of a time when the entire industray of Eurpope was regimented into
organizations, voluntary at first, afterwards adoped by the law, which did
what wour pools of railroads, laborers, manufacturers, and others are trying
to do. Not only prices but manners were pooled. "The notion," says Cliffe
Leslie, "that every man had a right to settle where he liked, to carry on
any occupation he thought fit, and in whatever manner he chose, to demand
the highest price he could get, or, on the contrary, to offer lower terms
than anyone esle, to make the largest profit possible, and to compete with
other traders without restraint was absolutely contrary to the spirit of the
ages that preceded ours." This system existed for centuries. It is so
unlike our own that the contemplation of it may well shake us out of our
conceit that the transitions, displacements, changes, upheavals, struggles,
exterminations -- from Indians to sewing women -- of the last 250 years
were the normal condition of the race.
Those were not exceptional times. Our day of free competition and free
contract has been the exceptional era in history. Explorer, pioneer,
protestant, reformer, captain of industry could not move in the harness of
the guild brother, the vassal, the monk, and were allowed to throw away
medieval uniforms. But now "the individual withers; the world is more and
more." Society, having let the individual overrun the new worlds to be
conquered, is reestablishing its lines of communication with him. Literary
theorists still repeat the cant of individualsim in law, politics, and
morals; but the world of affairs is gladly accepting in lieu of the liberty
of each to do as he will with his own, all it can get of the liberty given
by laws laws that let no one do as he might with his own. The dream of the
French Revolution, that man was good enought to be emancipated from the
bonds of association and govenment by the simple proclamation of "Liberty,
Fraternity and Equality," was but the frenzied expression of what was called
freedom of self-interest in a quieter but not less bloody revolution, if the
mortality of the factories, the mines, and the tenements be charged to its
accounty. A rope cannot be made of sand; a society cannot be made of
competitive units.
We have given competition its own way and have found that we are not good
enough or wise enough to be trusted with this power of ruining ourselves in
the attempt to ruin others. Free competiton could be let run only in a
community where everyone had learned to say and act, "I am the state." Whe
have had an era of material inventions. We now need a renaissance of moral
inventions, to tap the vast currents of moral magnetism flowing uncaught
over the face of society. Morals and values rise and fall together. If our
combinations have no morals, they can have no values. If the tendency to
combination is irresistible, control of it is imperative.
Monopoly and anti-monopoly, odious as these words have become to the
literary ear, represent the two great tendencies of our time: monopoly, the
tendency to combination; antimonopoly, the demand for social control of it.
As the man is bent toward business or patriotism, he will negotiate
combinations or agitate for laws to regulate them. The first is
captialistic; the second is social. The first, industrial; the second,
moral. The first promotes wealth; the second citizenship. These
combinations are not to be waved away as fresh pictures of folly or total
depravity. Thre is something in them deeper than that.
The Aryan has proved by the experience of thousands of years that he can
travel. "But travel," Emerson says, "is the fool's paradise." We must now
prove that we can stay at home and stand it as well as the Chinese have
done. Future Puritans cannot emigrate from Southhampton to Plymouth Rock.
They can only sail from righteoursness to reighteousness. Our young men can
no longer go west; they must go up or down. Not new land but new virtue
must be the outlet for the future. Our halt at the shores of the Pacific is
a much more serious affair than that which brought our ancestors to a pause
before the barriers of the Atlantic and compelled them to pracise living
together for a few hundred years. We cannot hereafter, as in the past,
recover freedom by going to the praries; we must find it in the society of
the good.
In the presence of the great combinations, in all departments of life,
the moralist and patriot have work to do of a significance never before
approached during the itinerate pahses of our civilization. It may be that
the coming age of combination will issue in a nobleer and fuller liberty for
the individual than has yet been seen; but that consummation will be
possible, not in a day of competitive trade but in one of competitive
morals.
copied 3-27-04 for The Iron Heel yahoogroup list.
The_Iron_He...@yahoogroups.com
senhor san
be monitored and manipulated by applied social psychology
But first this letter:
From: "Peter Meyer" <p...@serendipity.li>
To: "Dick Eastman" <de1...@nwinfo.net>
Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2004 1:03 AM
Subject: Leonard Spencer's reply to Dick Eastman
In response to the publication on Serendipity of
Leonard Spencer's article "The Attack on the Pentagon"
at http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm
our esteemed colleague Dick Eastman sent to this list a message
on March 23rd entitled "DE on Leonard Spencer's latest effort
to refute the small-plane thesis". I forwarded this to Leonard,
and he sent me the following message in response. I now forward it,
with Leonard's permission, to this list.
---------------
Dear Peter
Thank you for forwarding to me Dick Eastman's recent response to my Pentagon
article. He is certainly correct to point out that most of it is a rehash of
other people's work and that I have been less than conscientious in
referencing my sources. I'm not even sure that I come up with any 'good new
facts' as he seems to suggest.
I didn't set out to do a hatchet job on the small plane theory, only to
collect together what I felt was the best evidence lying around and see
where it led me. At some point however I was bound to get to the vexed issue
of what it was that actually hit the Pentagon and, to my mind, the evidence
simply didn't point to a small plane. I didn't consider it my job to present
the small plane theory in the best or most coherent way; I'm happy to leave
that to those whose reading of the evidence leads them to favour this
interpretation.
I find his contention that 'the small-plane thesis takes the witnesses more
seriously than the official story or any of the wannabe theories' puzzling.
While accepting that the small plane thesis allows additionally for the
presence of a Boeing jet (and I certainly make no attempt to 'conceal' this)
I just cannot find a single eyewitness report that supports this idea. The
great majority of witnesses report seeing a large or medium sized passenger
jet; just three report seeing a small plane. Not a single eyewitness speaks
of seeing both, though there is one hearsay account to that effect. I find
his remark that 'it is the witnesses who place the Boeing coming over the
Sheraton Hotel, over the Naval Annex and over the CItgo gas station, that
establishes that the Boeing they saw was not the plane that knocked down the
southmost damaged lamppost on Washington Bvld', equally puzzling. According
to my map the route thus described is entirely consistent with the damage to
this lamp post.
On the matter of those lamp posts, I'm probably not as aware of the history
of this discussion as Eastman seems to think. Has the lamp post evidence
been discredited? I didn't know that. His argument about air turbulence
bringing the posts down, rather than the wings of a larger plane, is
interesting and I hadn't thought of it before. I'm sure he's right that the
posts are designed to minimise injuries to motorists who crash into them.
On the other hand they're probably not so flimsy that they collapse in
gale-force winds otherwise they'd be injuring pedestrians instead. A problem
with the air turbulence idea is that one of the lamp posts en route remained
standing, for some reason unaffected by the turbulence that Eastman believes
brought down its neighbours. This is easier to explain if the posts were in
fact brought down by a plane's wings and the plane rolled slightly at this
point, so missing this particular post.
Eastman then changes his mind on the lamp posts and contends that 'downed
poles 3, 4, and/or 5 may have been brought down by the Boeing 757 as it
proceeded to overfly the crash location on its way to Reagan National
Airport'. I find this astonishing. Is he really suggesting that a Boeing
757, flying at over 450 mph and only a few feet above the ground, was
capable of ascending so rapidly at this point that it could avoid hitting
the Pentagon, by now only a couple of hundred metres in front of it? And
what about those eyewitnesses, whose accounts he claims to hold in such high
regard? Where are the accounts that tell of the plane suddenly flying up and
over the Pentagon, rather than into it? I certainly haven't seen them. You'd
think someone would have noticed.
In response to my point that a fighter jet is no more capable than a
passenger jet of flying through a doorway without damaging the door frames,
or of crashing into the Pentagon without leaving any wreckage, Eastman
finally gets round to citing the evidence that he believes actually supports
the small plane hypothesis. He says:
'The small-plane finding is based on the security camera video, the
witnesses who heard a jet fighter, the witness who heard a sonic boom, the
performance of the radar blip, the need of a platform from which to fire the
missiles...'
Let's take them one by one. The security camera footage actually shows only
a tail-fin, which could be that of a small plane but could equally belong to
a missile. The witnesses who heard a jet fighter did not actually see one,
they only heard an engine. The sonic boom indicated only the plane's speed,
not its size. The radar blip indicated its speed and manoeuvrability, again
not its size. And missiles can be fired from planes of any size and can also
fly independently. None of this therefore constitutes solid proof of a small
plane, though admittedly the radar blip is suggestive of one. He then adds:
'the flash-powder proximity warhead that left powder burns on the outside of
the building, the warhead that brought down the first floor outer wall over
thirty feet on either side of column 14 -- and the penetrating warhead that
entered on the second floor to the right of the killer jet entry point.'
These unsubstantiated assertions about warheads do not constitute proof of a
small plane. It's not that I necessarily disagree, it's just that evidence
of missiles does not constitute evidence of a small plane. And he never does
get round to explaining how a fighter jet could fly through that doorway
without damaging the doorframes or leaving its wreckage on the lawn. He
merely asserts that 'the F-16 entered the first floor unobstructed'. Really?
How did it manage that then?
When he says 'For Leonard Spencer to say that no one saw F-16 debris INSIDE
THE BUILDING' Eastman is actually on the verge of making a good point. He's
right; I indeed don't know what wreckage was really found in the Pentagon.
But when he concludes from this that it 'reveals a lot about Leonard Spencer
and his very obviously dishonest grasping for straws to make a counter
argument where no counter argument is possible', I can't help wondering who
is really grasping for straws here. The point is that if an F-16 deposited
its wreckage in the Pentagon then it had to get into the Pentagon in the
first place. There is no entry hole of sufficient size to support this.
When Eastman concludes that I wrote my article to garner 'all of the
prestige for research' and 'to discredit the hard evidence', I can only
suggest he's getting slightly carried away. I certainly deserve no prestige
for what is, as I have already conceded, a largely derivative piece of work
(and yes, I should have been more careful in citing my sources). Whether or
not I discredit the hard evidence I leave to others to judge, though I'm not
quite sure what hard evidence Eastman has in mind. He says also that my
alternative theory 'has no basis whatsoever'. In a sense that's true. The
theory is only conjecture, because there is no photograph or video footage
of the plane to corroborate it, but this of course applies to all the
hypotheses out there, including Mr Eastman's. I must confess that I too find
my theory unsatisfactory and only half-plausible and say as much in the
article. I nonetheless feel, perhaps wrongly, that it goes some way towards
reconciling all the available evidence in a way that some other theories,
including Mr Eastman's, do not.
He believes my article is a 'SOPHISTICATED DISINFORMATION-OP' and that my
motive is to discredit other 9-11 investigators. It's not. It's just yet
another attempt to make some sense out of what is pretty skimpy and
confusing evidence. I can't help wondering whether what really irks Eastman
is that I've strayed onto his patch and should have stuck with the New York
planes where I belong. If this is the case I can only suggest that he calms
down a bit and allows others to have their say. We are, after all, on the
same side in all this. We both know that 9-11 was an inside job and that the
future of humanity is at risk if people don't wake up to the fact. Does it
really matter how big the damned plane was?
Regards
Leonard Spencer
----------
My compilation of the Pentagon evidence and discussion of what it proves is
found here -- my other pages have dead links -- this one has been repaired
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/5
==========
now for a little dark letter on what it feels like to be the nations
favorite crackpot
oligarchy has imprisoned awake minds in cyberspace to be monitored and
manipulated by applied social psychology
did the internet prevent the oligarchy's two choices for the bi-partisan
election charade?
has the internet generated discussussion and selection of who would make a
good libertarinan, green, populist, reform, anti-oligarchy, honest money,
Jeffersonian, pro-peace candidate? is their any discussion of who now to
prun against Bukerrysh?
for all the efforts of the 9-11 investigators to present the clear
unmistakable conclusive evidence that 9-11 was a frameup is anyone else,
other than these few rational informed good minds, reacted rationally to
this information -- are they, exhibiting any sign that the have accepted the
facts and are willing to discuss them?
is there anyone anywhere seeing in their town any indication (signs, bumper
stickers, letters to the editor, reports of demonstrations) that the threat
of terrorism is phony, that al Qa'eda is not real?
how can it be that everyone is for kerry -- that people like me are loons
and whackos for suggesting that people keep looking for another candidate?
on the fact that 9-11 was a frameup and the wars foisted on us by fraud, on
the total innocence of the Moslms, on the theft of political power by
organized-crime/plutocracy/Zionism who has said a word?
I post to many lists -- and have quit in discouragement many many times
getting maybe one letter of a newly convinced mind maybe once every two
months.
Who is in real political mode? who is doing more than taking in mail and
passing on mail that they think somehow is relevant to improving things and
that is as far as they ever go
Did you know that big names -- who get all my stuff, have never gone through
the Pentagon evidence to know what it is about?
Did you know that in all these recent months of sending out my best
compilation of Pentagon evidence, organized into five separate proofs, where
you read the first which contains links to the other four, THAT THE LINK TO
PROOF NUMBER THREE WAS DEAD AND NO ONE BOTHERED TO TELL ME -- WHICH MEANS
THAT OF EVERYONE WHO RECEIVED THAT SMOKING GUN PROOF -- WHICH REALLY DOES
WHAT THE PHONY COMMISSION WAS SUPPOSEDLY OFFICIALLY INTENDED TO DO BUT
CLEARLY WAS NOT -- WHICH MEANS THAT THERE WAS NO ONE WHO GOT THE EVIDENCE,
TRIED TO READ IT AND THEN, WHEN THEY SAW THAT A CRITICAL PORTION WAS
MISSING, BOTHERED TO TELL THE AUTHOR SO HE COULD FIX IT????
I HAVE BEEN INTERVIEWED ABOUT THE PENTAGON EVIDENCE ON EXACTLY TWO RADIO
PROGRAMS (INTERNET AND SHORT WAVE -- NOT THE AM/FM AIRWAVES), IN EACH CASE
AS A STAND-IN FOR JOHN KAMINSKY -- AND IN NEITHER CASE IS AN ARCHIVED COPY
OF THE INTERVIEW AVAILABLE -- I WAS ALSO TWICE ON TOM VALENTINE'S POPULIST
RADIO FREE AMERICA TO SPEAK ABOUT REMOTE CONTROL PLANES AND THE WTC, BUT NOT
SINCE THE REAL SMOKING GUN (THE PENTAGON PHOTO EVIDENCE) HAD BEEN FOUND,
ORGANIZED LOGICALLY ESTABLISHING PROOF AND PRESENTED)
THE PENTAGON EVIDENCE CASE IS DENIED BY MIKE RIVERO, JOE VIALLS, JOHN
JUDGE, CAROL BROUILLET, AND MIKE RUPPERT. NONE WILL DEFEND THEIR BLANKET
REJECTIONS, ALTHOUGH I HAVE POINTED OUT THAT NOT ONE OF THESE HAS A FIRM
BASIS FOR AN OBJECTION, MUCH LESS A REFUTATION OF WHAT THE PHOTO EVIDENCE
IMMEDIATELY SHOWS BY DIRECT INSPECTION.
And Jeff Rense refuses to post the small-plane evidence -- the single most
important obstacle in my opinion to the breakthrough of the truth into
general public awareness that should have taken place 15 months ago --
posting instead exposed disinformation of Sarah Roberts, Ron Harvey and a
host of others -- each of these disinfo efforts exposded and torn to
ribbons.
I conclude that most of our "friends" with any capital (big websites, radio
shows, printing presses) are bought off, manipulated off, or outright
"false-opposition" disinformation -- such as webfairy's patentent absurdity
the "hologram airliners"
If only someone would write to me and say -- Mr. Eastman, I've read your
compilation of evidence and have these questions .." or "I see your
argument, but how do you account for this and this?" etc.
But silence.
I might as well be talking to a wall. Or better -- I might as well be
playing Gamecube or Playstation 2 or Xbox -- because what difference does
it make?
What difference does the internet make, other than pulling you away from
your own real physical and social habitat where the truth still holds -- all
politics is local
so much easier to have sex on the internet than to find a real woman and get
it on, right?
so much easier to play games on the internet than goin a team and play a
sport with real human beings, right?
so much easier to get the straight ideas -- passed around by idea-shuffling
zombies -- than to engage in real politics of "this is the problem, these
are the facts, what will we do, who will we recruit, how will we get the
message out -- let's do it are you with me"
And idiot DIck Eastman, quits and comes back, quits and comes back --
reason tells him its futile, the heart won't let me give it up -- but it is
fly paper -- it is an illusion that things are possible -- when the only
ones really doing things with what we say on the internet are well-paid
analysists working for the oligarchy who run statistical and behavioral
analyses on our words and perfect their counter-propaganda.
DIck Eastman the whacko -- spamming you all -- versus all together
Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Carter for a photo op?
WHo the hell is Eastman, right?
The 9-11 commission -- thats what you all want to talk about? -- to hear
ALbright say that "we did everything we could think of to prevent.." etc.
etc. -- AND I SEE PERFECTLY THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMISSION IS TO
DIVERT YOU FROM THE FACTS THAT PROOVE THE ADMINISTRATION DID 9-11 TO THE
TOTALLY MISCONSTRUED NON-PROBLEM (GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE TRUTH) OF SOMEONE
BEING FLAGGING IN VILLAGENCE SO THAT THOSE HATEFUL ARABS MANAGED TO SNEAK ON
IN WITH THEIR BOXCUTTERS!!!
AND YOU POST YOUR VIEWS OF THIS COMMISSION AS IF THEY MEAN ANYTHING --
BECAUSE IT HAS THE TRAPPINGS OF POWER, OF BEING OFFICIAL, OF AUTHORITY, OF
HIGH STATUS.
It is autistic -- playing a game -- an nervous habit -- and you think
you are "connected!" Ha! What a laugh!
-- idot machines -- together a cacophany of white noise where nothing is
understood, nothing validated, nothing decided.
And so, you who have continued reading this far and know that what I am
saying is all too true -- what is there left to fight with? Should I rent
a room somewhere and put up signs on telephone poles inviting people to see
my evidence -- line up folks as you pass the computer monitor, don't examine
it too long, there are people in line behind you waiting for a look?
It takes capital to fight capitalism -- and capitalism is only willing to
pay people to infiltrate anti-capitalism to subvert and sabotage it -- and
there are plenty of those -- they are the popular ones -- they are the
ones with decent platforms and connections for news conferences (John Judge
and Carol Brouillet especially come to mind -- what did that People's
Investigation of 9-11 ever do but slim me and then, its mission
accomplished, fold up and go away -- it was the same kind of fraud as the
9-11 COmmission in Washington -- the honest names that were attracted were
sidelined -- their names appropriated to sponsor false conclusions and
trivial conclusions notable only because they represent completeness and
closure but in fact deliberately exclude the truth, the proof that 9-11
was a frame-up. They exclude, specifically this:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/5
More than enough said by me already, I am sure.
===============
senhor san
Perry in successful Chinese PLA penetration of Pentagon/military
---------
Sun Tse the Chinese Clauzowitz wrote of defeating enemy states by
corrupting and gaining control of their princes and having them destroy the
enemy from within. Another strategy -- get the states you would conquer to
first fight among themselves -- Like Islam and the West. Zhou Enlai and Mao
thought of themselves as going beyond Sun Tse in their methods of
subversion -- and Zhou Enlai's plans have never been repudiated or
officially discontinued by the current Chinese (criminal Triad princeling)
leadership.
Remember too that Red China and Israel where born at the same dime (1948-49)
and where among the first to recognize each other. Remember too that Israel
and China are both parasites on the US -- Israel through Jewish Americans
driven to irrational paranoia by the ADL and Bnai Brith so that massive
gifts are given and taxpayers milked to bankroll the likes of Ariel
haron -- China through the heroin and other drug connections (through
Columbia, Haiti, Cuba, Guantanamo (CIA) etc.--DE -- which has provided the
capital (laundered through Rockefeller ,Morgan and other Anglo-American
merchant banking interests etc.) for Chinese industrialization which fills
US Wal Mart stores etc. -- and China needed the Taliban decimated to
re-open the opium flows which are the key factor of production in the
Chinese heroin trade world wide of over $2 trillion per year!
And remember too that Zionism (Israel under Likud) gave China all US
military secrets including that of the neutron bomb.
9-11 was Wall Street (CIA, NSA, Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz Pentagon, FBI, FEMA,
White House, top Dems, top GOP in Congress etc. etc.)and the City of London
(MI5 and MI6) and Israel (Mossad)-- but also China (PLA, Triad crime
families.)
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
----------------------------------------------
Wednesday, Jan. 24, 2001
The Chinese Army Spy and Condoleezza Rice
By: Charles R. Smith
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Condoleezza Rice, national security adviser to President Bush, has recently
granted an interview to virtually every reporter but me. Perhaps it is
because I keep asking her questions about the Chinese spy in her past.
Rice has impeccable credentials. She worked for the elder George Bush in the
White House, handling Russian issues. She is a distinguished fellow at the
Hoover Institution and former provost of Stanford University. Rice is very
close to former Clinton Secretary of Defense William Perry. Rice worked with
Perry and the Clinton administration during her term at Stanford. The
Clinton White House once mentioned her as being on the short list for
secretary of state.
Yet it is her years at Stanford working with Perry that have rendered Rice
silent. While working at Stanford, she became involved in the most
successful Chinese army penetration of the Clinton Defense Department. She
will not answer questions about her relationship with Chinese spy Hua Di.
Hua Di was born into a family of prominent Communist officials. He studied
missiles in Russia and worked for the Chinese army missile program for 24
years. In 1984, he went to work for the China International Trust and
Investment Co. (CITIC), a firm then part-owned by the Chinese army.
Hua defected to the United States in 1989 after the Tiananmen Square
crackdown on student democracy demonstrators. He went to work as a
researcher at Stanford's Center for International Security and Arms Control.
There he met Rice and the Stanford Center co-directors, former Secretary of
Defense William Perry and political science professor John Lewis.
In 1994, Hua used his contacts at Stanford, in Beijing and inside the
Clinton Defense Department with then-Secretary Perry to obtain a secure
fiber-optic communication system for the Chinese army. In 1994, Hua
contacted an old friend in the Chinese army then working for Gen. Ding
Henggao, a close friend of Perry.
In fact, Perry and Ding's relationship spans three administrations. Perry
reportedly met Gen. Ding in the late 1970s during the Carter administration.
By 1994, Perry ran the U.S. Defense Department, and Ding had risen to
command the Chinese army military research bureau COSTIND, or the Commission
on Science Technology and Industry for National Defense. COSTIND, according
to the General Accounting Office, "oversees development of China's weapon
systems and is responsible for identifying and acquiring telecommunications
technology applicable for military use."
Hua Di teamed in 1994 with Stanford Dr. John Lewis, Secretary of Defense
Perry, and Gen. Ding of the Chinese Army to buy an advanced AT&T fiber-optic
communications system for "civilian" use inside China. The
communications system slipped past U.S. exports laws as a joint U.S.-Chinese
commercial venture called Hua Mei. The Chinese part of the venture was run
by a newly formed firm named Galaxy New Technology.
Hua Di described himself as the "matchmaker" between the Chinese Army and
Lewis during an interview for the Far Eastern Economic Review. Hua arranged
for Gen. Ding's wife, Madam Nie Li, to head the joint project as the Chinese
co-chairman.
Stanford's Lewis, himself a board member of the project, located Adlai
Stevenson III, the former Democrat senator from Illinois, to lead the
American side. According to the Far Eastern Economic Review, Lewis had
Defense Secretary Perry write a personal letter on his behalf to U.S.
government officials, favoring the export to China.
With Perry's blessing, Hua Di and Lewis contracted AT&T to ship the secure
communication systems directly to a Chinese Army unit using Galaxy New
Technology as a front. AT&T officials who sold most of the equipment and
software were adamant that there was no need to check the Chinese firm since
the "civilian" Madam Nie Lie led it.
Yet, the so-called "civilian" firm was actually packed with Chinese army
officers and experts. Madam Nie Lie was not only the wife of Gen. Ding
Henggao; she was actually Lt. Gen. Nie Lie of the Chinese Army.
Another member of New Galaxy Technology, according to a Defense Department
document, was Director and President "Mr. Deng Changru." Deng is also known
as Lt. Col. Deng Changru of the People's Liberation Army, head of the PLA
communications corps. Still another Chinese army officer on the Galaxy New
Technology staff was Co-General Manager "Mr. Xie Zhichao," better known in
military circles as Lt. Col. Xie Zhichao, director of the Chinese Army
Electronics Design Bureau.
In fact, the evidence shows that Lewis worked not only for Stanford and the
Chinese army during this time period. Documents obtained from the Department
of Defense using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) show that he also
worked for the U.S. Defense Department.
In August 1994, Lewis and Secretary of Defense Perry traveled to Beijing to
meet with Gen. Ding Henggao. According to the official list of attendees,
Lewis accompanied Perry as his "personal" consultant. Lewis, then a paid
consultant of the U.S. Defense Department, met in Beijing with Ding, who was
also then Lewis's partner inside a joint U.S. Chinese
"commercial venture" for military communications systems.
In 1997, Stanford professor Lewis was charged with using university funding
and equipment to set up the deal with Galaxy New Technology. Stanford
Provost Condoleeza Rice announced that Lewis faced an investigation because
he had used iniversity stationery and his office to run the joint
U.S-Chinese business. In the 1997 investigation, Rice issued a statement to
the university press.
"We'll follow what is a normal process under these circumstances," said Rice
in the 1997 interview. "Similar issues arise quite frequently. It's not all
that unusual that issues arise concerning conflict of interest."
Yet, no formal charges were filed, and Rice quietly dropped the
investigation against Lewis and Hua Di. To this day, Ms. Rice will not
answer why she stopped the investigation.
The General Accounting Office also documented the New Galaxy Technology
scandal (GAO report GAO/NSIAD-97-5). According to the GAO, the scandal
involved the "transfer of broadband telecommunications equipment to Hua Mei,
a joint venture between SCM Brooks Telecommunications, a U.S. limited
partnership, and Galaxy New Technology, a Chinese company primarily owned by
an agency of the Chinese military."
In 1997, Rep. Henry Hyde pressed Attorney General Janet Reno to investigate
the Galaxy New Technology scandal in a letter outlining his concerns.
According to Hyde, "in 1994, sophisticated telecommunications technology was
transferred to a U.S.-Chinese joint venture called HUA MEI, in which the
Chinese partner is an entity controlled by the Chinese military. This
particular transfer included fiber-optic communications equipment, which is
used for high-speed, secure communications over long distances. Also
included in the package was advanced encryption software."
By the end of 1997 the scandal was drawing too much heat for Hua Di to
remain in the United States. In an article curiously released in October
1998, the New York Times announced that Hua Di had returned to China in
December 1997.
According to the New York Times, Hua met with Chinese security officials in
late 1997 and was assured that he would not be prosecuted. On Dec. 31, 1997,
he returned to China. On Jan. 6, 1998, he was arrested and charged
with passing state secrets to U.S. officials. In 1999, according to the
official Chinese news service, Chinese defector and missile scientist Hua Di
was sentenced in a people's court to 15 years for passing state secrets to
the United States.
The end of this story is not very pretty. Stanford officials, including Rice
and Lewis, have openly appealed to the Chinese government for Hua's release.
Rice also continues to defend Hua.
Rice stated in a New York Times interview that Lewis "provided evidence to
the fact that the source materials for publications written by him and Mr.
Hua were provided by approved Chinese authorities or already were available
through the Stanford University library."
Yet, Rice will not talk about Hua Di and the Galaxy New Technology deal.
There was more than profit for Hua and the Chinese Army company packed with
electronics experts. The secure fiber optic communication system delivered
by Hua to his People's Liberation Army general buddies was modified in 1998
and now serves as a secure air-defense system exported to Iraq.
The current Iraqi air defense network, NATO code-named "Tiger Song," is made
of U.S. and French fiber optic parts modified and re-exported by the
People's Liberation Army. Tiger Song is based on the original secure AT&T
system obtained by Hua Di in 1994. Iraqi missiles guided by Tiger Song have
repeatedly attacked U.S. fighter jets.
According to an August 2000 Washington Times interview, Rice asserted,
"China is not a threat."
Tiger Song is considered a lethal threat to American and allied armed
forces. Such sweet irony that we now face our own weapons and they are not a
threat.
Still, all seems to be well between Beijing and Bush. Condoleeza Rice is
national security adviser to the president, and the Chinese Army again has a
"matchmaker" inside the White House. Just don't ask her about Chinese army
spy Hua Di.
senhor san
Kerry selects Bush anti-terrorism advisor as his foreign policy advisor.
-------
Kerry selects Bush anti-terrorism advisor Rand Beers as his foreign policy
advisor ---
but what was Rand Beers part of that he is chosen over the Democrat foreign
policy experts?
Remember the Bush administration's anti-terror orientation -- how they were
indifferent to al Qaeda before Sept. 11 and -- aside for the excuse for
grabbing Afganistan for the druglords -- afterwards as well.
Al Qa'eda -- even though the alleged guilty perpetrators of 9-11 -- they
alegedly knew within this one day of the alleged total surprise of 9-11,
btw -- has remained an issue of indifference. Very soon after bin Laden
allegedly provided the excuse for all out war on Moslem fundamentalism and
the sovereignty of all Arab nations -- it became clear that al Qa'eda is not
a subject of interest to the Administration.
They really from Sept. 11, 2001 were not interested in a micro investigation
that would identify and catch the individuals behind the terrorists -- the
contact men, the ones who knew the overall plan and coordinated that
lan -- even though these are still free and not sought -- the target being
bin Laden -- against whom we now know there is not one shred of evidence.
I won't say that this establishes the guilt of Paul Wolfowitz who called for
invading Iraq and Afganistan the very day of the attack -- because that
guilt is already established by the incontrovertable Pentagon attack
evidence. (see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/5
Photographs prove Bush Administration implicated in complex deception
involving the attack on the Pentagon -- video camera records second plane,
not a Boeing 757, in act of firing missile prior to crashing and other
evidence of equal simplicity, conclusiveness and validity:
So why does Kerry want Rand Beers on his side heading his foreign policy
team ? -- when the accusation being made by all of his Democratic Party
critics and Independent critics is that his war and anti-terror policies are
too similar to those of Bush.
Interesting name, "Rand Beers." deBeers? Rand?
Dick EastmanYakima, Washington
senhor san
Long defends anti-war Louisiana State Senator S. J. Harper in 1918
================
Huey Long, the populist "Kingfish" of Louisiana, Senator, creater of the
national "Share Our Wealth" program and threatening Democratic candidate
bidding fair to depose Franklin Roosevelt in the 1936 elections until gunned
down in 1935 was, bar none except possibly Gandhi, the greatest (in terms of
ability, effort and chosen causes) political mind of the 20th-century.
Here are excerpts from T. Harry Williams, Huey Long (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1969) about a famous case of the 24-year-old lawyer, of whom Supreme
Court Justice (and former President) WIlliam Howard Taft would later say was
one of the finest legal minds ever to argue a case before his court:
Full-fledged laywer at age twenty-one.
"Whatever deception Huey may have employed in arranging the examination,
he used none when he came before the committee. He was well prepared and
serious, and he answered the questions in a straightforward manner and with
accuracy. Only once did he resort to impudence, and he did it knowing that
a brash answer woud please the interrogator. George H. Terriberry, an
expert on admiralty law, asked what young Mr. Long knew about his specialty.
Nothing, Huey replied. Terriberry pressed the issue. "What would you do in
a case involving admiralty law?" Huey handled this one easily. "I'd
associate Mr. Terriberry with me," he said, "and divide the fee with him."
The committee had no hesitation in passing him. Almost immediately, on May
15, 1915, he appeared before the supreme court and was formally admitted to
the bar. ..."
Dark Counsel from "Faust"
"In the course of his work as a compensation lawyer he had frequently
denounced the Louisiana employers' liability law for the meager payments it
allowed to injured workers, but these statements were scarecely heard beyond
Winn parish. Then in the spring of 1916 he went to Senator Harper, who was
a member of the senate committee on capital and labor and sympathetic with
the working class, and showed the old man some amendments he had drafted to
the law. His proposals advocated raising the maximum amount allowable in
injury cases and requiring companies to pay damage assessments in a lump sum
instead of installments. Harper readily agreed to present them to the
committee, but it probably did not occur to him that he could use the young
lawyer's help in Baton Rouge. Huey accompanied him, nonetheless, probably
having invited himself.
"Huey had never seen a legislature in session before, and the sight of
this one filled his idealistic young mind with disgust. Them members seemed
afraid of some mysterious power, he recalled; they kowtowed before it and
guarded their talk as if fearing they "would slip on something" if they
ventured too far. Around the capital he met an older man named "Faust",
whom he did not otherwise identify, who revealed to him what the hidden
power was -- it was the great business interests and particularly the
Standard Oil Company. But the people could change the situation, Huey
argued. Yes, agreed, Faust, but they could not be aroused. A leader who
tried to stir them would be hired over by the interests, Faust said. "Or,"
he concluded, smiling at Huey, they will snuff you out if they can." p. 109
First Showdown, a Promising Defeat
"...He was denied permission to speak and was ridiculed when he tried to
get the floor. Once when he arose, the chairman asked him whom he
represented. "Several thousand common laborers," Huey answered. Were they
paying him anything? the chairman pressed. No, snapped Huey. "They seem to
have good sense," the chairman observed, to loud laughter. Other memebers
of the committee wanted to know why a twenty-two-year-old lawyer who had
just begun practice thought he was competent to advise the legislature on
such a weighty issue. Finally, toward midnight, somebody moved that the
committee adjourn without taking any action, a procedure tantamount to
rejecting the amendments.
Huey had taken all that he could. Without asking for recognition, he got
up from his seat at the foot of the table and began to speak. Later he
thought well enought of his remarks to reporduce them in his autobiography.
His rendition was probably accurate for the most part, although it bears
some evidence of having been polished up. His opening sentence revealed
that his protestations of political innocence had been nothing but pretense.
"For twenty years has the Louisiana Legislature been dominated by the
henchment and attorneys of the interests," he cried. "Those seeking
reforms have from necessity bowed their heads in regret and shame when
witnessing the victories of these corruping influences at this capitol."
ANd now these same influences had the brazen audacity to deny to a
laborer's family a fair compensation for a grievous injury or a lost life.
And to make it worse, they claimed that they were acting in the name of
justice. "What subterfuge!" Huey declared. It was like an infidel
invoking God or an anarchist calling on the government for protection.
These were strange, strong words to fling at a legislative committee.
Huey was charging that his hearers -- and the majority of the legislators --
were purchased tools of the corporations. The committee memebers were
outraged and immediately proceeded to express their feelings by voting down
the amendments.
Huey defending anti-war socialist Senator S. J. Harper brought up on charges
under the "Espionage Act" in 1917
"It had been a spectacular political debut for Huey, and he was grateful
to the man who made it possible, Senator Harper. He had a genuine regard
for the old solon who had lent him money when he went to Tulane and come to
his aid in the DeLoach case. He had to respect too the way Harper had
pulled himself up in the world. As a youth Harper had come to Winnfield
from the country and had worked as a carpenter. Often he made only
seventy-five cents a day, but he saved his money and eventually had enought
to start a general merchandise store and to become a cotton buyer. He was
also able to indulge a taste for reading. He bought books, acquiring over
the course of the years a fair-sized library, and as he read he meditated,
he developed a set of distinctly unconventional ideas. He was vociferously
against war, the Bible, Wall Street bankers, corsets and high heels for
women, intoxicating liquors, strict discipline in prisons, the microbe
theory [showing he read Tolstoy -- de], algebra, and any new notion about
education. The list of things he favored was shorter and included
socialism, practical education, and limitations on wealth. He was
exceedingly critical of clergymen and was probably an atheist. Like some
other rurual radicals of the time, he was convinced that most of the big
international bankers were Jews and were working together to further the
power of world Jewry. His study of their machinations led him to correspond
with Henry Klein of New York City, a Jew who had become a Christian, and who
had written pamphlets denouncing bankers, the Standard Oil Comapny, and the
Jews in general. Klein apprised Harper of even wider ramifications of the
Jewish menace. The Zionists, working throught the governing Sanhedrin of
the Jews, were plotting nothing less than the takeover of the United States
and other great countries. To prove the charge, Klein supplied Harper with
a copy of a document detailing the plan, the Protocols of Zion, which later
scholarship would expose as fraudulent but which seemed genuine enough to
Harper. He gave free voice to all his ideas, and it was a mark of the
unorthodoxzy of Winn voters that they would elect such a man to represent
them in the legislature.
Some recorders of the Long story have concluded that Harper was young
Huey's political mentor and that the senator's economic notions formed the
basis of Long's subsequent economic philosophy. The supposition stems from
the known intimacy of the two men and from an assumption that the older one
must have been the dominant partner. ALthough the conjecture has a certain
plausibility about it, it is, like many that have been made about Long,
erroneous. Contemporaries who knew both menwell state emphatically that
Harper had very little influence on Huey. If influence was exerted, they
imply, Huey exerted it. This is apparent even without their testimony. It
simply was not in Huey's nature to follow anybody out of blind admiration or
to borrow ideas blindluy. He was too calculating to do either. He could
admire Harper's independence and courage, and he could agree with some fo
the senator's ideas, such as placing limitations on wealth. But he was too
realistic to commit himself further. He could see thea the breadth of
Harper's intellectual interests was a weakness in a politician -- the old
man embraced too many ideas, so many that some of them had to be eccentric.
It was all right to talk about limiting wealth, for example, but to advocate
socialism was something else. It was fine to condemn Wall Street bankers,
but to denounce Jewish bankers was another thing. If only for his ideas
about Jews, Huey would have looked on Harper with condescension. He had no
strong prejudices of any kind himself, but if he had had, he would have
concealed them -- a politician was downright foolish if he alienated any
group of voters.
Still, he felt an obligation to help Harper, and he seized an early
opportunity to repay it. The senator had been on outspoken opponent of
America's entrance into the World War. He muted his sentiments somewhat
after the war was declared, but then he demanded that it be financed by
conscripting wealth. Specifically he advocated that the government issue
legal tender certificates instead of bonds; it should emulate the Civil War
example of "our Grand Old Ex-president Abraham Lincoln," he said, using
brave words for a Southern politician. [note: maybe not so brave -- the
people of Longs' and Harper's Winnfield Parish were opposed to secession in
the war between the states, thinking that the secession was a only a rich
man's cause. --de] At first Harper confined his remarks to conversations
and correspondence, but inevitably he grew bolder. He published a pamphlet
detailing his views. Entitled The Issues of the Day -- Free Speech --
Financial Slavery, it denounced bankers and war profiteers, charged that the
war was being waged not for democracy but for Wall Street, and called for a
conscription of wealth. A minority of people already owned most of the
national wealth, the pamphlet claimed and they would own all of it before
this war was ended. Harper followed up this blast by announcing early in
1918 that he would be a candidate for Congress. He had gone too far.
Popular support of the war was as intense and huysterical in Louisiana as in
other parts of the country, and public officials were just as ready to crush
dissent. A federal grand jury in ALexandria promptly indicted Harper on the
absurd charge that he had violated the Espionage Act.
Huey volunteered to serve as the senator's counsel. His first step,
after arranging bail for Harper, was to issue a statement to the press
denouncing the indictment as political persecution of a man whose only crime
had been to oppose the war profiteers. Then, having himself mad the case a
political one, he demanded an early hearing to take advantage of the
atmosphere he had created. At the trial in Shreveport Huey associated his
more experienced brother Julius with with him as co-copunsel. WHile Julius
handled the preliminary motions, Huey circulated among the prospective
jurymen, all of whom, he had discovered were being shadowed by government
agents. He picked out those whom he thought were unfriendly to his case and
ostentatiously bought them drinks and engaged them in whispered
conversations. When the jurors were called, the government asked each one
who had been seen with Huey if he had talked about the case. Each one
answred truthfully that he had not. But the skeptical government attorneys
excused them and thus exhausted all but one of their peremptory challenges.
At this point a recess was called, and Huey was fearful that what he later
called his "prnak" had been discovered. But when the court reconvened, the
presiding judge merely read a statement reprimanding Huey for his remarks to
the press. Huey and Julius were eventually able to win an aquittal for
their client, although not necessarily because of any skill on their part or
of Huey's sharp work with the jury. The government simply had a shaky case.
Huey had been quite right to label the prosecution as political and to fight
it on political grounds.
... Huey hardly ever acted out of pure sentiment or simple motives, and
he did not so act now. Governing everything that he did in this episode was
a cynical doubt as to what the war was for - he did not believe that it was
a crusade to make the world safe for democracy. This conviction was perhaps
his real reason for helping Harper, who had the same suspicion.
... He was always a little uncomfortable at later charges that he had been a
draft dodger. But he met every criticism with boldness. "I did not go into
that war," he proclaimed in the Senate, "I was within the draft age. I
could have gone, except for my dependents. I did not go because I did not
want to go, aside from that fact. . . . I did not go because I was not mad
at anybody over there, for another reason. I did not go because it was not
the first time in history that the sons of America had volunteered
themselves as cannon fodder under the misguided apprehension that it was
going to be a fight for humanity," when in reality they had been used to
centralize "the wealth of the United States and of the world in the hands of
the few." Curiously the attack on his war record came in the late twenties
and early thirties. It was a time when such an accusation helped rather
than hurt his career. Then a man who had realized the "phoniness" of the
World War was thought to be a smart one, indeed."
Huey's skepticism about the nature of the war was a direct result of his
continuing study of a subject that had interested him for years --
maldistribution of wealth. If a few rich men dominated the economy, he
seemed to reason, then they must be running the government and directing
everything that it did. Early in 1918 he expressed his ideas in a letter to
the pricipal newspapers of the state. In this document he cited figures to
prove that two percent of the people owned severy per cent of the wealth.
And every decade this concentration of wealth was increasing, he wrote. Its
most unfortunate effect was that the ordinary man could no longer provide an
education his children. "What do yhou think of such a game of life, so
brutally and cruelly unfair, with the dice so loaded that the child of today
must enter it with only fourteen chances out of a thousand in his favor of
getting a college education. . . . ? he asked.
[Better stop here -- I'd like to type out the whole book --de]
--------
Vote for one:
George W. Bush
John Kerry
Huey Long
(me too)
Read more about Huey Long here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dick_eastman_populism/messages/1
[Also: There was a good movie staring John Goodman as Huey Long, called
Kingfish -- you likely won't find it at Blockbuster or Hollywood Video --
but maybe if you have a locally owned video store in town ... ]
MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE
they say what is popular, while believing none of it.
They deliver insult wrapped in a complement
among a doting and unthinking constituency
which fails to discriminate the difference.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/printle20040401.shtml
The people who know Kerry best consider Kerry aloof, imperious and
condescending. Even worse, Kerry can't seem to retain their names.
At a 1996 Massachusetts political affair, a Democratic Massachusetts
State legislator said to his friends, "Watch this."
He walked up to Kerry and said, "Hi, Senator -- Representative Butchy Cataldo."
At this, Kerry smiled, slapped his back and exclaimed,
"Butchy, so good to see you again!" One problem -- the guy, the state rep
-- was not Butchy Cataldo. In fact, Butchy Cataldo ran and lost to this
Kerry-greeting legislator whose name is Bill Reinstein,
a man bearing no resemblance to the tall, dark-haired Cataldo.
If that be the case,
why settle for the lesser Evil?
Vote Hillary. She has such sights to show you.
Senhor Sr.
"MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE" <ExPre...@au.revoir.gov> wrote in message
news:Cpqbc.13535$lt2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Both Kerry and Clinton are in a class by themself as prevaricators,
> they say what is popular, while believing none of it.
> They deliver insult wrapped in a complement
> among a doting and unthinking constituency
> which fails to discriminate the difference.
Articles --
The news and comment that follows is, of course, very important, but it is
not as important as the news that none of these many authors are willing to
relay to you. 9-11 has been proven by various lines of
photographic-evidence-based proof to have been a false-flag mass-murder
black-operation for the purpose of frame-up justification for racist (Jewish
supremecist) wars of aggression, plunder and genocide. Whether you want to
deal with a problem that big or not, here is the evidence establishing that
the Rumsfeld Zionist Hawks at the Pentagon were behind the 9-11 attack on
the Pentagon:
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/Eastman/m18h05.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/5
Now you have the perspective to understand the full importance of the
following articles about 9-11, Iraq and John Kerry.
from Thomas Buyea (thank you , Tom):
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-sept-11-controllers,0,63368
34,print.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines
May 6, 2004
Tape of 9/11 Controllers Was Destroyed
By LESLIE MILLER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Air traffic controllers who handled two of the hijacked flights on Sept. 11,
2001, recorded their experiences shortly after the planes crashed into the
World Trade Center but a supervisor destroyed the tape, government
investigators said Thursday.
A report by Transportation Department Inspector General Kenneth Mead said
the manager for the New York-area air traffic control center asked the
controllers to make the recordings a few hours after the crashes in belief
they would be important for law enforcement.
Investigators never heard it. Sometime between December 2001 and February
2002, an unidentified Federal Aviation
Administration quality assurance manager crushed the cassette case in his
hand, cut the tape into small pieces and threw them away in multiple trash
cans, the report said.
"We were told that nobody ever listened to, transcribed or duplicated the
tape," Mead said in the report sent to Sen. John McCain. The Arizona
Republican asked the inspector general to look into how well the agency was
cooperating with the independent panel investigating the attacks.
Neither manager told anyone outside the center -- including their superiors
and law enforcement officials -- about the tape's existence, the report
said. The Sept. 11 commission learned of the tape during interviews with New
York air traffic control center personnel between September and October.
The destruction occurred even though the FAA sent a directive three days
after the hijackings: "Retain and secure until further notice ALL
Administrative/Operational data and records. ... If a question arises
whether or not you should retain the data, RETAIN IT." The quality
assurance manager said he destroyed the tape because he felt it violated FAA
policy calling for written statements from controllers who have handled a
plane involved in an accident or other serious incident. He also said he
felt the controllers were not in the right frame of mind to have consented
to the taping, the report said.
The manager said he waited several months to destroy the tape because he
promised the local controllers' union vice president that he would get rid
of it once the control center's formal accident package was complete, the
report said. That package was sent to FAA headquarters in November 2001.
The report did not characterize the tape's destruction as an attempted
cover-up. But it said the recording could have helped provide a fuller
explanation of what happened on Sept. 11.
"What those six controllers recounted in a group setting on Sept. 11, in
their own voices, about what transpired that morning, are no longer
available to assist any investigation or inform the public," the report
said.
Mead said his office referred the case to federal prosecutors in New York,
but they declined to prosecute because of lack of criminal intent. FAA
spokesman Greg Martin said the quality control manager was disciplined for
violating the directive to keep everything relating to the hijackings and to
turn them over to investigators. He said privacy considerations prevented
him from disclosing how the manager was
disciplined. Martin said the FAA believes the tape is consistent with
written
statements and other materials provided to investigators. It "would not have
added in any significant way to the information already provided to
investigators and members of the 9-11 commission," Martin said. The report
said the controllers who made the tape had either talked to the hijacked
planes that crashed into the World Trade Center or were working radar
positions that intersected with the jetliners' flight paths.
The report concluded that there was "some measure of consistency" between
witness statements later taken from the controllers and what was recorded on
the tape. That conclusion was based on interviews with the six controllers
and all 10 witnesses to the taping, and on sketchy notes taken during the
tape recording. Also retained were radar data and recordings of radio
transmissions from the cockpit. John Carr, president of the air traffic
controllers' union, said he did not know whether the manager did the right
thing by destroying the tape. "It was a traumatic time for him," he said.
"He was the custodian for the darkest moment in our nation's history."
Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press
----------
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/may2004/050504bombsinwtc.htm
Go to the following page and listen to the audio. . . unbelievable !
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openmindandcodenews/message/694
May 5 2004
NBC "TODAY" SHOW ON 9-11-01: New York Fire Dept Chief of Safety Reported
Bombs Both Within the Towers and on the Planes!
by Paul Joseph Watson/Dan Perez
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
What you will hear is a clip from NBC reporter Pat Dawson on the morning of
9/11. In it he discusses the comments of Albert Turi, the Chief of Safety
for the New York City Fire Department.
Turi reported not only that there were numerous secondary explosions within
the towers but that there was also a bomb on one or both of the planes that
crashed into the towers. This would explain why video footage shows both
planes emitting strange flashes before they hit the towers, as well as the
'pod' on the underbelly of Flight 175.
We have dozens of reports from firefighters and others on the scene who
witnessed bombs going off before and during the towers' collapse. Larry
Silverstein, the owner of the World Trade Center complex, admitted in a PBS
documentary that they decided to demolish Building 7 on the day of 9/11,
despite the official story of it accidentally collapsing which has remained
in place to this day.
TRANSCRIPT (1 minute 27 seconds in)
"....The Chief of Safety of the Fire Department of New York told me
that...er...shortly after 9 o'clock here had roughly 200 men in the building
trying to effect rescues of some of those civilians who were in
there...er... and that basically he received word of the possibility of a
secondary device, another bomb going off. He tried to get his men out as
quickly as he could but he said that there was another explosion which took
place and then an hour after the first hit here, the first crash that took
place, he said there was another explosion which took place in one of the
towers here.
So obviously he, according to his theory, he thinks that there were actually
devices that were planted in the building. One of the secondary devices he
thinks that took place after the initial impact was, he thinks, may have
been on the plane that crashed into one of the towers. The second device,
he thinks, he speculates, was probably planted in the building...er... so
that's what we have been told by...erm...Albert Turi who is the Chief of
Safety for the New York City Fire
Department, he told me that just moments ago."
The reporter then goes on to describe continuing explosions which are blamed
on faulty gas lines.
...."the bottom line is, that according to the Chief of Safety of the New
York Fire Department, he says that he lost a great many men in those
secondary explosions and he said that there were literally hundreds if not
thousands of people in those towers when the explosions took place. He said
everything above the 60th floor was extremely difficult to get to as you can
imagine."
BTW... The Murrah Building in OKC is said by many experts in demolition to
have had bombs (plural) in it too!
--------------
Despite Bush's increasing unpopularity, Kerry is still less popular,
although pro-war pro-occupation pro-war-on-terror
not-suspicious-about-9-11 bonesman Kerry remains "not Bush" and as such
remains the only possible choice for Democrats -- although pro-war
pro-occupation pro-war-one-terror not-suspicious-about-9-11 consumer
advocate Ralph Nader does offer a third choice for those who insist upon
having a third choice. {This is the kind of Democracy we are trying to bring
to Iraq, right?] Funny how Kerry and Nader draw all and hope energy from
those interested overthrowing the war-profiteering oligarchy -- even as
Soros buys up all the activist campaign management talent for his own
run-into-a-blind-ally effort to, as the story goes, beat Bush.
------
The Bush administration asks Congress for $25 billion fix that will just
carry the war occupation efforts in Afganistan and Iraq until after the
election, when a much larger bite than this stopgap will be required to
really fund the operations intended in the continuing Bush-promised
Kerry-promised War on Terror.
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=f0613c1608f4324d
The war in Iraq shares parallels with both the Vietnam War a generation ago
and the Spanish-American War a century earlier - massive civilian deaths and
torture are characteristics of all three imperial interventions. The U.S.
adventure in the Philippines during the Spanish-American War resulted in the
creation of The Anti-Imperialist League (the "antis"), in which a number of
noted Americans, including former General/Senator Carl Schurz and Mark
Twain, sought to draw attention to what the U.S. Army was doing in the
Islands.
http://www.iviews.com/Articles/articles.asp?ref=IV0405-2297
U.S. soldiers who detained an elderly Iraqi woman last year placed a harness
on her, made her crawl on all fours and rode her like a donkey Prime
Minister Tony Blair's personal human rights envoy to Iraq said Wednesday.
http://tinyurl.com/yqttx
Lawyers for the families of 12 Iraqis alleged to have been shot or beaten to
death by British soldiers accused the Ministry of Defence yesterday of
tampering with evidence that could support compensation claims against the
Government.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=518615
"So was it blackmail when we said we'd attack Iraq and kill innocent people
unless they told us where all their weapons were?"
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/22/1082616260498.html
U.S. officials have for months publicly promoted the notion that foreign
fighters and terrorists are playing a major role in the anti-American
insurgency in Fallujah and the rest of Iraq. By blaming foreigners, U.S.
authorities hope to quash the idea that Iraqis are rising up against
military occupation and frame the conflict as part of the wider war on
terror. However, foreigners play a tiny role in Iraq's insurgency, many
military experts say. In Fallujah, U.S. military leaders say around 90
percent of the 1,000 or more fighters battling the Marines are Iraqis. To
date, there have been no confirmed U.S. captures of foreign fighters in
Fallujah - although a handful of suspects have been arrested.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0%2C1280%2C-4047925%2C00.html
The growing instability in Afghanistan -- a country under virtual military
occupation by U.S. and other western forces -- has been overshadowed by news
of the escalating violence, torture and killings in U.S.-administered Iraq.
As in Iraq, insurgents in Afghanistan have not only been attacking the
multinational military force but also local police and foreign aid
orkers. -- But analysts who closely monitor the region say security in
Afghanistan
remains ''tenuous'' and ''has shown no signs of improvement''. And they
predict the explosive situation there might soon turn out to be as bad as
Iraq -- but on a smaller scale. -- The similarities are striking. As in
Iraq, insurgents in Afghanistan have not only been attacking the
multinational military force but also local police and foreign aid workers.
http://ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=23618
The pilot reports: "Wait. Someone wounded by the truck.'' An officer
replies: "Hit him. Hit the truck and him.'' Robert Fisk: As a wounded
Iraqi crawls from beneath a burning truck, an American helicopter pilot
tells his commander that one of three men has survived his night air attack.
"Someone wounded,'' the pilot cries. Then he received the reply: "Hit him,
hit the truck and him.'' As the helicopter's gun camera captures the scene
on video, the pilot fires a 30mm gun at the wounded man, vaporising him in a
second.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/story.jsp
Bush moves to crush militia movement in Iraq -- At one point, an Iraqi man
crawled from a bunker waving a white flag, followed by several others. An
Apache helicopter then launched 30-millimeter rounds at the bunker, and an
Abrams tank incinerated it with a shot from its main cannon. "Hopefully we
can put enough pressure on them to break their will to stay in
Karbala," said Brig. Gen. Mark P. Hertling, who flew down from Baghdad to
observe the battle. -- For weeks, as fighting raged in the Sunni city of
Falluja, more than 2,500 American soldiers surrounded Najaf, just 40 miles
south of here, where Mr. Sadr is based. But the soldiers were held outside
the city for fear of inflaming Shiites in Iraq and around the world and
alienating the senior clerics of Najaf. -- But now the military has moved
on Karbala, though commanders say they are trying to make precise attacks.
http://tinyurl.com/33c9q
Piss on them and you get respect -- Army National Guard Lt. Michael Drayton
commanded the 124-person 870th Military Police Company from November to
March at the prison, which is the subject of intense focus after pictures of
Iraqi prisoners being abused appeared last week. "You got to understand,
although it seems harsh, the Iraqis they only understand force. If you try
to talk to them one on one as a normal person, they won't respect you, they
won't do what you want, prisoner or just normal person on the street."
http://tinyurl.com/yre56
Ted Rall: American troops occupying Iraq have become virtually
indistinguishable from the SS. Like the Germans during World War II, they
cordon off and bomb civilian villages to retaliate for guerilla attacks on
their convoys. Like the blackshirts who terrorized Europe, America's victims
disappear into hellish prisons ruled by sadists and murderers. The U.S.
military is short just one item to achieve moral parity with the Nazis: gas
chambers.
http://tinyurl.com/3ewjh
WORRIED about allowing inspectors to visit state prisons and jailed terror
suspects, the United States tried, but failed, to block a UN vote on a plan
to enforce a treaty on torture.The protocol to the 1989 treaty was passed on
Wednesday by a vote of 35-8 with 10 abstentions in the UN Economic and
Social Council. The US abstained.
http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2002/07/26/story359022326.asp
Guantanamo is "legitimate" because the base is on Cuban soil, but not an
Embassy, and not recognizing Castro's Cuba it becomes for the American
government a playpen where the Constitution does not apply -- the
Guantanamo torture camps ( where the CIA also can run drug operations "not
illegally") enjoys "lawless" status in American legal eyes, a place where
habeas corpus does not apply. However if Cuba's governemnt and laws were
recognized, Guantanamo would be impossible. -- Dick Eastman
Charley Reese: If you step back a moment and think about it, you will
realize that you are constantly being propagandized to approve of war - not
just the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, but war generically. We should
resist. War is killing, maiming and disfiguring human beings. It is so
disgusting and horrible in reality that even the most "realistic" Hollywood
movie sanitizes it. The news media sanitize it. The government sanitizes war
because it doesn't want you to see the coffins. Most of all, it doesn't want
you to see the bodies before they are put in the coffins. The Bush
administration's real beef with the Arab television station Al-Jazeera is
really nothing more than the fact that Al-Jazeera shows the bodies.
[comment: I was very suspicious of the hero-glorifying
lets-all-sacrifice--because-we've-been-attacked movie Peal Harbor, which
came to video stores a month before 9-11 -- DE]
http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20040505/index.php
If the media made even a fraction of the fuss over Blair's dodgy dossier as
they are making over the pictures of British soldiers mistreating Iraqi
hostages, then we wouldn't be in Iraq today. If the pictures showed Arab
troops humiliating British prisoners, there would be howls of indignation
and no one would be rushing to make excuses about their authenticity. In any
case, the behaviour of our US "allies" was plain. Muslims in this country
are now the targets of police raids which are given wide coverage. Yet no
apology is given by the media establishment, which continues to portray them
as terrorists, when the same people are later released without charge.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1209672,00.html
In 1965, John Kerry, Jewish son of a wealthy Wall Street family, the Kohns
of New York and Boston, was "tapped" (i.e. chosen) for big things. Kerry was
one of only 15 elite young men, all seniors at Yale University, initiated
into the satanic secret society, Order of Skull & Bones.
Graduating from Yale in 1966, young Kerry was promptly recruited by the
Central Intelligence Agency to be one of their chosen. His appointment to
the spy agency was kept a guarded secret. In fact, the CIA has long been
known as a harbor, or preserve, of the Bonesmen.
Kerry's Life Carefully Scheduled and Managed
Kerry's career and life path were selected for him by his Illuminati
superiors. He has had his wives (yes-wives, plural) picked by them in
arranged marriages. He was required by his superiors to enter the U.S.
military and serve on a gunboat during the Vietnam conflict. Retired Naval
officers seriously question whether Kerry really deserved the Silver Star
and other decorations he was given for his brief stint in combat service.
They believe he was given "Favorite Son" treatment.
The secret society personnel directors carefully of the groomed young John
Kerry from the start. First, they changed his family name to Kerry, from
Kohn. Kohn, of course, shows Kerry's true heritage as a Jew. His superiors
gave him a fictitious Irish name, great for political effect because
Massachusetts has a strongly Irish population.
His full name, John Forbes Kerry, was chosen for him so his initials would
be "JFK," to subconsiously implant in people's minds the Kennedy mystique.
Kerry also was instructed to join the Catholic Church, again a strong suit
in the heavily Catholic state of Massachusetts.
Building on that, the young Illuminist cult trainee was sent off to prep
schools in Europe, brought back to Yale to graduate from college, and given
a valuable "gift," of "heroic military service." In fact, Kerry was a
devout, pro-Communist anti-war protester while at Yale (before military
service) and became active in the pro-Communist anti-Vietnam War movement
immediately following his military discharge.
Kerry is a Communist
Covert CIA operative John Kerry joined with thousands of other pro-Mao
Communists in an anti-U.S.A. demonstration in Washington, D.C. in April,
1971. Today, political insiders rank left-winger Senator Kerry as the "most
liberal member" of the entire U.S. Senate. He has consistently voted for the
gay agenda, for same sex marriages, for environmental surcharge taxes on
gasoline, and for unbridled abortion. Kerry is also a promoter of a New
World Order and for surrendering U.S. sovereignty to the U.N. and other
international organizations.
The Heinz corporation, the majority of which is owned by Kerry's Jewish
wife, Teresa, has located 55 of its 67 plants overseas, resulting in tens of
thousands of Americans losing their jobs. Kerry not only supports job
outsourcing but warmly embraces illegal immigration and welfare, medical and
other benefits for illegals.
For almost two decades, John Kerry (John Kohn) has been a U.S. Senator, a
post he was "awarded" by Democratic party politicians and did not merit. As
a Senator, Kerry has never distinguished himself. Not even one significant
piece of legislation has his name on it. What has Senator Kerry accomplished
in the U.S. Senate these 19+ years?
A "Fireman" For The Illuminati Cult
Kerry's major role as a Senator has been to slavishly serve the secret
society by promoting its New World Order objectives. Often seen on TV as a
talking head for liberal causes, inside the Senate, Kerry is known as the
"Fireman." He quells and puts out the fires, suppressing controversies and
scandals that arise from time to time which involve the CIA, the Illuminati,
and its minions. When an Illuminati or CIA project is in jeopardy, or its
personnel are in the dock, it's Fireman Kerry to the rescue!
Covering Up The BCCI Banking Scandal
The tall, liberal Democrat, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, is considered a
"publicity hound" by his Senate colleagues. However, having a penchant for
getting one's face frequently on television does not a hero make. Although a
junior Senator at the time, Kerry was "surprisingly" given the delicate job
by his Senate colleagues in 1989 of looking into a slew of allegations that
an international bank owned by the Illuminati named "BCCI" was heavily
involved in racketeering, money laundering, bribery, terrorism, and a
variety of other crimes.
When his Skull & Bones elders and their pals in the Senate, including Utah
Republican Senator Orrin Hatch, told him to quietly put the lid on these
unsavory allegations and to meekly absolve the bank of wrongdoing, Kerry,
always quick to please, complied without a murmur.
Two years later, the lid blew off the BCCI case when the bank went under,
filed bankruptcy, and left the taxpayers and unwitting investors holding the
bag for some $500 million in losses.
The big boys of the Brotherhood, of course, had already cleared out their
accounts, having received a few years advance notice from their front man
and good buddy, Senator John Kerry. Then, in 1991, in a weird and
surrealistic public relations ploy, the bonesman from New England suddenly
announced that his Senate committee would reopen its hearings on the failed
bank. Sorry, John, but the horses were already out of the barn. Indeed,
shortly afterward, Kerry quietly closed shop on his committee's renewed
"investigation."
The Tragic Case of the Missing POW/MIAs
The BCCI scandal is not the only shady deal in which John Kerry's tap
dancing and coverup talents have come in handy for the Skull & Bones and
other Illuminati hierarchy. When U.S. Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) and a few
others in Congress came out with revelations that some POW/MIAs may still be
alive somewhere in Vietnam, the Bush, Sr. administration, embarrassed over
accusations that its officials had sat on their hands and done little to
resolve the POW/MIA issue, quickly called on fellow bonesman John Kerry. To
the rescue he came, "boldly" announcing in front of the news cameras that
his committee would launch a "full-scale investigation."
Kerry's assigned role, obviously, was to take the heat off the President and
the Pentagon and to help the Illuminist Brotherhood in the process. Seems
that the Brotherhood had a fond desire and longing to open up the oil and
mineral-rich lands of Communist Vietnam and its neighbors, Cambodia and
Laos, to commercial exploitation.
Senator Kerry and his committee quickly went into operation, actively
debunking confirmed POW sightings in Vietnam and downplaying the POW/MIA
issue. Then came the clincher: In late 1991 Senator Kerry personally flew to
Vietnam on a "fact-finding" tour.
The upshot: the photogenic Kerry assured us (on television naturally!) that
there were no more POWs being held and that there were no reliable accounts
as to what had happened to the missing POW/MIAs. This, even though a Soviet
KGB General had openly admitted that during the Vietnam war years, the KGB
had callously shipped many of the American servicemen in bondage in Vietnam
off to Soviet KGB prisons to be interrogated about their high-tech
intelligence and military know-how.
At his news conference, once he had shunted aside the issue of missing
POW/MIAs, John Kerry went right to the heart of this real purpose in
volunteering his committee's time and energy to "resolve" the Vietnam
POW/MIA issue. The bonesman Senator recommended that trade links, then
prohibited, be immediately opened between the U.S. and Vietnam and that the
U.S. diplomatically recognize the communist Saigon government as legitimate.
That recognition, and acceptance by the U.S. of Vietnam as a trading
partner, had been held up pending resolution of the case of the missing
POW/MIAs.
Covering Up the Iran Contra Scandal
It was also Senator John Kerry, the Illuminati's Fireman, whose committee
conducted hearings on the Iran Contra scandal. Kerry and company handled the
matter with kid gloves and it was left to a special prosecutor, Lawrence
Walsh, to try to get to the bottom of things and smoke out Oliver North,
Caspar Weinberger, John Poindexter, Ronald Reagan, Richard Secord, and a
host of other "buddies" involved in perpetrating and/or covering up the
bribe paid to the treacherous and bloody Iranian ayatollahs as well as the
treacherous Israeli government shenanigans.
John Kerry, unquestionably, has faithfully served the elite in tragically
shafting our POWs/MIAs. He has covered up the Illuminati's financial crimes
and helped the Israelis to hide their role in the Iran Contra affair. In
doing so, he has repeatedly had to sell his soul to these Mafia bosses.
A Moral Reprobate
The morally reprobate nature of Kerry was recently well-documented. Shortly
after winning the Primary elections and being named the Democratic Party's
de facto nominee for the White House, Kerry flew to Idaho for a weekend of
snow skiing at a fancy resort. While skiing he was overheard berating a
secret service agent assigned to protect him, calling him a "son of a bitch"
simply because the agent accidentally got too close to him on the slopes.
At one of Kerry's campaign rallies, in Tampa, Florida, on March 16, 2004,
Senator Kerry confronted a polite demonstrator, a Christian woman holding up
a sign opposing abortion. The young woman, Rebecca Porter, had an abortion
before she accepted Jesus as Saviour. Her sign read, "My Abortion Hurt Me."
So angry did this statement make Kerry, that the Senator immediately went
over to several burly men, campaign aides (thugs?). They furiously went up
to Rebecca and yanked the sign out of her hands. Then, they tore it to
pieces as she and others looked on.
So much for free speech amongst the elite. Illuminati minions like Kerry do
not give a flip whether abortion hurts a young woman like Rebecca Porter.
They don't care a bit if millions of American families are hurt and must go
hungry because parents can't find a job-because good U.S. jobs are being
transferred to Red China, India, Pakistan, and Mexico.
Their God is Money
All these men care about is money and power. And, of course, serving their
master, their god. His name: Lucifer, damned prince of darkness and king of
the Illuminati elite.
(Postnote: In 2003, The Boston Globe ran a lengthy article detailing the
newspaper's "discovery" that Senator John Kerry was not of Irish heritage,
but, instead, was Jewish. In fact, insiders believe that Kerry's camp
actually "planted" the story, it having been decided by the Illuminati that
"it was time" for Kerry and a select, few other "Jews-in-hiding" to come out
of the closet-Texe Marrs)
Melbourne, Australia City Council is collapsing under pressure from Jewish
groups, promising that its arts funding policies will be "reviewed" after
Jews objected to a dramatic triptych-style display highlighting Israel's
war crimes.
http://www.theage.com.au/
''I'm an internationalist," Kerry told the Harvard Crimson during an
ill-fated campaign for U.S. Congress in 1970. "I'd like to see our troops
dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."
"In contrast to the dangerous mix of isolationism and unilateralism that
characterizes the Republicans, [I support] speaking from a position of
strength on international issues - the multilateral cooperative tradition of
democratic internationalism forged in the course of two world wars and the
cold war. It acknowledges that multilateral organizations are vehicles for
the promotion of our ideals and interests around the world.... America has
taken a rare step in human history in arguing that its interests and the
world's are one." -- Kerry's most recent book, A Call to Service (2003),
The Crime of Thinking Things Zionist Supremracists Don't Like
H. R. 4230
To authorize the establishment within the Department of State
of an Office to Monitor and Combat Anti -Semitism , to require
inclusion in annual Department of State reports of information
concerning acts of anti -Semitism around the world, and for
other purposes.
Senhor Sr.
news is over, its has fulfilled its purpose, we know all we need to know --
its time to overthrow the Oligarchy.
Rumsfeld approved. It's the Communist-Israeli-Neo-con-Zionist way -- What
Bill of Rights? In April 2003, the Zionist Jew-run Defense Department
Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, Kissinger, Myers etc., i.e., the people proven
by hard evidence to be behind the 9-11 mass-murder war-instigating
frame-up) approved interrogation techniques for use at the Guantanamo Bay
prison that permit reversing the normal sleep patterns of detainees and
exposing them to heat, cold and "sensory assault," including loud music and
bright lights, according to defense officials. -- The use of any of these
techniques requires the approval of senior Pentagon officials -- and in some
cases, of the defense secretary (just like it was from Rumsfeld alone that
the order needed to come to shoot down any aircraft on September 11, 2001).
The classified list of about 20 techniques was approved at the highest
levels of the Pentagon and the Justice Department, and represents the first
publicly known documentation of an official policy permitting interrogators
to use torture methods during questioning.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11017-2004May8
Is there a worse way to die than this? Rush Limbaugh, the neo-conservative
talk-show-airwave-monopolizing radio commentator, has likened the abusive
and humiliating treatment of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers, contractors,
and CIA personnel to "a college fraternity prank" (New York Times, 6 May
2004). Anyone with a grain of empathy who has seen images of the
degradationinflicted on hapless Iraqi men can only be appalled by the
comment. In a sense, however, Limbaugh has a point. The brutal mistreatment
at Abu Ghraib prison is small potatoes, compared to what appears to have
been a U.S.-sponsored atrocity -- the mass murder of thousands of prisoners
of war -- in Afghanistan less than three years ago.
After the surrender of the fortress of Kunduz, at the tail end of the Afghan
war in November 2001, hundreds of Taliban prisoners -- "young men who had
expected the protection of the Geneva conventions" after surrendering to
U.S. and U.S.-backed forces -- "instead died horribly" at the hands of the
U.S.'s Northern Alliance surrogates, either by suffocation in the container
trucks used to transport them towards the Shebarghan prison, or by outright
execution in killings fields around Shebarghan. -- U.S. soldiers were
present when the containers were opened, and ordered the destruction of the
ghastly evidence inside. "When the containers were finally opened, a mess of
urine, blood, faeces, vomit and rotting flesh was all that remained ... As
the containers were lined up outside the prison, a [U.S.] soldier
accompanying the convoy was present when the prison commanders received
orders to dispose of the evidence quickly." He cites witness testimony to
the effect that "In each container maybe 150-160 [prisoners] had been
killed. ... The Americans told the Shebarghan people to get them outside the
city before they were filmed by satellite."
http://www.counterpunch.org/jones05082004.html
A Raghead speaks -- and damn the "Christian" who disagrees -- "In all
honesty, I do not think the president could have said anything to mitigate
the feelings of pain and anger that we all felt as we saw the pictures of
our brothers in Iraq being humiliated. At the same time, it is obvious that
even Bush with his lack of eloquence could have done a better job. Not once
did he apologize for the acts of his soldiers. -- Moreover, even as he
promised that the perpetrators would be punished, he managed to fit in yet
another patronizing remark about how "In America a person is innocent until
proven guilty." I wonder what the prisoners in the pictures were doing
then - posing for the latest issue of Vogue? It does seem fashionable these
days to beat, shackle and murder Arabs. -- The US president had said in a
prior press conference that he was "deeply offended," and that "this is not
who we are." Who are you then, Mr. Bush? -- Starving a nation for over 15
years, is that who you are? Bombing innocent people because of one man's
actions, is that who you are? -- You, too, kill innocent people for selfish
reasons. Al-Qaeda in Arabic means, "Base". How many bases do you have around
the world? -- How many people do you train and pay to bomb and torture
innocent people? -- In Wednesday night's interview, Bush did not forget to
"reassure" the Iraqi people that America would not leave until it has
finished its job. I am sure the Iraqis were thrilled to hear that. The
president also mentions that "haters of freedom" will not scare America
away. -- Haters of freedom? -- According to my limited knowledge of
politics, what is happening in Iraq today is occupation - at its ugliest.
And hence these "haters of freedom" are simply trying to free their lands
from the clutches of a monstrous and terrorizing force. A force that has
killed their brothers, imprisoned their fathers and robbed them of every
basic human right and dignity. More: (read the rest of it you lazy
sonfobitches!)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P21226048
Civilian interrogators relaxed after grilling prisoners by perfecting their
golf swing on the roof of the notorious Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad,
according to the extraordinary diary kept by one.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=519434
You've come a long way, baby! Charged to "make it hell" by her
chain-of-command superiors, Sabrina Harman, the American soldier girl who
feature in grotesque photographs of naked Iraqi prisoners stacked in a
pyramid in the Abu Ghraib jail in Baghdad, claimed in an army report that
she had to keep detainees awake, among them a hooded prisoner seen in a
photograph, who was placed on a box with wires attached to his fingers, toes
and genitals. She is also accused of telling him that if he fell off the box
he would be electrocuted. -- Harman said prisoners were stripped, searched
and then "made to stand or kneel for hours". -- "Sometimes they were
forced to stand on boxes or hold boxes ... Female dominance being the most
popular form of internet pornography (Jewish dominated industry, just like
Hollywood, btw), our daughters really are learning marketable skills with
their military experience.
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=530112004
The Bush administration ready for damage control in release of new pictures
and video footage from Abu Ghraib which show US soldiers having sex with an
Iraqi woman prisoner, troops almost beating a prisoner to death, and the
rape of young boys by collaborator guards at the jail.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=519448
Troops shot Iraqi civilians dead in cold blood, new dossier claims -- Eight
new instances today and an impending Amnesty report throw doubt on the
conduct of UK soldiers in Basra
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=519432
Funny, isn't it, that no one, absolutly no one talks of impeachment or
resignation under pressure for George W. Bush -- criticism stops only at
Rumsfeld, but that man and Wolfowitz are Bush's foreign policies and his
war policies -- they are his Presidency, his world view, the architects of
his administration -- and more than this torture issue -- the perpetrators
of the 9-11 false-flag inside-job war-instigating mass-murderings in New
York and Arlington on 9-11-01. -- DE
The US and British governments have received Red Cross reports "month after
month" since the declared end of the Iraq war a year ago, detailing the
abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners. Yet, with report after report piling
up on their desks, President George W Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair
chose to say nothing in public to condemn what they knew in private.
http://www.sundayherald.com/41906
The British government was told in February of allegations coalition troops
had abused Iraqi prisoners, Prime Minister Tony Blair's office said
Saturday.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?S13154048
Tories demand Hoon explains when he was told about prisoner abuse. --
Whitehall alarmed over report that detainees were hidden from Red Cross --
British military intelligence officers were interrogating prisoners in the
notorious Abu Ghraib jail in Iraq even as the first reports of abuses at the
prison came to light ...
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1212769,00.html
==========
9-11 Frame-up: The Pentagon Evidence Proves It
Here is the critical information needed to derive an informed opinion of
what really happened on September 11, 2001:
Consider what citizen investigators have uncovered regarding the alleged
"attack" on the Pentagon:
1. Pentagon security camera shows
a. Too short a plane
b. Smoke trail of a missile being fired
c. White-hot flash explosion consistent with a missile warhead
2. Photos show wrong crash imprint in the wall
3. Photos show and wrong flash-powder burn darkening the wall
4. Downed lampposts and witness consensus each identify
a different approach path to the Pentagon, the Boeing's
and the killer jet's and they are mutually incompatible --
(path of sighted Boeing also inconsistent with civil
engineers reported "angle of entry")
5. Wrong kind of debris
6. Single piece of right kind of debris shown to have been
found on the opposite side of the approach path from
the side of the plane where that particular piece had
to have come from.
7. Witnesses also
a. heard a missile
b. heard a sonic boom prior to blast
c. smelled burning chordite after the blast
d. saw a radar blip behaving like a jet-fighter blip
8. No photos of wreckage from inside consistent with the crash
9. Evidence of only one engine and one seat , a pilots seat.
10. A distraction plane, a four- engine plane making dives
over D.C. both photographed, videotaped and shown
on BBC, and reported (erroneously) by many wintesses
as the actual plane "diving at an irrecoverable angle)
11. The attack was made almost horizontally into the first-floor
level -- consistent with a countour-hugging jet-fighter attack
12. Normal rescuers were prevented from entering the building
while only certain people, including Rumsfeld himself, conducted
(screened) victims from the building
13. Rumsfeld had recently been given exclusive power to
OK air interceptions -- and yet he was in his office the whole
time the twin towers were hit, and when the Pentagon was
hit he went to oversee "rescue" instead of going to the situation
room where his interception authority could be given -- he
arrived at the situation room at about the time the Pennsylvania
plane (backup for the Pentagon) was finally shot down.
14. The various drills and practices for an air attack on the Pentagon
including some kind of simulation on 9-11-01 itself, coupled with
denials that such an attack had been considered possible.
15. Impossible stories by, for example, John Judge (regarding
his amazing stewardess friend who claims to have seen the
Boeing inside the hole, recognized the plane as the one she
always flew, recongized her stewardess friend as a victim by
a photo of her severed arm with the matching "friendship bracelett"
they both wore; that she was passing out
doughnuts and coffee to the rescue workers with the salvation
army when the salvation army was nowhere in evidence at the
scene -- John Judge who is a professional JFK conspiracy
theory debunker and discloses that this same stewardess
friend is also a JFK theory investigator, the same
John Judge who launched the phony "People's Investigation
of 9-11 with a press conference by stating that the Pentagon
attack is not something responsible investigators should bother
investigating etc. since we "know" the Boeing hit the Pentagon
and don't want to be a laughing stock etc. -- the People's
investigation that never once reviewed any of the evidence
packages I posted to them -- the same John Judge who to this
day refuses to debate Dick Eastman on any internet forum and
whom all -- dare I use the term -- "responsible" 9-11 investigators
think is a John Judge who is working for the coverup, for
obstruction of justice, and because he does it so badly is himself
become one of the proofs of the frameup along with the known-
only-to himself flight attendant who works one of the flights that
most definitely had to have been regularly monitored by
US intelligence operatives, probably flight attendents, and
this one just happened not to take Flight 77 that day by
happenstance etc. -- so how about it, Mr. Judge?
16. The deaths of only the CIA's indepdendent intelligence
revivals , the Offices of Naval Intelligence personel, and
auditors of defense spending contracts etc. alone moved
into the "newly renovated" section that was hit -- on the side
where most of the witnesses would be the Arlington Cemetery
dead or people involved with driving their cars. Naval Intelligence
would have independently investigated 9-11 had they lived --
the investigator that no official has yet conducted -- Wolfowitz
sure bin Laden had done it and ready with the solution of invading
Afganistan on the very first day -- even as they were allegedly
taken by complete suprise only a few hours before that
determination.
See the evidence photos and witness testimony confirming all of the above
and further analysis in support of these conclusions by internationally
respected American men of science here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/5
and here
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/Eastman/m18h05.html
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
Every man is responsible to every other man.
Senhor Sr.
From: jon utley <jbu...@earthlink.net>
Subject: America above the Law? Neocons, of course, that's their
worldview + CACI (the "contract torturer) ties to Israel--CEO got award
Again it's neocons wrecking good will for America in the
world, the lawlessness comes from the Pentacons (Pentagon Neocons),
remember when they told us that "It is a big mistake for us to grant
any validity to international law even when it may seem in our
short-term interest to do so -- because, over the long term, the goal of
those who think that international law really means anything are those
who want to constrict the United States." John Bolton (Asst. Secretary
of State for International Organizations)
<http://www.againstbombing.org/lucier.htm> He's inflicted upon Powell to
keep control of the State Dept, but all the top civilians in the
Rumsfeld -- Cheney team are neocons,
But a free press and American basic decency does expose our
dirty linen, and makes us stronger and more honorable, to recover,
eventually, our greatness and I don't mean the Neocons' concept of
militarily ruling the world. The system does work. The humiliation of
the Arabs comes from neocon thinking, just like that of Sharon, that if
Arabs are just beat up enough, the will behave as proper servants in the
occupied territories.
It's a sort of Germanic-Russian thinking, very contrary to
Arab (and Latin) psychology where a man's dignity is paramount, not
matter how poor and miserable he may be. Justin Raimondo notes detailed
ties between the company, CACI,
<http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2477> which hired the civilian
"contract" torturers and Isreal's Likud. Indeed, he writes, hiring
private contractors was a good way to "hide" Israelis advisors. Also
the London Guardian
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1102940,00.html> has
published about the Army taking on Israeli "advisors." Only such a
stupidity could come from the Neocons. But again it's their thinking,
that humiliation and showing Iraqis that Israels are "helping" the U.S.
is the way to show them that resistance is futile.
Neo-Conservatives Welcomed 9-11
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58484-2004May1.html> as
giving "purpose" for an "imperial America" to "inspire Americans for
empire" (Wash Post)
Abuse of Prisoners Began with Rumsfeld-Cheney Policies
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64322-2004May3.html>
that U.S. not subject Geneva Convention or international law
As Seymour Hersh has pointed out
<http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031215fa_fact>, the U.S.-Israeli
alliance has been taking covert shape in the course of this war:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031215fa_fact
"Israeli commandos and intelligence units have been working closely with
their American counterparts at the Special Forces training base at Fort
Bragg, North Carolina, and in Israel to help them prepare for operations
in Iraq. Israeli commandos are expected to serve as ad-hoc advisers -
again, in secret - when full-field operations begin."
Evolving Disaster
<http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040429-113745-2828r> by Arnaud
de Borchgrave http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040429-113745-2828r
60 Top U.S. ex-Diplomats Say Bush-Sharon Deal a Disaster for America
<http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=2476>
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=2476
Links above
http://www.againstbombing.org/lucier.htm
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2477
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1102940,00.html
=================
Item #2:
The Abu Ghraib-Titan- 9/11 Connection (TortureGate vs. 9/11)
By Sam Ewing (*continuing updates in Addendum)
May 8
(See also TortureGate -suspects still at work)
The scandal of Abu Ghraib is currently only connected with 4 main suspects,
but how far do the tracks really go?:
2 members of the South Bend's 428th Military Police Company; and 2 employees
of two private intelligence contractors:
Titan Corporation and CACI.
South Bend is a regular partner of the Intelligence Department of the
Government.
In October 2001, the unit was already mobilized for a Homeland Security
mission at Fort Hood, Texas.
Furthermore, Titan's connection with the "Torture-scandal" in Iraq shows
another deeper connection with the Pentagon, than most people expect, but
also with the Intelligence and the "9/11 attacks"...
full story...
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=165
http://911skeptics.blogspot.com
TortureGate- WW-Trigger or Counter Coup d'etat?
http://physics911.org/net/modules/weblog/
==============
Hate-driven and anti-Semitic? Or is the "small-plane" finding actually
evidence-driven and dead-on accurate?
Decide for yourself. Here are the accusations and the facts.
------------
With regard to Dick Eastman's shrill commentary over the last few days I
wish to publicly thank Mark Robinowitz for his taking the time and doing a
good job of countering Eastman's assertions.
Vince Suave
================================
Mark Robinowitz wrote this in response to my "Best Proof" post.
So far it is the only response I have received. Ruppert, Jared Israel,
Rivero, Judge, Harvey, and Sarah Roberts so far have not chosen to reply.
Mark is not an investigator known to me, but I am grateful for the chance to
engage with someone in a discussion of the small-plane evidence and the
frame-up it exposes.
> Mark Robinowitz (MR) posts:
>
> At 9:48 PM -0700 2004-05-10, sf911trut...@riseup.net wrote:
>>Dick Eastman [DE] posts:
>>
>>Subject: INDEX OF BEST EVIDENCE 9-11 Pentagon
>
>
>
DE:
>> Please note that this is not a formal write-up, but merely
> a memorandum to alert you to the existence of this body
> of "best-evidence" information. Include several links to
>> many formal write ups, such as those at Physics911.
>
>
MR:
>Physics 9/11 is a website that asserts that a missile caused
> a plane like imprint on the WTC north tower. There are
> numerous photos of the north tower that clearly show the
> impact caused by large wings. This is so easy to debunk
> that it raises serious questions about the intent (or
> sanity) of the "missile attacked the WTC" advocates.
DE:
Well, Mark, then we agree that the WTC towers where hit
by airliners. This to me is obvious. I am glad it is to you too.
I speak of Physics911 merely as the place where Jim Hoffman
and A.K.Dewdney have posted on the Pentagon, two
"small-plane" theorists. I am not even familiar with the
arguments that are made at that site about the WTC.
MR:
> Muddying the waters is an old tactic to confuse people
> from looking at the most credible material.
DE:
Another point on which we are in strong agreement.
DE:
>>You have each denigrated the finding that the Boeing 757
> overflew the Pentagon as a smaller aircraft, armed with
> missiles, was crashing directly below. I am convinced
> that in light of the following compilation of independent lines
> of proof from a variety of evidence and testimony, that
> your possition is not longer tenable.
>
MR:
> I seriously doubt that Mr. Eastman has ever been to this area.
DE:
Now you can be certain. I never have had the honor of visiting
our nation's capitol.
MR:
> If he had, he might realize that thousands of people would
> have seen the overflight of this plane, since there are large
> highways full of commuters, rapid rail line, and numerous
> large office buildings full of military officials and contractors --
DE:
Thousands did not see the crash, so why should that number
have seen the flyover? Many photos from different angles
-- all of which I supply readers -- show the topography of
the crime scene. And I have the account of three witnesses,
each of whose observations figure in my conclusions (Lagasse,
Faram, Riskus)
MR:
> many of them would have noticed the hitherto unprecedented
> flight of a jet coming from the direction of the Pentagon in a
> place that planes do not normally fly.
DE:
I have given the witnesses statements of those who noticed the
plane coming in outside of the normal path of incoming airliners
at Reagan National. You are right. Several did notice.
And many saw the Boeing come in over the Sheraton Hotel, over
the Naval Annex, over the Citgo gas station, over the head of
the gardener cutting the grass along the southmost piece of
Alrington Cemetery between the Annex and the gas station,
There reported observation of the path of the Boeing as it
approached the Pentagon rendevous is just one line of proof
that the Boeing was not the killer jet. You see, if the plane
came in over those locations then a) it could not have hit the
first lamppost that was knocked down (which had been standing
at the southest corner of the bridge in the center of the Pentagon
parking access cloverleaf; and 2) it could not have come in at
the 55-degree angle that civil engineers have identified as the
angle at which the true killer jet made its first-floor entry.
So these many witnesses where there, and their testimony
supports the "small-plane" finding.
There is one point where I beg to differ. Very few saw the
actual crash because
1) Washington Blvd. rises to allow the underpass to the
parking area -- so that those who noticed the Boeing from
the Columbia Pike and highway 395 could not see the
first-floor level where the killer jet hit;
2) Most of the area west of the west wall is Arlington Cemetery,
i.e., dead people;
3) Many were distracted by the act of driving -- and minds not
expecting things often miss them, especially in a frame of
just a few seconds.
MR:
> It is near National Airport, but planes landing there don't pass that
> direction. Also, they need more time to lower their landing gear -
> planes need more than a mile to accomplish this.
DE: This is true and it would be noticed by those who think about
those things -- the cars headed East towards the 14th-street bridge
would be used to landing jetliners at the bridge -- not everyone would
have the presence of mind to think about a plane out of place in
so short a time span, although some did. You are not saying anything
that has not been taken into account and that has not been discussed
hundreds of times.
>
DE:
>>It would be most helpful to the world situation if you each would make
> public retractions of your former misguided criticisms of these
>>now-established findings.
DE:
Yes, they really should. I hope they do.
DE:
>>I am sure you realize how much misery in the world is
> being prolonged because of resistance to these facts,
>> owing to your earlier resistance.
DE:
Also true. Why do they hold back?
MR:
> No doubt it is all the fault of 9/11 skeptics who don't accept Mr.
> Eastman's assertions based on questionable inference and in some
> cases easily disproven material as gospel truth.
DE:
Actually, Mark, I was the sceptic -- the man sceptical about the
official 9-11 story, and I then examined the evidence and confirmed
by scepiticism and made my findings available to everyone. I
debunked the fiction of the crashing Boeing -- but even more,
the evidence itself does the debunking of the official version.
I merely point to the pictures. The "small-plane" finding is entirely
"data driven."
You characterize my data-derived conclusions as "assertions." An
assertion is a statement one makes about something that is
in question. Far from "asserting," I am demonstrating something
merely by pointing to the photographic evidence which tells
exactly what happened simply by direct inspection. You know the
drill: "Too-short a plane, visible missile smoke trail, inappropriate
white flash and all the other impossible inconsistencies that
disprove the official story.
Also, when one "asserts" something to be true -- it means they
state it to be true emphatically but without evidence. That most
certainly is not the case here.
MR:
> Self-righteousness directed at one's ostensible allies is a poor
> strategy for building alliances.
Are you familiar with the history of the exchanges between Ron Harvey,
Sarah Roberts, Mike Rivero, Jared Israel, Joe Vialls and myself?
Harvey was calling me a whacko long before I even heard of him.
Sarah Roberts likewise put up her site, not totally discredited,
characteristically withdrawing for a period every time I pointed out
an error -- such as having the Boeing make ten degrees of
turn all while over the highway cloverleaf.
Mike Rivero and I were cooperating together, exchanging views,
when suddenly he accussed me of being an agent working
against him, and cut off all communication -- refusing to look
at the information I showed him -- and posting totally bogus
and easily refutable brush-off arguements, which when I
did expose them he would not own up to.
And none of them ever engaged the key arguments presented
point by point.
DE:
>>1. Pentagon security camera shows
>> a. Too short a plane
>> b. Smoke trail of a missile being fired
>> c. White-hot flash explosion consistent with a missile warhead
>
MR:
> This is from one of the participants in the 9/11 inquiry in SF ...
>
DE:
And E=MC2 is from the writer of you high-school science book, right?
The fact is that I am the first to have noted the missile trail on the
internet.
I am one of the first to remark on the white-hot initial explosion being
inappropriate for an aluminum plane with kerosene hitting a brick, concrete,
limestone office building.
I was the first with both arguments for the too-short plane:
1) The "Stegosaurus proof" of the parking pass machine in the forground
only covering a length of not quite five tail fins in a row, when a Boeing
757
is longer than six tail fins would be aligned along its back; and
2) the fact that the plane in the security cam picture #1 is obviously
shorter
than the height of the Pentagon (71'ft.) like the F-16, whereas the Boeing
757 is a tad over twice as long as the building is high (155 ft.)
That should settle everying, right there. But people pretended not
to get it, and so I looked for and found more than a half dozen other
proofs that the Boeing did not crash.
> I am aware that the five photos from the Pentagon
> security camera are faked, but there are way more than
> five photos. The earlier photos (and videos) that
> appeared on television right after the hit are the ones
> that clearly prove (to me) that no 757 hit the Pentagon.
Your "awareness" is not good enough for me. I believe the Pentagon
spokesman was not lying when he said that the pictures show substantially
what was in the originals. I believe that what they did was to select only
sequence shots that do not show the killer jet, being careful to pick
exactly a shot where the plane is concealed behind the parking-pass machine
(except for the tail fin). The dates and times were modified to conceal the
fact that the selection of shots are not the complete sequence.
People have made a lot of "discoloration" in the second shot -- but this
is the result of the bright "flash powder" effect of the white hot
explosion -- it brightens the entire landscape, which reflects it in all
directions -- doubtless to blind the observers for the two seconds
necessary for the Boeing to "dissappear" behind the subsequent red and
orange flames and the black smoke from the crash and jet fuel.
All of this has been gone over again and again for the last since March of
2002, when the video shots were released.
MR:
> My feeling has been all along that the faked photos were
> released purposely to muddy the waters.
DE:
That's your feeling? Well, there is one thing, Dick Eastman cannot disprove
and which forces me to admit defeat : Disproving Mark Robinowitz's feeling.
What can I say? "All along," eh? And with that feeling did you ever
experience curiosity about why Mssrs. Rumsfeld, Wolfowtiz, and Myers might
wish to "muddy the waters?" Or don't feelings ever yield analytical next
steps?
MR:
> The Pentagon
> knew these photos would be picked up by skeptics as
> "proof" and that they would also be easily dismissed by
> others as fake (they even changed the date to September
> 12th).
DE:
Gee. You seem to get right into their minds. But again, why would they
take these evasive "muddying" measures? And why would they risk detection
in changing something critical -- where they would be liable. Don't you
think they have lawyers (like Ted Olsen) advising them on how to proceed?
The released the true frame that happened not to show the small plane that
they did not want people seeing. REMEMBER -- THEY DID NOT RELEASE THESE
PICTURES AT ALL, UNTIL THE FRENCH APPEARED TALKING ABOUT THE SMALL HOLE AND
STATING THAT THERE WAS "NO PLANE" -- they released these pictures under
pressure -- showing us the only shot they could provide that showed that
there was a plane, but that did not show enough to determine what kind of
plane (or so they thought).
MR:
> But again, I am not basing my belief on these faked
> photos, but rather on the earlier photos.
DE:
So Mark is a man with a belief!
Are "beliefs" better than "assertions," Mark?
At any rate, there are no earlier photos. Unless you mean,
the photos that were made available to the public earlier,
i.e., the photos taken by witnesses who had cameras in
their cars or , like Faram, brought them down before the
wall collapsed.
MR:
> Either way, though, they have certainly succeeded in
> muddying the waters so much that you are probably right
> it is better to focus on WHERE the Pentagon was hit.
DE:
I have seen and provided you all with all of the best photos,
and from that evidence, arranged for the most informing juxtapositions,
THE FACT IS THAT ALL OF THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY
TELLS A CONSISTENT STORY -- EACH PIECE OF EVIDENCE,
EACH PROOF DERIVED FROM THAT EVIDENCE SUPPORTS,
CORROBORATES, IS CONSISTENT WITH, CONFIRMS ALL
THE OTHER PARTS.
DE:
Look at each of the numbered items 1 through 16 and you
will see what I mean -- that is unless you let your "feelings"
get in the way.
>
DE:
>> witnesses reporting the Boeing
>> coming over the Sheraton Hotel, the
>> Naval Annex, the Citgo gas station, and the southernmost
>> extremity of Arlington National Cemetery -- an angle much
>> closer to perpendicular to the wall)
>
DE:
Damn! Am I good or what?
MR:
> I haven't heard of any witnesses who report a plane LEAVING from the
> direction of the Pentagon, which is what the "two plane" theory
> requires for it to be true.
DE:
Then you must be of the philosophic school which "asserts" that
the tree does not make sound if it falls in a forest where no ears
are there to hear it.
Not me.
If the audience of hundreds, does not see the flowers disappear into
the hidden pocket sewn into the cape, that is not proof that the hidden
pocket does not exist.
And how much better the magicians of the CIA/MI6/Mossad when
planning a black op as important as this one?
However, you are wrong. It so happens that one witness did say that
he thought the plane went over the building.
And the very first report on Washington D.C. radio stations was that
a jetliner had crashed on the 14th street bridge.
And the very first call to the airport firemen was that a jetliner
had crashed on a runway at the north end airport.
^
S
< E + W >
N
v
AIRPORT
============ * lamppost #1
BRIDGE PENTAGON [] Citgo N. Annex
Sheraton
ARLINGTON CEMETERY
DE:
>>7. Witnesses also
>>
>> a. heard a missile
>>
>> b. heard a sonic boom prior to blast
>>
>> c. smelled burning chordite after the blast
>
MR:
> Some also smelled jet fuel, for what that is worth. Perhaps the
> zionists ran around and poured jet fuel to confuse people.
>
DE: Ah! I see the game. No point in discussing further is there.
Got some Zionists in the family, do you, Mark? Thinking that
it might be uncomfortable for them if the link to Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz
were made too clear? Don't you trust the truth as the
best anti-sceptic for human problems?
Tell me true, Mark -- do you think it would be bad for
Jewish people if it was proved that Rumsfled-Wolfowitz-Perle-Sharon
were proven to be the perpetrators of 9-11?
Would you even allow yourself to entertain that possibility?
Jared Israel has made his choice? He will not engage the
evidence honestly. Now what about you?
MR:
> A much more sensible and accurate commenator, Fletcher Prouty, wrote in
DE:
I thought Prouty died before 9-11 happened?
You are accusing me of being "less accurate" than someone here, Mark.
Name my inaccuracy. Name one case where I have not corrected position
the second new data has come to hand (like about the existence of downed
lampposts or the angle of the hole in "c"-ring what that first became
known on the internet?
You need to state an innacuracy in any of my Pentagon presentation -
or I will have to consider this a deliberate misrepresentation.
MR:
> [Fletcher Prouty, wrote in]
> "the Secret Team" that covert operations that are successful are kept
> small and relatively simple.
DE:
He was right. The 9-11 frame-up caper was a fiasco all the way.
Only you and Jared Israel disagree. They got too cock-sure of
their technology. Same mistake they made in Iraq. Not too swift.
Buy the way, why did you start this group if you won't accpt the
best evidence of a frame-op?
> The more elaborate theories of 9/11 tend
> to be those with less evidence and are more difficult to show how they
> could have been what happened.
You mean Webfairy's Holograms at the WTC , based on the blurry fireman
video.
Are you really trying to say that detectives concluding the "small-plane"
attack
use less evidence than other people? Are your serious -- or are you hoping
that just saying it will make people believe it, regardless of the fact that
it is
very well known to be the exact opposite of the fact.
DE:
Would you consider yourself a Zionist, Mark?
Would a Zionist, allow himself agree with the small-pane thesis, even
if he suspect that it was probably true? even if he were convinced
rationally based on conclusive evidence that it was true?
MR:
> Mr. Eastman does not seem interested in mentioning what is 100%
> provable and undisputed -- the fact the Pentagon was hit in the
> nearly empty part, preferring to focus on the unprovable and disputed
> claims of what did or did not hit the Pentagon (but without any
> primary evidence to back up his theories).
DE:
Aren't my posts long enough without mentioning what is undisputed?
And have your really read my 300,000 posts on the newsgroups and
e-lists to say that I don't mention that the "wedge" that was hit was
rennovated???
And of course what you say is not true. I have often written about
the renovation. I have suggested that the rennovation made it
easier for Mr. Rumsfeld , Mr. Wolfowitz, Gen Myers, Mr. Perle,
Mr. Kissinger, Mr. Gingrich and other masterminds at the Pentagon
just prior to 9-11, to plan exactly who they wanted in the new
section and who they did not. They just gave orders for the
people they wanted dead to be moved to the targeted area.
NOW IF YOU REPLY TO THIS LETTER AT ALL I INSIST THAT
YOU EXPLAIN TO EVERYONE HOW YOU CAME BY YOUR
CONCLUSION THAT I DON'T MENTION THE FACT OF THE
RENOVATION -- WHEN I DID SO ONLY A FEW DAYS AGO,
AND WHEN I HAVE REPORTED IT AND DISCUSSED IT
WITH OTHER INVESTIGATORS AGAIN AND AGAIN
SINCE EVEN BEFORE THE SECURITY VIDEO PICS
WERE RELEASED (I.E. BEFORE MARCH 2002)
SO HOW DID YOU SAMPLE MY WRITINGS TO JUSTIFY
THIS ACCUSATION THAT I DON'T MENTION THIS ITEM?
The fact that the wedge was under rennovation suggests many
possibilities and is suspicious circumstantial evidence --
but it is not the conclusive evidence that a grand jury
would be impressed with. It doesn't directly point to anyone
and it doesn't establish method or motive -- except insofar
as IF THEY WERE TARGETING ONLY ONE PART OF
THE BUILDING -- A BUILDING IN WHICH RUMSFELD
WAS GOING TO BE WHEN THE ATTACK OCCURED,
THEN THEY WOULD WANT A MORE PRECISION MEANS
OF ATTACK -- THE F-16 AND THE MISSILES IT FIRED --
RATHER THAN CRASHING A CLUMSY BOEING 757
WHICH MIGHT SEND AN ENGINE FLYING OVER UNTO
RUMSFELD'S LAP.
But that is just speculation. I like to stick with the incontestable
hard evidence that does not require much deduduction, just
simple inspection of the data to reach the obvious conclusion.
MR:
> I wouldn't hire him to be a professional investigator for a lawsuit.
DE:
I agree. You wouldn't.
I'll have to remember that argument. When someone is arguing
something, make it known that people like him are not going to
be hired because of what they argue. I admit this intimidation
can be very effective with certain types of people.
Where did you learn that trick?
DE:
>>11. The attack was made almost horizontally into the first-floor
>> level -- consistent with a countour-hugging jet-fighter attack
>
RM:
> or a 757 being operated by remote control flight systems
DE:
No. The Boeing is just not responsive enough. The Boeing could
get down to flying level at two or three feet above the ground
after coming down from the seventeen-floorhotel, the five-floor
Annex, and the rise in Washington Blvd. It would be impossible
for that plane to skim that close -- in perfect horizontal flight
across the lawn -- -- no one would risk hitting the lawn
and skidding in -- the remote control could not add to the
existing performance capabilites of the aircraft .
SO HERE IS A SECOND POINT ON WHICH I WANT A CLEAR
ACCOUNTING FROM YOU -- WHAT WAS IN YOUR HEAD,
WHAT INFORMATION WHERE YOU APPEALING TO, WHEN
YOU "ASSERTED" THAT THE 757 COULD PERFORM THIS
AMAZING FEAT OF COMING DOWN OFF THOSE BUILDINGS
ON THE HILL AND OVER THAT RISE IN THE HIGHWAY
AND THEN DIP DOWN SO THAT THE ENGINES ARE
THE HEIGHT OF A DOG'S BACK IN PERFECT HORIZONTAL
FLIGHT BEFORE THE PLANE HAS TRAVERSED HALF
WAY ACROSS THE LAWN (AS SHOWN BY THE VIDEO
CAMERA).
IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT WAS THE BASIS OF YOUR LAST
STATEMENT? WHAT INFORMATION DID YOU HAVE TO
JUSTIFY THAT STATEMENT -- WHICH I SAY IS FALSE
AND WHICH RALPH OMHOLT WHO FLEW THE 757
SAYS IS FALSE.
By the way, where are your responses to my points, 2, 3, 5, 6,
8, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15???? Am I to assume that you agree
with those proofs?
DE:
>>14. The various drills and practices for an air attack on the Pentagon
>> including some kind of simulation on 9-11-01 itself, coupled with
>> denials that such an attack had been considered possible.
MR:
> That doesn't prove Eastman's theories on the "two planes" theory.
DE: You misunderstand the purpose of the 16 proofs. They prove that
the Pentagon top leadership had to have been complicit in 9-11. The
lies about not having considered such an attack as possible and
the scenario practices that took place proving otherwise, demonstrate
top leadership complicity. The "small-plane" finding (killer jet, plus
Boeing overfly), established in the first three points (actually there
are four proofs of the small plane thesis in the very first point,
above, which is then used to prove Rumsfeld complicity.
I should have made that clearer.
DE:
>>"responsible" 9-11 investigators
>>think is a John Judge who is working for the coverup, for
MR:
> This is reminiscent of cointelpro type tactics, and it either a sign of
> extreme obnoxiousness (mere disagreement on a detail does not
> constitute corruption) or deliberate effort to sow dissension.
DE:
This is reminiscent of cointelpro type tactics, a deliberate effort to
sow dissension.
I know you are aware that John Judge kicked off the "People's Investigation
of 9-11" with the declaration that the P.I.of911 would not waste time
with obvious wastes of time, like the thesis that the Boeign did not crash,
wherein he wrote me and Bosankoe and Fescado and all the rest of us
out of the investigaton and refused to allow the subject to be opened.
When I called them on it, Carol Brouillet assured me that she would
see to it personally that the Pentagon attack would be brought up --
I sent two packets of evidence (most of what you have before you
in my latest package to this forum) -- and sure enough Brouillet
and Judge never did open the discussion of the Pentagon evidence,
of the Bosankoe evidence, as I was calling it calling it at the time.
Judge was calling me irresponsible and putting pressure on
other investigators to dissaccociate themselves from me -- and
that before I even had any contact with him or knew who he was.
And when I answered a statement of his in every particular,
exposing the utter impossibility and ludicrousness of his story
about his flight attendant friend and challenged him to respond --
here merely withdrew from the field -- writing only in forums that
I do not post in, that are denied to me. etc.
Even now, you will notice that Judge has not answered my call
to repudiate his position or defend it.
The only one to come out and engage any of my points, man to man,
has been you, Mark, for which I thank you.
OK, what happens next?
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
===========================
> Vince Sauve posts:
>
> With regard to Dick Eastman's shrill commentary over the last few days I
> wish to publicly thank Mark Robinowitz for his taking the time and doing a
> good job of countering Eastman's assertions.
>
DE reponse:
Readers will note that Mr. Sauve is referring to Mr. Robinowitz's first
response to my evidence index.
Mr. Robinowitz failed to oppose any evidence or to point out any deductive
error.
Readers can verify that far from an "anti-Semitic diatribe," the
"small-plane" finding is entirely data driven -- as if it was me and not
the Zionists who are killing all the Semites (Arabs) lately.
Note that it is I who present evidence to this list for peer review -- and
it is Mark who has made my style, my politics an issue -- as if being
anti-Zionist nullifies any empirical fact I may point out.
Mark, failed to scratch the four of my sixteen that he addressed -- perhaps
he would like to try his luck on the other proofs.
Here are my 16 points, lest anyone forget them:
Dear Citizen,
Here is the multiple lines of "best-evidence" implicating the United States
Pentagon leadership in the "9-11" attack on the Pentagon itself.
I believe that there is no more effective way to end the violent and
criminal Anglo-American foreign policies than by exposing with multiple
lines of photographic and other hard evidence establishing the complicity,
the active involvement, of top civilian leadership of the US military in
the deadly attack on the Pentagon of 11 September, 2001.
I give you the following evidence links and an index of the proofs found
therein.
I will not be writing to you again, although I am at your service
individually, should you have questions about any of the following.
Please note that this is not a formal write-up, but a memorandum to alert
you to the existence of this body of "best-evidence" information. The
pages include links to many authoritative formal write ups, such as those
at Physics911.com.
Yours sincerely,
Richard P. Eastman M.S., M.A.
de1...@nwinfo.net
===================================
Here is the critical information needed to derive an informed
opinion of what really happened on at the Pentag on
September 11, 2001:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TRUTHBAZOOKA/message/5
http://www.cosmicpenguin.com/911/Eastman/m18h05.html
INDEX OF PROOF
1. Pentagon security camera shows
a. Too short a plane
b. Smoke trail of a missile being fired
c. White-hot flash explosion consistent with a missile warhead
2. Photos show wrong crash imprint in the wall
3. Photos show and wrong flash-powder burn darkening the wall
4. Downed lampposts and witness consensus each identify
a different approach path to the Pentagon, the Boeing's
and the killer jet's and they are mutually incompatible --
(path of sighted Boeing also inconsistent with civil
engineers reported "50 degree- angle of entry" -- witnesses
reporting the Boeing coming over the Sheraton Hotel, the
Naval Annex, the Citgo gas station, and the southernmost
extremity of Arlington National Cemetery -- an angle much
closer to perpendicular to the wall)